Shop Thru Us! Save Money!

Money

 

The Federal Reserve claims its monetary interventions saved America from economic ruin in 2009, and have bolstered growth ever since. Don’t hurt yourself patting your own backs, Fed governors past and present: it’s bad enough that the Fed can’t fix the economy’s real problems–its policies actively make them worse.

After seven long years of politicos and the financial media glorifying the Federal Reserve’s policies as god-like in their power and efficacy, let’s take a quick look at the results of these vaunted policies:ZIRP (zero interest rates), (QE) quantitative easing, both of which are ways of shoving nearly-free money ( a.k.a. liquidity) into the banking sector, where all this free money is supposed to filter into the global economy, working miracles of prosperity.

The stated goal of the Fed’s zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) and quantitative easing (QE) was to make borrowing easier for both corporations and consumers, the idea being that companies would borrow to invest in new productive capacity and consumers would buy the new goods and services being produced with the Fed’s cheap credit.

The secondary publicly stated goal was to spark a rally in stocks, bonds and real estate that would spark a wealth effect: as households saw their net worth rise, they would feel wealthier and thus more likely to borrow money to buy more goods and services.

Let’s start by stipulating that the Fed’s policies are unprecedented. Keeping interest rates near-zero for over seven years and pumping up its balance sheet from $800 billion to over $4 trillion are both completely off the scale of central bank policy in the U.S.

The most charitable assessment we can make of Fed policy is that the “prosperity” it created is concentrated in the most parasitic and politically powerful sector: finance. Why should we be surprised that the Fed, itself a servant of the banking sector, should devise policies that enrich financiers?

The Fed’s policies have been an unqualified success for financiers and an abject failure for everyone who has to work for a living. The Fed has not just failed to rectify the nation’s obscene inequality in wealth and income; it has actively widened it by handing guaranteed returns to the banks and financiers while stripmining what’s left of the middle and working classes’ non-labor income, i.e. interest on savings.

So let’s see what corporations and financiers did with the Fed’s free money for financiers:

They borrowed billions to buy back their own stocks:

 

 

Which boosted the the value of the stocks, enriching the corporate managers and big shareholders:

 

 

Did corporations share the wealth with their employees? The top 5% have done very well, the bottom 95%–well, their real incomes stagnated or declined:

 

 

Did corporations and financiers create more breadwinner jobs? That is, full-time jobs that pay enough to support a household (i.e. the employee doesn’t have to live in his/her parents’ basement).

Nope. Breadwinner jobs have declined. The “growth” measured by GDP is mostly increases in prices, not growth in full-time jobs or wages for the bottom 95%.

 

 

Did they invest the Fed’s free money for financiers in new productive capacity? No, productivity has tanked:

 

 

But the Fed’s near-zero interest rates and easy credit must have encouraged investors and entrepreneurs to launch a tsunami of new businesses, right? Wrong — new business growth has collapsed since the Fed’s policies were put in place:

 

 

But certainly the Fed’s policies have kept inflation low, correct? No–not if you pay rent, college tuition or healthcare:

 

 

 

But surely the Fed’s vaunted wealth effect has trickled down to all households? Not even close–wealth/income inequality has soared:

 

 

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%:

Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez put out an update to his estimates of income inequality, and the headline figure has everybody outraged: 95% of income gains since 2009 have accrued to the top 1%.

The Fed has not only failed to fix what’s broken in the U.S. economy–it has actively made those problems worse. The first step in solving these problems is to eliminate whatever is making them worse–i.e. the Federal Reserve.

 

 

The most recent company to announce four-digit layoffs was Cisco on Wednesday with 5,500 people on its list. It followed numerous other announcements of mass layoffs this year – particularly in oil-and-gas, brick-and-mortar retail, and tech.

Since the oil bust began, there have been 195,000 job cuts in the US alone, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Of those, about 95,000 occurred in 2016. They were concentrated in just a few states, particularly Texas. And it’s not over: there was a “resurgence” of 17,725 job cuts in July.

Tech announced about 55,000 layoffs so far this year, including Cisco. The sector is getting clobbered by a sea change in technology, the shift to mobile, and the downward spiral of the entire PC ecosystem. And retail announced nearly 44,000, not including Macy’s still unspecified job cuts associated with shuttering 100 Macy’s stores.

