Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
Subtract their immense debts and they have negative net worth, and therefore the market value of their stock is zero.
To understand why the financial dominoes toppled by the Covid-19 pandemic lead to global insolvency, let's start with a household example. The point of this exercise is to distinguish between the market value of assets and net worth, which is what's left after debts are subtracted from the market value of assets.
Let's say the household has done very well for itself and owns assets worth $1 million: a home, a family business, 401K retirement accounts and a portfolio of stocks and other investments.
The household also has $500,000 in debts: home mortgage, auto loans, student loans and credit card balances.
The household net worth is thus $1,000,000 minus $500,000 = $500,000.
Let's say a typical financial crisis and recession occur, and the household's assets fall 30%. 30% of $1 million is $300,000, so the the market value of the household's assets falls to $700,000.
Deduct the $500,000 in debts and the household's net worth has fallen to $200,000. The point here is debts remain regardless of what happens to the market value of assets owned by the household.
Then the speculative asset bubbles re-inflate, and the household takes on more debt in the euphoric expansion of confidence to buy a larger house, expand the family business and enjoy life more.
Now the household assets are worth $2 million, but debt has risen to $1.5 million. Net worth remains at $500,000, since debt has risen along with asset values.
Alas, all bubbles pop, and the market value of the household assets decline by 30%, or $600,000. Now the household assets are worth $2,000,000 minus $600,000 or $1,400,000. The household net worth is now $1,400,000 minus $1,500,000 or negative $100,000. the household is insolvent.
On top of that, the net income of the family business plummets to near-zero in the recession, leaving insufficient income to pay all the debts the household has taken on.
This is an exact analog for the entire global economy, which pre-pandemic had assets with a market value of $350 trillion and debts of $255 trillion and thus a net worth of around $100 trillion.
The $11 trillion that has evaporated in the market value of U.S. stocks is only a taste of the losses in market value. Global stock markets has lost $30 trillion, and once yields rise despite central bank manipulations (oops, I mean intervention), $30 trillion in the market value of bonds will vanish into thin air.
The market value of junk bonds has already plummeted by trillions, and that's not even counting the trillions lost in small business equity, shadow banking and a host of other non-tradable assets.
Then there's the most massive asset bubble of all, real estate. Millions of properties delusional owners still think are worth $1.4 million will soon revert to a more reality-based valuation around $400,000, or perhaps even less, meaning $1 million per property will melt into air.
Once the market value of global assets falls by $100 trillion, the world is insolvent.
Everyone expecting the financial markets to magically return to January 2020 levels once the pandemic dies down is delusional. All the dominoes of crashing market valuations, crashing incomes, crashing profits and soaring defaults will take down all the fantasy-based valuations of bubblicious assets: stocks, bonds, real estate, bat guano, you name it. (Actually, bat guano will be the keeper of all the asset classes listed.)
The global financial system has already lost $100 trillion in market value, and therefore it's already insolvent. The only question remaining is how insolvent?
Here's a hint: companies whose shares were recently worth $500 or $300 will be worth $10 or $20 when this is over. Bonds that were supposedly "safe" will lose 50% of their market value. Real estate will be lucky to retain 40% of its current value. And so on.
As net worth crashes below zero, debts remain. The loans must still be serviced or paid off, and if the borrowers default, then the losses must be absorbed by the lenders or taxpayers, if we get a repeat of 2008 and the insolvent taxpayers are forced to bail out the insolvent financial elites.
Here's the S&P 500. Where is the bottom? There is no bottom, but nobody dares say this.
Companies with negative profits have no value other than the cash on hand and the near-zero auction value of other assets. Subtract their immense debts and they have negative net worth, and therefore the market value of their stock is zero.
* * *
My recent books:
Audiobook edition now available:
Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World ($13)
(Kindle $6.95, print $11.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).
The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).
* * *
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University on Saturday, May 13, 2017, Lynchburg, Virginia. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.]
By Mary Margaret Olohan
Daily Caller News Foundation
The president of Liberty University called a parent a “dummy” for asking why the university has not suspended classes and sent students home.
Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. noted in a series of tweets Sunday that the university is “developing a plan” to protect faculty, staff and students who are “truly at risk” due to age or medical conditions. Liberty University will not, however, send students home.
“I don’t want to become one of these college presidents who are pushing this problem off on someone else by sending 20 year olds with near zero mortality risk to sit at home for the rest of the semester, often with grandparents in the house who truly are at risk,” Falwell said.
“We are even moving classes to larger rooms, gyms, arenas, even outside when weather permits so students won’t be sitting elbow to elbow,” he added. “Meals are being staggered to minimize crowding. Convocation will be online only.”
