30 October 2019

Clown World Impeachment

After three years of hoaxes and hysteria, the Democrats are finally bringing forward an impeachment inquiry resolution in the House of Representatives.

Sort of.

The resolution comes roughly one month after Nancy Pelosi officially "announced" an impeachment inquiry and delegated it to the endlessly duplicitous Adam Schiff and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

To give credit where credit is due, the resolution at least pays lip service to the virtues of transparency and fidelity to due process of law.  However, it does condition rights of the minority upon the concurrence of the committee chair and makes no provision for the participation of President Trump's various counsel. It presents plenty of opportunity for Adam Schiff to make more of his trademark mischief.

Strangest of all, while Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee is running the inquiry, Congressman Jerry Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee is the group the resolution tasks with drafting articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. Given the high degree of chaos and confusion that surrounds both committees and their chairs, how this division of duties will facilitate an expeditious process remains a mystery.

Update (10/31/2019): The House passed the impeachment resolution on a strict party line vote, with two Democrats defecting to vote "No".

Also of note: During debate on the rules portion of the resolution, the House Rules Committee voted down an amendment calling for any exculpatory material to be turned over President Trump and his attorneys--a rule similar to the "Brady" rule that exists in the Federal court system. That is not a stance that comports with existing standards of due process within American law.

Yet the resolution is not the most significant hurdle the Democrats have to overcome on impeachment. Regardless of the committee, regardless of the rules, regardless of their level of respect or contempt for due process, at some point, the Democrats have to make the case for impeachment.  

What sort of case can they make?

Let us begin with the basic background of the current impeachment imbroglio.  Only July 25, 2019, President Trump had a telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which it has been alleged that President Trump coercively and corruptly pressured Zelensky to provide what the Russians call "kompromat"--"dirt", in the American idiom--on presumptive 2020 Presidential opponent Joe Biden. The crux of the material Trump is alleged to have sought involves son Hunter Biden's directorship with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, during Joe Biden's tenure as Vice President. That Hunter Biden held a directorship with Burisma at the time Joe Biden was the Obama Administration's "point man" on Ukrainian policy is documented fact.

I shall concede an obvious point: if the allegation against Donald Trump is true, that he did use military aid to coerce dirt on Joe Biden from the Ukrainians, that would be an ugly and potentially impeachable abuse of power, even if it could not be shown to be a criminal act in and of itself.

Yet we must also acknowledge something else equally obvious: In order for a Ukrainian investigation to be unwarranted, there must be no question of impropriety by Joe Biden with respect to the Obama Administration's Ukrainian policy. An investigation can only count as "dirt" if it is inappropriate and unwarranted. If there is any potential for impropriety, President Trump, as the nation's chief executive and charged with the faithful execution of the laws, is well within his Constitutional prerogative to have an investigation into possible improprieties by the Bidens. The Democrats must thus exonerate Joe Biden before they can impeach Donald Trump--at least, presuming they wish to maintain a fidelity to the rule of law and due process of law.

Is there cause to investigate Joe Biden, either by the US Department of Justice or by the Ukrainian state prosecutors? Quite probably.

18 USC 208 sets forth a legal basis for determining conflicts of interests for government officials. It specifically precludes government officials from participating in any process, even in an advisory capacity, where said official or a family member has a financial interest. The statute forbids involvement purely on the basis of that financial interest, and does not require there be any corruption or malfeasance behind the financial interest itself. Hunter Biden's directorship at Burisma almost certainly qualifies as a conflict of interest under this statute.

(Update: it should be noted that the Vice President is specifically excluded from the legal strictures of 18 USC 208 via an exception in 18 USC 202(c), but while this does relieve the Vice President from legal consequence it cannot alter the definitive conflict of interest that arises. But for Joe Biden's status as Vice President, Hunter Biden's Burisma directorship was a textbook 18 USC 208 violation)

Moreover, Joe Biden's repeated insistence that Hunter Biden did not do anything wrong is irrelevant, regardless of whether the assertion is true or false. The ethical and potentially legal malfeasance raised by Hunter Biden's Burisma directorship is that Joe Biden had a clear and unmistakable conflict of interest per 18 USC 208 and took no action to remediate it: he did not recuse himself from Ukrainian matters, nor did he request Hunter Biden to resign the directorship, nor is there any indication of a waiver being either sought or granted with respect to Hunter Biden and Burisma.