So 24/7 Wall St. interviewed John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray. And digging into additional data, it came up with its list of the biggest layoff announcements in 2016 so far – “so far” because the year isn’t over yet.

Layoff announcements can cover the global workforce, as in Cisco’s case. So not all of Cisco’s 5,500 layoffs are likely to happen in the US. And they may not necessarily happen this year. These things can drag out. For example, retailers generally want to keep their stores open and fully staffed through the holiday selling season and not shut them down just before.

So here they are in reverse order of magnitude.

Macy’s: 4,350 job cuts, plus. In early 2016, it announced about 3,000 cuts at its 770 stores, plus 1,350 back-office employees and customer service reps. Execs don’t get laid off. But 165 got buyout packages. This does not include the jobs that will disappear when it shutters 100 stores in early 2017, after having shuttered 41 stores last year. Macy’s, with its 157,900 employees, is getting clobbered by online retailers, and it’s seriously shrinking [Profits Plunge, Sales Drop at Macy’s. Slashes Jobs, Closes Stores. Stock Jumps 18%].

Hancock Fabrics: 4,500 job cuts. A brick-and-mortar casualty. It first filed for bankruptcy reorganization in 2007 and emerged in 2008. In February this year, it filed again. But this time, reorganization failed. It is now liquidating its 250 stores, and everyone goes.

Microsoft: 4,700 job cuts. Having botched its entry into mobile, and being stuck in the middle of the downward spiral of the PC ecosystem, it has been trying to get into the “cloud” business, like everyone else. To restructure, it has been on a veritable layoff binge over the past couple of years. With its 114,000 employees, there’s still some room left [some thought on its genius… After Losing $11 Billion on $9.4-billion Nokia Buy & Axing 27,650 Jobs, Microsoft Dumps Consumer Smartphones].

 

Cisco: 5,500 job cuts. Old tech, yes, but outside the PC ecosystem. Its router business is beset with competition from China. So it too wants to get into the “cloud.” On Tuesday, with its stock trading at a nine-year high, it leaked that it would let go up to 14,000 workers, or nearly 20% of its workforce. On Wednesday, as part of its earnings report, it announced that it would lay off only 5,500. Suspicions immediately arose that the leak was undertaken to butter up the markets and keep the damage to a minimum.

National Oilwell Varco: 6,000 job cuts. After having already axed 13,445 employees in 2015, the oilfield services and equipment provider with about 50,000 employees will also close 200 facilities.

DuPont Pioneer: 6,000 job cuts, plus. This product of a merger between DuPont and Dow Chemical is now looking for the promised synergies and efficiencies. The initial step is for DuPont to cut $700 million in annual costs and 6,000 employees. DuPont has been shrinking its headcount for years. Back in 2011, it employed 61,600. At the end of 2015, it was down to 52,000. More job cuts are on the way to live up to the promise of a further $3 billion in savings.

Weatherford International: 8,000 job cuts. The oil field services company with 39,500 employees hopes to save $446 million per year.

Bank of America: 8,000 job cuts, plus. Another well-greased layoff machine. Last year it shoved 10,000 people out the door. With 213,000 employees, it too has some room left to please the analysts. Since the Financial Crisis, it shrank its consumer division by 32% to 68,400 employees as of Q1 this year. It said in June that the number of employees in this division will drop “to the low 60s” soon. So more layoff announcements this year.

Seagate Technology: 8,100 job cuts. With revenues in free fall, the disk drive maker with 45,500 employees is restructuring, again, to diversify its products and get the heck out of the downward spiral of the PC ecosystem. It’s trying to get into – you guessed it – the “cloud.” So a year ago, it bought cloud storage company Dot Hill Systems.

Schlumberger: 10,000 job cuts. The oilfield services company had already cut 24,000 jobs since late 2014, but it wasn’t enough, and in January, with 95,000 people still on its payroll, and $1 billion in red ink, it announced another 10,000 layoffs, along with a good swig of financial engineering to make the results go down better.

Intel: 12,000 job cuts. With part of its business positioned at the center of the PC ecosystem’s downward spiral, it announced that it would slash its workforce by 11%. Yup, with its 107,300 employees, it too is seeking salvation in the “cloud.”

Halliburton: 15,200 job cuts. Back in late 2014, the oil-and-gas services company employed about 80,000 folks. A year later, it was down to 65,000. This year’s cuts will take its headcount down to around 50,000. Over the period of the oil bust, it has axed 38% of its workforce. I’m practically expecting an announcement that it too would seek salvation in the “cloud.”

