[Communist Ad] Rentier Money Making scheme

Via Paul Joseph Watson

Elvina Black, the CEO of PodShare, says she was born in the Soviet Union and “liked the idea of the government giving you everything in a Communist state.”

PodShare promo vid here.

“What if you subscribed to a housing membership and could have all your needs met…these basic things that you just need to live they should be handled for you,” she added.

The accommodation is described as “affordable shared housing” despite the fact that each tenant pays $1200 dollars a month for their micro-pod.

This is the future urban millennials have to look forward to. Living in atomized dystopian mega cities in ‘pods’ because everything else is totally unaffordable. No pets, no family. No ownership. Live in a pod, work in a pod.

My comment: This chick was born in the Soviet Union in ’85 and she hasn’t got a clue. Pod-dwellings were never an ideal for the Commies back then. In fact, quite the opposite. One idea was to dismantle personal kitchens [in buildings] and have common kitchens. An idea that I don’t support by the way. It seems that in the West, it’s so easy to entice newer gens if an oligarch sells a rentier money making scheme under the label of Marxism/Communism/Socialism. Even with Yang’s basic income, one who’s out of a job can’t “enjoy” pod life…

Hong Kong legit concerns vs CIA concerns

It’s one thing to protest, to strike, based on legitimate concerns like: rising inequality, unaffordable housing, human rights issues in mainland prisons, overcrowding, China’s social credit score system, and the like – with the aim of squeezing concessions from Beijing. It’s another to take down the national flag and replace it with a foreign one, inviting foreign powers to effectively lay claim to the island. It’s an affront to HK’s history and statehood to glorify its [British] colonial past, colonial past which had nothing to do with democracy or self-rule. Separatist leaders [backed by the CIA] should be put on trial as foreign agents, working to subvert the rule of law and national security.

StemExpress CEO admits selling beating baby hearts…

The CEO of StemExpress admitted in court Thursday that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.

She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be torn away.”

“That is an especially gruesome admission, but it begs the question: how did they get these fully intact human children?” says Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden at the hearing.

“If you have a fetus with an intact head and an intact body, and intact extremities, that is something that would indicate that child was born alive, and then had their organs cut out of them, or that that child was the victim of an illegal partial-birth abortion,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Both of these are gruesome and violent acts.”

CMP’s Daleiden and Merritt are charged with 15 felony counts of illegal taping of confidential information in connection with undercover videos they released in 2015 after a three-year covert investigation into the buying and selling of baby body parts, which is a felony.

The covertly recorded videos exposed StemExpress as the go-to in California for Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in baby body parts, and the biotech company cut its ties with Planned Parenthood shortly after these were released.

CMP’s legal team is arguing in the preliminary hearing that the law does not consider conversations that can be overheard confidential and that covert recording is allowed when done to investigate violent crimes.

Read the whole article by Lianne Laurence here.

The Duran: Five Years of Sanctions, and Russia is still growing

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the state of the Russian economy under Vladimir Putin, five years after the first sanctions were imposed on Russia for the accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Its monetary policy is discussed and contrasted with the negative rates in Western countries.

My comment: The Russian Central Bank is not immune from the same fallacious economic thinking we see in the West. Conventional wisdom says that high interest rates combat inflation, while low interest rates fuel it. Obviously, this mantra falls short when you apply it to our current reality. One country leader who gets it is Turkey’s president, who, like Trump, is pressing his own Central Bank head to relax borrowing costs. Higher interest rates are good for people who save in Treasury bonds, but what percentage of the population holds assets in the form of Russian Treasuries? Pension funds do require Government debt instruments in order to protect themselves against inflation; and Government debt is far safer than [private] commercial paper. Being cut off from foreign capital markets, there’s no reason to keep interest rates high, even with a banking sector left largely unregulated on the asset side.

As for the West, the fact investors are buying bonds which have negative yields means that the outlook on inflation is dismal and they still see this Government-issued instrument of saving as worthwhile. True, negative interest rates are a tax on the reserve accounts banks hold at the central bank. It’s a tax on bank liquidity. But there is no liquidity crisis in countries like Germany, the UK, and the US, and indeed there can’t be such a crisis, as long as their banking sectors meet their capital requirements. When bank assets shrink in value relative to bank liabilities, which are stable in value, this erodes their equity and makes it harder for them to borrow and can even lead to bankruptcy – unless the institutions in question are well-connected to the ruling class, in which case, the Central Bank and Treasury intervene with all sorts of bailout schemes. One reason as to why the Fed, the BoE, and the ECB adopted QE and near zero interest rate policy was in the logic that flooding the banks with reserves will revive lending. This move only makes sense in the fantasy world of mainstream economic thought – which preaches the fiction that banks lend out reserves to customers when they make loans. In reality, however, that doesn’t happen. Loans create deposits, while reserves are shuffled back and forth [as necessary] for legal accounting and settlement purposes only.