18 USC 208 is a criminal statute, and criminal penalties apply when it is violated; moreover, even if Joe Biden is not subject to criminal sanction by virtue of being Vice President, such cavalier disregard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest creates a significant ethical if not legal issue. Is it inappropriate for the US Department of Justice to investigate the Bidens with this statute in mind (we should also keep in mind that the Vice President has few official duties beyond presiding over the Senate; an argument that Joe Biden, during his diplomatic work with Ukraine, was not acting as Vice President but as special envoy and thus subject to 18 USC 208 prohibitions is a matter for a court to adjudicate)? That would be unlikely; the conflict of interest is as factual as Hunter Biden's Burisma directorship, and would, by itself, occasion a complaint of official corruption.

As a matter of simple logic and examination of irrefutable fact, we cannot conclude that Donald Trump was looking for "dirt" on Joe Biden. An investigation into the Bidens is easily justifiable under US law. The extent to which Hunter Biden's activities might run afoul of Ukrainian corruption laws (on the Ukrainian side of things, Hunter Biden would have largely the same conflict of interest as Joe Biden) is an unknown, but if there were to be a corruption investigation by the Department of Justice, arguing that Ukraine should not have a coordinated investigation of aspects falling within their jurisdiction seems a rather tenuous and uncertain position to take.

Can seeking the investigation itself be corrupt? No. President Trump is charged per the Constitution to see that US laws are faithfully executed. He is, by the nature of the office, the United States' chief law enforcement official. In that capacity, directing and facilitating investigations is part of the job, albeit one almost entirely delegated to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Corrupt purpose cannot be inferred from exercise of legitimate statutory or Constitutional authority.

There is an argument to be made that seeking such investigations by the Ukraine is not a good policy position for the United States, but differences on matters of policy by definition cannot be corruption. Policy matters are, in a democracy, both to be expected and to be discussed publicly. Policy matters are not fit material for either articles of impeachment or criminal indictments. Congress would be well within its rights to object to Trump's pursuit of an investigation, even to the extent of passing a resolution of censure of the President. Indeed, if the policy differences are significant and relevant, one could even argue it is the duty of Congress to lodge such opposition and disapproval. Yet opposition and disapproval are not themselves proof of corruption, nor even intimation of corruption. In a democracy, people will disagree; that is the order of things.

Without a corrupt act, a charge of abuse of power is unsustainable, as a matter of logic and as a matter of law.

This is the quandary in which the Democrats find themselves. Before they can impeach Donald Trump--before they can plausibly hope to persuade the Senate to convict on articles of impeachment--regarding his July 25 telephone call to the Ukrainian President, they must exonerate Joe Biden of any and all impropriety. At the moment, they are not even considering Biden's activities in the Ukraine, and they certainly are not establishing they are in any way interested in scrutinizing those activities.

Perversely, one could argue the Mueller report has a more substantive case for obstruction of justice than the current impeachment inquiry has for abuse of power. The Democrats' inaction on the Mueller report since its release is a fair proof the Democrats do not believe in its case for impeachment, which makes their current faith in impeachment on abuse of power a mystery.

Thus we have a true Clown World Impeachment. We have an impeachment inquiry without a defined impeachable offense, without investigation to lay a proper foundation for even a single article of impeachment, without an efficient and effective inquiry process from which to draw articles of impeachment, yet with Democrats professing all the certitude that President Trump's malfeasances are both damning and amply established, all the while remaining studiously ignorant of the most crucial facts essential to their allegations against President Trump.

Orwell and Kafka would both be quite impressed by today's Democrats. Clown World has outdone them both.




27 October 2019

Clown World Without End

To call today's seminal news event "significant" would be a study in ironic understatement. The death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in an attack by US Special Forces is a major blow to the ISIS terrorist organization, and quite possibly the death knell for any thought of the ISIS caliphate reconstituting itself within the territories of Iraq and Syria.

For any advocate of Western culture and Western civilization, the death of al-Baghdadi is a sobering moment, but a positive one. al-Baghdadi was a terrorist, and a particularly vile and violent terrorist, responsible for the deaths of thousands in cruel and barbaric fashion. It is no exaggeration to say that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was an evil human being, and an enemy of all mankind. While I generally refrain from celebrating the demise of another human being, it would be difficult not to acknowledge the good his death will do in the Middle East.

My own sentiments are summarized in my post on Gab:


Washington, DC, for its part, alternated between congratulatory praise (mostly from Republicans), to somewhat predictable pouting from Democrats at having been kept out of the loop until after the attack was concluded.

Yet while we congratulate the US Military and President Trump for this undeniable victory, we must ask a troublesome and troubling question:

What on Earth is wrong with the legacy media?