And the winner – Wal-Mart Stores: 17,500 job cuts. OK, given its 2.3 million employees, those cuts don’t weigh as heavily as some of the other layoff queens. It will also close 260 stores, of which 154 in the US, mostly Walmart Express stores, and 115 stores in other countries – as I said at the time, “rubbing salt into the deepening brick-and-mortar retail wounds.”

What stands out among these announcements? They’re company or industry specific: oil-and-gas, brick-and-mortar retail, and tech – all three of them deeply troubled. Well, OK, a bank too. Smaller companies in these and other sectors often lay their workers off quietly, and unless you’re working there, or know some who is, you’ll never hear about it.

 

This afternoon, somewhat obscured by the Fed’s media-savvy and endless flip-flopping about rate hikes, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve released its second quarter delinquencies and charge-off data for all commercial banks. It shows that if the Fed wanted to raise rates before serious signs of trouble emerged, it might have missed the train.

Consumer loans are still doing well, though delinquencies have ticked up 10% from a year ago to $26.8 billion. Loans are considered “delinquent” when they’re 30 days or more past due. Credit card loans are also still doing well, though delinquencies have jumped 11% from a year ago to $13.8 billion.

Delinquencies of all real estate loans are low and still falling. Which is logical: commercial and residential real estate prices have been soaring for years. If borrowers get in trouble, they might be able to refinance and cure the delinquency, a form of “extend and pretend.” Or they might be able to sell the property and pay off the loan. Delinquencies in real estate don’t rise until property values are falling. That is now happening in some cities, but it hasn’t yet budged the national averages.

But delinquencies of Commercial & Industrial loans are a doozie. There are $2.06 trillion of these loans outstanding at banks in the US. In Q4 2014, delinquencies hit a post-Financial Crisis low of $11.7 billion. That’s when the largest credit bubble in US history peaked, or more politically correct, when the “credit cycle” began to end.

Then delinquencies started to soar. Initially, this was due to the oil & gas bust and the numerous defaults that it triggered, but increasingly it’s due to trouble in other sectors, including retail. At the end of Q2, 2016, delinquencies hit $29.6 billion, up 150% from Q4 2014!

As the chart from the Fed shows, this level of delinquencies was last pierced on the way up in Q4 2008, during the fallout from the Lehman bankruptcy (red marks added):

 

 

What’s even more significant than the absolute level of delinquencies in C&I loans is their unpleasant function as a leading indicator of big economic trouble. C&I delinquencies rise in the run-up of official recessions: sometimes with little lead-time, as during the Financial Crisis; other times with more lead-time, as during the 2001 recession.

Companies load up on debt – egged on by their own optimism, eager loan officers, the Fed, and low interest rates. When business conditions aren’t quite as perfect as hoped, and when sales and cash flow, instead of skyrocketing as expected, are shrinking, these loans begin to weigh on the business.

 

 

At that point, formerly eager loan officers begin to get nervous. With regulators breathing down their necks and asking questions, they put one hand on the money spigot. And suddenly, a company has trouble scraping up enough cash. Payroll comes first. There are other priorities too. So the executives sit down with their bankers and try to work something out. That’s how it starts for smaller businesses. It’s not the end of the world for a company, but it’s the beginning of big trouble.

Large companies have other options. They can sell junk bonds to yield-desperate investors and pay off the bank loans with the proceeds. This works – until it doesn’t.

If the delinquency is not cured within a specified time, the bank gets serious. It goes after the collateral and charges off the portion of the loan balance that it deems uncollectible.

That charge-off rate has started to rise. In Q2, it reached 0.45% of all C&I loans. Last time it rose to this level was in the run-up to the Financial Crisis: it hit 0.44% in Q3 2007 and blew to 0.68% in Q4 2007. Even during the darkest days of the Financial Crisis, with banks toppling and getting bailed out, the charge-off rate maxed out 2.55%. It doesn’t seem like much. But it doesn’t take that much to sink the banks!

 

 

When companies see a squeeze on the horizon, they re-prioritize. To conserve cash and be able to service their debts, they cut costs and capital expenditures. Often this isn’t enough. Delinquencies become a reality. More cuts are made, which then impact sales, which begin to fall more sharply. These cuts in costs turn into lost sales for suppliers, which then have to undertake their own cuts. It spirals through the system. If enough companies do this, and if they lay off enough people, it filters down to the consumer. By that time, big trouble is appearing in other data. Hence the tight relationship between delinquencies of C&I loans and recessions.