In July I wrote a piece on Russia’s macro picture, and pointed out why its budget surplus doesn’t put drag on the domestic private sector, due to the foreign sector’s large deficit against Russia [7 percent of Russia’s GDP in 2018]. With a budget surplus of 2.7 percent of GDP last year, that left Russia’s domestic private sector in a net financial surplus of 4.3 percent of GDP. The same situation is projected for this year.

On the question of affordable Government investment in public infrastructure and public services… it’s not about accruing financial savings before the Government can invest. After all, we’re talking about balance sheet statements [the Sovereign keeping a ledger in his own unit of account], not savings in actual physical materials. Russia has the technology, the skilled labor, and necessary materials to expand public services and physical infrastructure; and it doesn’t require foreign currency for any of this. For a country like Russia, a country with monetary sovereignty, there is never a “lack of its own money.” The challenge, or art of public finance, however, is to conduct fiscal policy in such a manner to accommodate investment, job creation, and income growth while keeping prices in check. So long as wages and profits are rising faster than prices, you achieve real growth, and that’s what matters.

Follow the Duran website, their youtube channel, their iTunes Podcast, their Soundcloud, on Minds, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Shop, their Patreon page, their Paypal to show your support.

Next US Crash between 2022 & 2023

by Serban V.C. Enache

Despite the desire of some to plunge the US economy into a recession under Trump’s term – probably the ultimate humiliation for the businessman President – the bust isn’t anywhere near the horizon. To argue this point, I will use the 18 Year Real Estate Cycle approach – discovered by land economist and real estate appraiser Homer Hoyt in the 1930s – and used with great success by other Georgist authors like Fred Foldvary and Fred Harrison. Both men predicted the Great Financial Crisis, Harrison as early as 1997.


Homer Hoyt observed that the Chicago real estate market, for almost a century, followed a nearly perfect 18 year cycle. The graph below shows peaks in land values, in construction, in the business cycle, and the intervals.

The cycle’s dynamics are as follows… It begins when home prices are at a level when rents from owning property cover the mortgage to buy it. When buying is preferable to renting, this triggers an upswing. Increased home equity encourages more buying. The financial sector fuels the phenomenon aplenty [80 percent of loans in the US are mortgage loans]. Land prices grow much faster than incomes and rents. After the 14 year mark the situation becomes unsustainable. A four year downturn follows. Fear kills excessive prices faster than greed hiked them. But the 18 Year Cycle theory doesn’t hold between 1925 and 1973 [World War 2, regulated finance, full employment policy, strong unions]. There is no perfect cycle or model. To have perfection would mean to have stagnation, and the nature of capitalism, indeed the nature of humans, infringes upon this state of ‘perfection’ with change. The seminal part isn’t really the time frame, but the key indicators signaling a turn in the cycle.

It’s also very important to note that traditional financial theory doesn’t apply to much of the world today, for countries who have free floating fiat currencies as opposed to gold or foreign currency pegs. I always cringe when I hear doomsday scenarios invoked on the grounds that near zero or negative interest rates herald an imminent collapse, because central banks can only keep interest rates ‘artificially low’ for so long. The authors of these predictions clearly don’t understand fiat money, and the fact that countries which spend and tax in their own free floating fiat currency can keep rates wherever they want for how long they want. They keep the rate fixed [at their desired level] by allowing their money supply to fluctuate according to demand – something you can’t do under a fixed exchange rate system. A currency sovereign may control the price [interest] of his currency or the quantity of it, but never both at the same time. You either control the price and allow the quantity to fluctuate. Or you control the quantity and allow the price to fluctuate. Obviously, the former approach is much more conducive to stable economic activity and planning. And on the private sector side, banks don’t lend out deposits when they make loans to customers. Banks are constrained in their lending by their capital and the actual demand for loans. Loans create deposits. The vast majority of money in our economies is created endogenously.

So, moving on from 1973 up to the present, unfettered predatory/speculative finance + Animal Spirits, a term used by Keynes to describe people’s willingness or lack of it to spend and borrow [reduced or increased desire to save] + accommodating monetary policy in the form of near zero or negative interest rates + uncaptured values of location [the root cause of it all] equals the 18 Year Land Cycle or a shorter version of it. Predictions can be slightly altered as we approach the end of the boom period. Knowing all this, I put the next US crash somewhere between 2022 and 2023. If Trump opts to go fiscal instead of relying solely on monetary policy to keep the economy ‘good’, then the 2023 mark is the more likely date. Those who expect it sooner as in this year or the next, invoking the negative yield spread between short and long term Treasury bonds, will be proven wrong, for the aggregate macro-economic data is at odds with the orthodox economic narrative. The US and other countries are stuck in a low economic growth, low bond yield, low inflation atmosphere. And financial markets aren’t happy with it, despite receiving undue bailouts and windfalls under the Obama and Trump administrations. The crash may come sooner if Washington gets the brilliant idea to try and shrink the fiscal deficit in a proactive manner.