As my Gab posting shows, Bloomberg had a rather anodyne obituary of al-Baghdadi. Not to be outdone, the Washington Post went even farther in sanitizing the bloody legacy of the ISIS leader, rewriting their initial obituary headline, removing "terrorist-in-chief" in favor of "extremist leader of Islamic State".
The original headline as of this morning


The headline as of this writing


Congressman Steve Scalise captured the repugnant irony of the Washington Post headline revision perfectly on Twitter:
The cynical view of this is that the legacy media, and in particular the Washington Post, is engaging in clickbait journalism. Their headline revisions have the absolutely foreseeable effect of making the paper's coverage of the story part of the story. The Twitterverse is replete with many online commentators, including several political figures, weighing in, not on the killing of al-Baghdadi, which is a legitimate news event, but on the Washington Post's headline, which is anything but legitimate news--and I will acknowledge the irony in decrying the headline as illegitimate "Fake" news even as I comment at length on it here.

It takes no great stretch of imagination to envision the Washington Post driving a few more mouse clicks, and a few more bits of ad revenue, by creating this controversy. It is speculation, of course, and I do not claim any inside information about this, but it is a speculation that fits the available facts, and the known tendencies of the legacy media to pursue clickbait narratives at the expense of the facts and contexts of a particular story. It is a perfectly proper logical conclusion to impute the outcomes of an action as the intended outcome, and so it is fair to presume, with the evidence of controversy surrounding the Post, that this was the intended outcome.

Clown World, it seems, is to be eternal. Narratives for the sake of revenue truly are the business model of the legacy media, and not even a major news event will motivate them to break away from that profit-driven strategy to treat serious news seriously, with at least some objectivity and some effort to contain biases.

That may be their choice. It is a bad choice. Worse, it is an unnecessary choice.

ISIS has been sufficiently in the minds of Americans--and indeed people around the world--that this event would grab everyone's attention even without clickbait. al-Baghdadi's demise is, ultimately, a positive event for the Western world, but also for the moderate portions of the Islamic world. al-Baghdadi had a bloody hand in bringing about the bloody civil war that has afflicted Syria for years, and on that basis alone a great many Muslim people arguably have cause to breathe a sigh of relief at his passing.

Surely this is interest enough to drive enough mouse clicks, and generate enough ad revenue, to satisfy the heads of the legacy media companies?

For everyone else, the Washington Post headline, and Bloomberg's sanitizing of al-Baghdadi's past, are yet another reminder of how untrustworthy the legacy media truly is, and how skeptical we should be of everything they report. It is no longer an exaggeration to say that if the Washington Post reports the sun rising in the east tomorrow, the smart reader will be up at the crack of dawn to visually confirm the statement.

With many more important news stories out there than the death of the ISIS leader, this disregard for credibility by the legacy media will only serve to drive the readership of alternative media and alternative publications. Organizations such as Breitbart, One America News Network, and The Epoch Times all rightly deserve modest praise for at least acknowledging the reality of ISIS and of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In the wake of the Russian Collusion Hoax, and in the growing mudfest its sequel, "Russian Collusion 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo", this failure by the legacy media to capture a moment by reporting the facts and not their hyperpartisan anti-Trump narratives only serves to underscore how lacking in legitimacy and credibility the legacy media is. 

Truly, the case is being made by the legacy media that to read the legacy media is to be misinformed. With or without clickbait journalism, that is not an image that will sustain the legacy media very far into the future.

26 October 2019

Curtain Call: When Clown World Ends

By now it is virtually a given that the legacy media has abandoned serious journalism and objective reporting in favor of clickbait and propaganda. The evidences are too numerous to deny.

Yet even clickbait and propaganda must yield to the persistence of reality. Write one hundred news articles about the sun rising in the west and tomorrow the sun will still rise in the east. Write one hundred news articles ignoring empirical fact and all one hundred will still be discredited once the facts become clear.

The fatal flaw in the business model of clickbait and propaganda, is that reality always sets in. When it does, we must address the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

Several events in the past forty-eight hours stand as grim reminders of the inevitability of reality:

1. The Federal Reserve Is Losing Control Of Financial Markets And The Money Supply

A story the legacy media has scrupulously kept off the front page of late has been the slightly panicked efforts of the Federal Reserve to keep liquidity in the inter-bank lending ("repo"--for "repurchase agreement") markets, even to the extent of restarting Quantitative Easing (money printing), without calling it Quantitative Easing.