And there was more banking activity hidden behind the Fed’s flip-flop theatrics about raising rates. Read… Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, “Other Banks” Ask Fed to Let them Dodge the Volcker Rule till 2022

 

In America today, more than 60 million people live in multi-generational households.  That number is so large that it may seem difficult to believe, but the truth is that vast numbers of young adults have had to move back in with their parents and grandparents in recent years due to the deteriorating economy.  Millions of our young people cannot find decent jobs once they leave school, and millions of them are absolutely overwhelmed by debt.  Of course some of them are just lazy, but whatever the reason it is undeniable that multi-generational households are on the rise.  According to the Pew Research Center, 12 percent of the U.S. population was living in multi-generational households back in 1980.  Today, that number is up to 19 percent.  That means nearly one out of every five U.S. adults now live with their parents or their grandparents.

One of the big culprits, of course, is student loan debt.

According to CNN, approximately 70 percent of all college graduates will have student loan debt to pay off once they leave school, and the average loan balance for those graduates is about $28,950.

But there are many that run up $50,000 or $100,000 in debt at high end schools.  We encourage our young people to apply to the “best schools” that they possibly can, and we tell them that they shouldn’t worry about how much it will cost.  We assure them that they will be able to easily pay back any debts once they leave college because of the “good jobs” that they will get upon graduation.

Unfortunately, millions upon millions of our young people have discovered that the good jobs that they were promised simply do not exist.

We are also seeing other forms of debt rise to frightening levels in this nation.  The following comes from the New York Times

Over all, Americans’ use of credit cards has recently been creeping up again: Household debt in the United States increased by $35 billion, to $12.29 trillion, during the second quarter of 2016, a 0.3 percent rise from the previous quarter that was driven by credit cards and auto loans, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

We often criticize the federal government for being 19.4 trillion dollars in debt, and rightly so, but let us not forget that U.S. households are 12.2 trillion dollars in debt.

We are a society that feels entitled to everything, and we are not afraid to go into debt to get it.  And unfortunately we have passed on this “entitlement mentality” to the next generation.

In a recent blog post, Jenna Abrams did an amazing job of describing the crisis that we are facing with our young adults today.  Here is an excerpt…

Today I asked my followers how would they describe Millennials and this is what I got: “lazy”, “thin-skinned”, “spoiled”, “selfish”, “undisciplined”, “self-absorbed”, ”fragile”, “oblivious”, etc. and I can agree on this. This generation is really what you call it. But there was one description that is the most accurate.  “Raised by neglectful, over-compensating for inadequacy, self-serving parents.”

You’re in charge. You insisted your children and grandchildren have to get higher education instead of taking a blue-collar job or just entering the workforce after school like your generation did. Most of you pay for that (often unnecessary) higher education. You are overprotective and prevent your children from playing outside and making mistakes you had a chance to make to gain that thick skin. You don’t let your 12-year-old kid stay at home alone because they are too young. And who is wrong when your child has a conflict at school? I bet you always blame the other side, not your “special snowflake”. And how you get surprised that the whole generation gets offended by facing the truth: they are not special. It must hurt, right?

This generation of young adults is the most “educated” in our history, and yet they also appear to be one of the least competent.  Just check out these numbers from CBS News

Half of American Millennials score below the minimum standard of literacy proficiency. Only two countries scored worse by that measure: Italy (60 percent) and Spain (59 percent). The results were even worse for numeracy, with almost two-thirds of American Millennials failing to meet the minimum standard for understanding and working with numbers. That placed U.S. Millennials dead last for numeracy among the study’s 22 developed countries.

In the old days, our institutions of higher learning had exceedingly high standards and they demanded the best from students.  Today, our system of higher education is a joke, and many of our best colleges are more focused on political correctness and“safe spaces” than they are on preparing our young people for the harsh realities of the real world…

At Brown University – like Harvard, one of the eight elite Ivy League universities – the New York Times reported students set up a “safe space” that offered calming music, cookies, Play-Doh and a video of frolicking puppies to help students cope with a discussion on how colleges should handle sexual assault.

A Harvard student described in the university newspaperattending a “safe space” complete with “massage circles”that was designed to help students have open conversations.