“Many other measures are in the works. @LibertyU will become the model for others to follow in the future.”
Insurance executive and firearms dealer Jeff Brittain replied to Falwell’s tweet by noting that as the father of three Liberty University students, he believes the move is a “money grab.”
“So in 7 weeks, you’ll send the thousands of students, who now have a HIGHER risk of carrying it, back to their grandparents to get it,” Brittain tweeted. “I’m as right wing as they get, bud. But as a parent of three of your students, I think this is crazy, irresponsible and seems like a money grab.”
Nope, then they’ll go off to summer jobs or internships dummy
— Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) March 15, 2020
Brittain, who declined a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation, responded to backlash against Falwell by tweeting, “Hey everyone. It’s cool. He’s under a lot of stress like we all are. Everyone, including me, is trying to make the best decisions and judgements for the ones we love right now. #allgood.“
Falwell went on Fox News to discuss the coronavirus pandemic where he pushed an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory involving North Korea and the coronavirus and said that the coronavirus panic is driven by President Donald Trump’s opponents.
“It’s strange to how so many are overreacting,” Falwell said Friday. “The H1N1 virus in 2009 killed 17,000 people. It was not the same hype. You just didn’t see it on the news 24/7, and it makes you wonder if there’s a political reason for that.”
“Impeachment didn’t work, and the Mueller Report didn’t work, and article 25 didn’t work, and so maybe now this is their next attempt to get Trump,” Falwell added.
He also suggested coronavirus would be the “Christmas present” North Korea promised the U.S. in December 2019.
“The owner of a restaurant asked me last night. He said ‘You remember the North Korean leader promised a Christmas present for America back in December’” Falwell said. “Could it be they got together with China and this is that present? I don’t know, but it really was something strange going on.”
Falwell did not respond to a request for comment.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The post Jerry Falwell Jr calls concerned parent a 'dummy' for questioning why Liberty University remains open appeared first on WND.
Guest Post by Ron Paul
Governments love crises because when the people are fearful they are more willing to give up freedoms for promises that the government will take care of them. After 9/11, for example, Americans accepted the near-total destruction of their civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act’s hollow promises of security.
It is ironic to see the same Democrats who tried to impeach President Trump last month for abuse of power demanding that the Administration grab more power and authority in the name of fighting a virus that thus far has killed less than 100 Americans.
Declaring a pandemic emergency on Friday, President Trump now claims the power to quarantine individuals suspected of being infected by the virus and, as Politico writes, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease.” He can even call out the military to cordon off a US city or state.
State and local authoritarians love panic as well. The mayor of Champaign, Illinois, signed an executive order declaring the power to ban the sale of guns and alcohol and cut off gas, water, or electricity to any citizen. The governor of Ohio just essentially closed his entire state.
The chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Fauci is all over the media, serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic. He testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is ten times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis.
On Face the Nation, Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, “Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.” He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days.
Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this?
If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse. The martial law they dream about will leave people hunkered down inside their homes instead of going outdoors or to the beach where the sunshine and fresh air would help boost immunity. The panic produced by these fearmongers is likely helping spread the disease, as massive crowds rush into Walmart and Costco for that last roll of toilet paper.
The madness over the coronavirus is not limited to politicians and the medical community. The head of the neoconservative Atlantic Council wrote an editorial this week urging NATO to pass an Article 5 declaration of war against the COVID-19 virus! Are they going to send in tanks and drones to wipe out these microscopic enemies?
People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.
That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this movie before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back.
Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair
In 2015 I was wrongfully convicted of, and imprisoned for, violating the U.S. Espionage Act. Now, while there is no question that I stand in solidarity with WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in a British court as he fights extradition, little did I know that my presence is also there as fodder to support extradition. If I am going to be used in such a way, there should at least be a modicum of truth to my inclusion. I found nothing reasonable about being persecuted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage Act.
On the first day of the recent extradition proceedings in London, James Lewis QC, representing the U.S. government, attempted to counter arguments about the potential prison sentence Assange faces if convicted of violating the Espionage Act by stating that individuals such as myself serve as “benchmarks” for what Assange is facing. To Lewis and the U.S. government, my 42-month sentence or the range of 40-60 months is “reasonable.” Such use of my experience fighting the Espionage Act in order to quell concerns about Assange’s potential sentence is misleading without providing context.