We have raised a generation of overly-coddled, self-absorbed boys and girls that have never learned how to become men and women.  They don’t understand how things really work, and they are completely and utterly unprepared for the exceedingly difficult times that are coming.

And since our education system is completely and totally dominated by progressives, our young people have had decades of liberal propaganda pumped into their skulls, and the results are absolutely frightening.

For example, one survey discovered that 62 percent of Millennials say that they are “liberal”, and 42 percent of them say that they are “socialists”.

A different survey discovered that more than half of all U.S. adults under the age of 30 say that they reject capitalism.

If the coming election were to be determined by the Millennials, Hillary Clinton would win by one of the biggest landslides in U.S. history.  But of course she wouldn’t have even been the nominee for the Democrats, because Bernie Sanders would have crushed Clinton.

If something is not done, this is what the future of America is going to look like.

I don’t know about you, but to me that is a rather distressing thought.

BY: Michael Snyder

Economic Collapse Blog

 

There is an interesting disconnect with some people when discussing the concept of global centralization. Naturally, the mind reels in horror at the very idea, because many of us know, deep down at our core, that centralization is the root of tyranny.  We know that when absolute power is granted into the hands of an elite few over the lives of the masses, very bad things happen.  No small group of people has ever shown itself trustworthy, rational, empathic or wise enough to handle such a responsibility.  They ALWAYS screw it up, or, they deliberately take advantage of their extreme position of influence to force a particular ideology on everyone else.

This leads to resistance, resistance leads to sociopolitical crackdown and then great numbers of people are imprisoned, enslaved or even murdered.  This leads to even more resistance until one of two possible outcomes emerges — chaos and revolution or complete totalitarianism and micro-managed collectivism.

There is no way around this eventual conflict.  As long as the centralists continue to pursue total power, men and women will gather to fight them and the situation will escalate.  The only conceivable way that this fight could be defused is if the elites stop doing what they do.  If they suddenly become enlightened and realize the error of their ways, then perhaps we could escape the troubles unscathed.  Or, if those same elites all happen to meet an abrupt end and their influence is neutralized, then the world might have a chance to adjust and adapt in a more organic fashion.

Unfortunately, there are people who refuse to believe that a fight is unavoidable.  They desperately want to believe there is another way, and they will engage in an amazing display of mental gymnastics in order to justify this belief.

First, I think it is important to note that I have always argued that the globalists will eventually fail in their pursuit.  I find that some folks out there misinterpret my position when I outline the strategies of globalists and they assume I am presenting global centralization as a “sine qua non.”  I do not argue that the elites will win the fight, I only argue that there is no way to avoid the fight.

Those that want to know my views on why globalist defeat is a certainty can read my article The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose.

The rhetorical question always arises:  “How could the globalists ever hope to secure dominance over the entire world; isn’t that an impossible task?”

I believe according to my knowledge of history and human psychology that it IS an impossible task, but that is NOT going to stop the globalists from trying.

This is what the cynics just don’t seem to grasp; we are dealing with a group of narcissistic psychopaths organized around a cult ideology and with nearly unlimited resources at their fingertips.  These people think they are rising man-gods, like the Egyptian pharaohs of old.  They cannot be persuaded through superior logic or emotional appeal.  They will not be deterred by mass activism or peaceful redress.  They only understand one thing — the force of arms and the usefulness of lies.

Such people are notorious for taking entire civilizations down with them rather than ceding their thrones.  It is foolish to plan a response to them on the assumption that a fight can be avoided.  When I say that the globalists are “destined to lose,” this is predicated on my understanding that a certain percentage of human beings will always have an inherent capacity for resistance to tyranny.  The globalists will be defeated because there is no way to quantify every single threat to their utopian framework.  As long as people continue to fight them, physically and with information, regardless of the personal cost, their weaknesses will be found and they will fall.

This will not be accomplished, however, without considerable sacrifice.

When I talk about "collapse", I am talking about a process.  Collapse is not an singular event, it is an ongoing series of events.  The U.S. has, for example, been in the middle of a collapse since 2008.  The end of this collapse will come when the final economic bubble propping up our system has burst and the process of rebuilding begins.  The most important questions is, WHO will do the rebuilding?  The globalists with their power agenda, or common people seeking freedom and prosperity?

I have outlined in numerous articles the reality that an ongoing destabilization of large portions of the global economic framework will be used by the elites as leverage to convince the public that greater centralization is necessary, including global economic management through the IMF and BIS, a global currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as a bridge and global governance through the United Nations or a similar body not yet developed.  This plan is becoming more and more openly discussed by globalists within the mainstream media.  It’s hardly a secret anymore.

Many people will undoubtedly support this centralization out of fear of instability.  That said, many people will also refuse to support it.

Here is how I believe, according to historical precedence and the globalist’s own writings, that they will attempt to assert global centralization post-collapse and enforce compliance.

Resource Management And Distribution

As I point out in many of my articles on the necessity for localism, without ample food, water and shelter self-maintained by groups of like minded citizens, no resistance can be mounted against a centralizing force.  If you cannot supply your own logistics, then you must resort to stealing them from the enemy.  Obviously, it is less risky to supply yourself if possible.

Post-collapse, when rule of law in many places has broken down and resources can no longer be transferred safely from region to region, the name of the game will be control of necessities and the producers of necessities.  This is also used by totalitarians when the danger of unrest is present.  A prime example of this method in action was the Stalinist consolidation of the Soviet Union.

The fact is, successful rebellions in occupied nations tend to grow in rural surroundings.  Cities are often strongholds for totalitarians because they offer more means of surveillance, a more passive population and, once taken over, they are easier to secure and defend.  I call this the “green zone doctrine;” the use of locked down cities as pivot points to launch attacks on rural people.

Stalin used this very model, sending troops from controlled cities to plunder resources from outlying farming communities.  He then stored these supplies for “redistribution;” the people deemed most useful to the regime were fed, the people deemed not useful or potential threats were not fed.  In the end, Stalin killed off many potential rebels simply by denying them food production or food access.

The elites do not need to own every inch of ground in order to launch an effective campaign of martial law.  All they need to do is own key cities through surveillance technology and troop presence, then use these cities as staging grounds to confiscate resources in surrounding areas from people they do not like.  If you think the government would not pursue that kind of tactic in the U.S., I highly suggest you look into Executive Order 13603, signed by Barack Obama in 2012.  This order gives the president authority during a “national emergency” to take any private property or resources if it is deemed “necessary to national defense.”

It should be noted that starvation as a weapon has been extremely useful for the elites in the past.

The Malaysian Model Of Control

If the elites are anything, they are rather predictable.  This is because they have a habit of consistently using strategies that have worked for them before.  In my article When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It, I examine the writings of Council On Foreign Relations member Max Boot on methods for quelling insurgencies.  In the U.S., insurgency is a given post-collapse.  The only question is whether it will be a large insurgency or a small one.

I do not hold out much hope for most of the rest of the world in terms of generating a useful rebellion.  Most citizens in Europe and Asia are unarmed and untrained.  Any resistance in these regions will be very small and cell structured if it is going to survive.

The methods Max Boot describes tend toward larger threats to the establishment.  Boot mentions specifically the great success by the British in Malaysia from 1948-1960 against highly effective communist guerillas and terrorists.  This success can be attributed to several factors:

1) The British used large-scale concentration camps to separate production centers from rebel influence.  These were massive camps surrounded by barbed wire fences and guard towers, primarily used to house farmers and other workers and their families.  This stopped the guerillas from hiding among the working class and recruiting from them.  This follows the “green zone doctrine” I described above.

2) The British implemented a sophisticated identification system for all Malaysian citizens including fingerprinting.  They then set up numerous checkpoints across the country at which citizens had to produce their paperwork.  Anyone who did not have their papers was held on suspicion of being an insurgent.  The rebels in Malaysia attempted to counter this by forcefully taking over busy buildings and buses, then burning everyone’s IDs.  This would not be a very effective tactic in a digitized world where identification is accomplished through advanced biometrics.

3) Instead of fielding massive lumbering military brigades in a useless effort to cover large stretches of ground, the British used spies and informants to locate rebel strongholds, then sent special forces units in to neutralize them.  Again, they did not need to control every inch of ground; they used military assets wherever the rebels were, then left.  Their goal was not to control a lot of ground, but to kill rebels.  The British used considerable brutality in their efforts, including a mobile gallows that traveled the country, and the public display of rotting corpses to strike fear in the insurgency.