As a U.S. citizen, I was ostensibly armed with certain rights going into a Virginia courtroom to fight for my freedom. I was woefully mistaken. The court in Virginia where Assange would be 
tried is the same court that prevented me from suing the Central Intelligence Agency for employment discrimination, on grounds that it would pose a threat to the national security of the United States. To that court and to the U.S. government, an African American fighting for his supposedly guaranteed civil rights is a threat to national security. Going to trial in 2015 as one of an ever-growing number being charged with violating the Espionage Act, I was, therefore, facing a court and judicial system that had a history of disregarding me as a living breathing citizen with any rights. The result of that one-sided CIA show-trial was my “reasonable” 42-month prison sentence. If supposed inalienable rights were not guaranteed to me as a U.S. citizen, Assange is only guaranteed to be prosecuted.
In maximum terms, Assange is facing 175 years in prison. For the charges against me, I was also facing over 100 years maximum sentence. The fact that I was sentenced to 42 months should not be any benchmark of reasonableness when the Espionage Act and the court in Virginia where the U.S. wants Assange extradited to are involved.
In a final moment of clarity after a long delay before sentencing, Judge Leonie Brinkema commented that the sentencing guidelines were “way off” and chose 42 months as my sentence. That “reasonableness” was most likely not out of any benevolence on her part. It might have been that Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote to the court requesting fairness, or maybe she was moved by the fact that I was convicted by a government-leaning jury on absolutely no evidence. The prosecutor was visibly livid as he obviously was hoping for a much, much longer sentence. His continual questioning, if not pleading of the judge to explain the sentence was finally silenced when the judge stated, “That’s it.” I fear that Assange will face a less reasonable court and sentence.
And Lewis failed to mention how conditions in U.S. prisons will be a part of that benchmark. The U.S. prison system is one of deplorable living conditions, disregard for human life, and perpetual punishment. And given Assange’s health, he will be lucky to receive adequate care. While I was in a U.S. prison, it took the intervention of a U.S. Senator for me to receive the health care that quite possibly saved my life. Should not this reality be part of Lewis’ benchmark?
Given the long history of the U.S. government’s pursuit of Assange and the obvious political nature of his potential prosecution, I fear there will be nothing reasonable with regard to any sentence to be imposed. My prosecution should serve not as a benchmark for being sentenced under the Espionage Act, but rather a warning about how the perverse use of the Espionage Act started by the Obama administration and continued by the Trump administration to quell and silence dissent is a threat to free speech, not only in my country, and as the extradition proceedings demonstrate, in the entire world.
The post I Reject Using My Unjust Conviction Against Julian Assange appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former Secretary of State and twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is asking an appeals court to give her a pass on a scheduled depostion concerning her email scandal.
WND reported U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted the deposition to Judicial Watch after ordering discovery two years ago in a lawsuit probing whether Clinton set up the private email system to avoid Freedom of Information requests. The complaint also alleged the State Department's plan to settle the case was in "bad faith" and that State conducted an inadequate search for Clinton's records.
Now, Clinton and her former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, who also was ordered deposed, have asked the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the order.
Judicial Watch said the Clinton request comes in its lawsuit seeking records concerning "talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack."
The watchdog famously found in 2014 that the "talking points" that provided the basis for Susan Rice's false statements about the attak were created by the Obama White House. The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
Judge Lamberth has called the unsecure email system "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency."
"Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the court is left with more questions than answers," he has said
The court found Clinton's prior testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient.
"The court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answer," Judicial Watch said. "In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff's counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton's answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton."
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the "desperate act is yet another attempt by the Clinton machine to delay truth and accountability for her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA."
Clinton's lawyers contend the case is moot, that there are no answers to be obtained, that all of Clinton's information already is available and that the lower court's order is "inappropriate, unnecessary, and a clear abuse of discretion."
Additionally, as a "high-ranking" official, Clinton should be exempt, the filing said.
Judicial Watch's director of investigations, Chris Farrell, has explained how the organization obtained the ruling for a deposition.
See his explanation:
Dozens of highly sensitive classified materials were sent to and from Clinton through the private and unsecure email system. The FBI said the private system was vulnerable to compromise by hackers outside the United States and by foreign intelligence operatives.
Lamberth also has encouraged Judicial Watch to "shake this tree" for evidence and warned the State Department, "There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence."
Clinton eventually turned over to the federal government some 33,000 emails from her private server, but she didn't allow the government to have another 30,000, alleging they were "private."
A letter sent to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed a federal investigation found 38 current and former State Department officials violated government email regulations by using Clinton's private system.
Judicial Watch says it already has learned:
The post Hillary begs for pass in two of her most serious scandals appeared first on WND.