4) The political elites in Britain fought the psychological war by offering promises of peace and prosperity to the Malaysian commoners if they supported the effort against the insurgency.  They did not necessarily need to follow through on these promises, all they needed to do was create a few examples of reward for cooperation, and sell this to the public in a convincing manner.  Once enough of the population was in the hands of the British, the insurgency lost supply resources and also had to worry about informants.

Technology Grid For Tyranny

Malaysia was an example of a competent strategy to uproot insurgents, but there were also many failures and pitfalls.  The elites are trying to mitigate any future unknown quantities when fighting against rebellions through the use of new technologies.

The green zone doctrine could only be successful today with the use of biometric surveillance.  Restriction of movement could be accomplished, but only in cities with extensive surveillance grids.  The insurgents of a post-collapse future would be hard pressed to infiltrate or exfiltrate from a green zone with currently available facial recognition, gait and walk recognition, retina and thumbprint scanning, etc.  Facial recognition has even gone into the realm of thermal imaging; cameras can use the unique heat signature from blood vessels within the human face to identify a person from a relative distance.  Make-up and prosthetics would not counter this.  Thermal masking would be the only solution.

Beyond that, an insurgency would have to be technologically savvy. Cyber warfare would have to be integral to their methodology.  This is not something any other rebellion in history has had to deal with.

An Uneducated And Bumbling Insurgency

The globalist’s strategy to trigger economic and social chaos, then lock down certain regions and offer centralization as a solution to the population, is far easier to accomplish when the opposition they face lacks insight, patience, planning and initiative.

The British were partially successful in Malaysia because the guerillas were ignorant of public perception. While they were effective and ruthless fighters, their viciousness resulted in lack of public support.  Though wide public support is not needed for victory, it certainly helps.

Multiple revolutions against Stalin’s power, some of them very large, were put down because of poor planning.  Rebels massed sizable forces in tight areas, such as a single mountain or mountain ranges.  Stalin simply dropped poisonous gasses on insurgents that had put all their eggs in one basket and forgot to stockpile gas masks.  It is vital to recognize that in a post-collapse world governments and elites may no longer be subject to public scrutiny, and are thus free to act as maliciously as they want.  All contingencies have to be considered.

Rebels in the Soviet Union also had a bad habit of ignoring logistics.  Many were armed with mismatched rifles and a rainbow selection of ammunition instead of arming all their men with the same rifle and the same ammo for redundancy.  Rebellions have been lost in the past merely because the fighters armed with too wide an array of weapons ran out of enough ammo to feed any of them.

Insurgents have also historically suffered from an inability to strike the leadership centers of the empires they fought.  Primarily because they did not know who the real leadership was.  Only in our modern era do we have the information available to identify the elites and their organizations.  Globalists are often very vocal today in media about who they are and what they want.  This is why the elites seek to make the next insurgency the LAST insurgency.  Never before have they been so vulnerable.

I believe the globalists will use their standard strategy of disinformation and division first to acquire centralization, but eventually they will turn to a Stalin/Malaysian model for control on the ground.  I will have to save the specific counter-strategies to these tactics for another article.  Some of them I probably cannot legally discuss at all.  The most important thing to remember, though, is that the globalists’ job is harder than our job.  They have to control people, property, resources, and mass psychology.  They have thousands of variables to take into account, and thousands of situations that could go wrong.

All we have to worry about is our own local organization, our own moral compass, our own survival and removing the top globalists from the picture.

 

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com

 

One day in the not too distant future, a major emergency will strike this nation, and that will set off a round of hoarding unlike anything we have ever seen before.  Just think about what happens when a big winter storm or a hurricane is about to hit one of our major cities – inevitably store shelves are stripped bare of bread, milk, snow shovels, etc.  Even though winter storms and hurricanes are just temporary hurdles to overcome, they still cause many people to go into panic mode.  So what is going to happen when we have a real crisis on our hands?

We can get some clues about which items will disappear first during a major national emergency by taking a look at where such a scenario is already playing out.  One recent survey found that over 80 percent of all basic foodstuffs are currently unavailable in Venezuela, and about half the country can no longer provide three meals a day for their families.  Thankfully, some stores still have a few things that they are able to offer, but other key items are completely gone.  The following comes from USA Today

Oh, there are some things to buy. Besides salt, there are fresh vegetables and fruits, dairy products but no milk, some cereal, lots of snacks and a few canned goods.

 

The only meat is sausages; there are three kinds of cheese. The only problem: A kilogram of each costs more than a fourth of our monthly minimum wage of 15,050 bolivars.

But basic foodstuffs – the things most Venezuelans want to eat  such as corn meal, wheat flour, pasta, rice, milk, eggs, sugar, coffee, chicken, mayonnaise, margarine, cooking oil and beef – are conspicuous by their absence. And there is no toilet paper, no sanitary napkins, no disposable baby diapers, no shampoo, no toothpaste, no hand soap and no deodorant.

Do you have plenty of the items in bold above stored up?

If not, you may want to stock up while you still can.

Venezuela was once the wealthiest nation in all of South America, but now lines for food often begin as early as three in the morning.  Some people have become so desperate that they are actually hunting cats, dogs and pigeons for food, and there are even a few very sick people that have been killing and eating zoo animals.

Someday similar things will happen in the United States and Europe too.

When that day arrives, will you be prepared?

One of the things that got my attention from the article quote above was the lack of milk.  My wife is always telling me that we should store up more dried milk, and I believe that she is right.

Just imagine not having any milk and not being able to get any more.

What would you do?

Another thing that really stood out to me in the article was the fact that there is a severe shortage of personal hygiene items.  Most people don’t really think of those as “prepper goods”, but the truth is that life will become very uncomfortable without them very rapidly.

What would you do if there was no more toilet paper?

And if you have a little one, how are you going to manage without any diapers?

In general, it is wise to always have an extra supply of just about everything that you use on a daily basis stored away somewhere in your home.  The generation that went through the Great Depression of the 1930s understood this concept very well, but most of us that are younger have had it so good for so long that we don’t even really grasp what a real crisis looks like.

Another thing that we are seeing happen right now in Venezuela is the rise of a barter economy

Many of my urban friends are now planting vegetables in their outdoor spaces – if they have any – or in pots. Another friend, who is a hairdresser, is charging clients food to do their hair. For a shampoo and dry, she charges a kilo of corn meal, saying that she doesn’t have time to stand in line like some of her clients.

As you prepare for what is ahead, you may want to consider stocking up on some items that would specifically be used for bartering in a crisis situation.  

For example, you may not drink coffee, but there are millions upon millions of people that do.  In a crisis situation, there will be many that will be extremely desperate to get their hands on some coffee, and so any coffee that you store away now may become a very valuable asset.

We live in a world where one out of every eight people already goes to bed hungry each night, and where one out of every three children is underweight.  As global weather patterns become more extreme, as natural disasters continue to become more frequent and more intense, and as terror and war continue to spread, it is inevitable that the stress on the global food system is going to continue to grow.

Today you can waltz into Wal-Mart and buy giant cartloads of very inexpensive food, but it will not always be that way.

Unfortunately, more than half the country is currently living paycheck to paycheck, and most Americans do not have any emergency food stored up at all.

In addition to food and personal hygiene supplies, here are some other items that are likely to disappear very rapidly during a major national emergency…

-Flashlights

-Batteries

-Generators

-Propane

-Can Openers

-Water Filters

-Water Containers

-Anything Related To Self-Defense

-Axes

-Knives

-Sleeping Bags

-Tents

-First Aid Kits

-Matches

-Candles

-Firewood

-Shovels

-Bottled Water

-Warm Clothing

-Lanterns

-Portable Radios

 

 

So in addition to food and personal hygiene items, you may want to do an inventory of the items that I have listed above and see where you may have some holes in your preparation plans.

I understand that there will be some people that will read this article and think that all of us “preppers” are being just a tad ridiculous.

But when a major emergency strikes this nation and you haven’t done anything to prepare, you will dearly wish that you had bothered to take action while there was still time remaining to do so.

 

BY: Michael Snyder

Economic Collapse Blog

Page 4 of 27

Shop thru Us - Save $

About

PUBLISHER CONTACT INFO:

SUPERSTATION95

c/o Attorney Ronald G. Russo

SCHLAM, STONE, DOLAN, LLP

26 Broadway  - 19th Fl.

New York, NY  10004


 PHONE and E-MAIL:

(24/7 News Assignment Desk)

Tel.: 917-655-2681 

News Related e-mail: Newsroom@SuperStation95.com

Editorial Related e-mail: EditorialBoard@SuperStation95.com

Web site Administrator: Admin@SuperStation95.com

 

 

News Archives (All)

Top