The Fed is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Fed's own data shows they have pursued a relentlessly loose money supply since 2008, and their money printing accounts for nearly all financial market gains since 2009. Inspection of the data shows unequivocally the degree to which the Federal Reserve has more or less willfully inflated asset prices, with neither obvious rhyme nor apparent reason. 

Nor is the Fed alone in their lunacy, as Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank has been flooding Europe with new currency while simultaneously pushing interest rates into the negative, an interest rate structure that is quite toxic to any bank operating on a fractional reserve basis.

These events underscore how little control the Federal Reserve has over financial markets, and hint at how little control the Federal Reserve has ever had. Far from the post-2009 narrative of central bankers "saving" the world economy from collapse and catastrophic deflation, we are seeing a very real possibility central bankers may be the cause of the next economic dislocation. Their heroic acts of salvation are being revealed as the doom they have always been hoping to avoid.

2. Lieutenant General Flynn Was Set Up By The FBI

Many commentators, myself included, have argued at length about the injustice attendant on Mueller's persecution-as-prosecution treatment of General Flynn. To that chorus we can now add Sydney Powell,  Flynn's new defense counsel and a longtime critic of prosecution tactics within the Department of Justice. In her latest court filings, she is making a case for a dismissal on all charges against General Flynn, based on outrageous (and arguably criminal) prosecutorial misconduct.

The core of Powell's argument is that former FBI lawyer and former Peter Strzok mistress Lisa Page had a hand in "editing" the form 302 Strzok by law was required to complete after meeting with General Flynn, and that the original notes of Strzok's interview differ dramatically from the narrative contained within the 302--so much so that Powell makes a clear inference the FBI lied to the court.

Without delving deeply into the merits of Sydney Powell's application to the court on behalf of General Flynn, the materials she references point to a disturbing truth: the FBI Form 302 is an edited document. It is not the notes of an interview, but is a report constructed from those notes--and, at least in General Flynn's case, revised to satisfy elements of the "Deep State". 

Nor is this the first time this criticism has been raised. In July of 2011, criminal defense and civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate raised substantially similar arguments about the propriety of the 302, and the power it has within Federal prosecutions. 

Do we know how many 302 forms have been substantially rewritten to satisfy a prosecutor's agenda, not just as regards President Trump's Administration but across the whole of the Federal criminal justice system? We do not, but it is hardly a leap of logic to postulate it is more than one--and to postulate that more than one Federal prosecution is potentially tainted by the FBI essentially manufacturing evidence against a defendant. If Sydney Powell prevails (as I am not an attorney, I do not have an opinion as to whether she will or will not), how many criminal cases might ultimately have to be overturned as a result of establishing FBI malfeasance in a case?

Far from a narrative of the Mueller Investigation proving the corruption of Donald Trump, the facts of the Mueller Investigation are proving the corruption of the FBI and the reality of the Deep State within the bureaucracy of the Federal government.

3. US Attorney John Durham Is Opening A Criminal Investigation Into The Russian Collusion Hoax

Narratives notwithstanding, the Mueller Investigation into what must now be acknowledged as the Russian Collusion Hoax was an unmitigated disaster for the legacy media and those deeply invested in that narrative. Robert Mueller drove a stake through the heart of any theory President Trump colluded, conspired, or cooperated with Russian government actors. He did not.

What Mueller did establish by demolishing the narrative of Russian Collusion was that there were those within and without the Federal government willing to deceive, dissemble, and outright lie in order to bring down the Trump Presidency. Even as Mueller failed to follow up with indictments of Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, the investigation did reveal the corruption and mendaciousness behind the efforts to unseat President Trump.

Politicians attempting to sabotage and upstage their opponents is nothing new.  What is at the very least "different", however, is the extent to which people were willing to go in that sabotage, all dutifully written up by a compliant legacy media. US Attorney John Durham is accumulating evidence of that extent, and has reached a tentative conclusion that there was a bit of criminality involved. As the Russian Collusion narrative collapses, people find themselves running afoul of the very laws they casually dismissed.

The media pursued and peddled the myth of Russian Collusion from well before the start of the Mueller investigation until Mueller's sad denouement before the House Judiciary Committee. Mueller's ultimate debunking of that hoax shredded the legacy media's credibility, even as it cost them dearly in terms of ratings and viewers.


Those who pursued the narrative of Russian Collusion relentlessly are now at risk of seeing that narrative boomerang directly back at them.

Narrative is fiction. Consequences are reality. 

This is the eternal danger of narrative: regardless of the fictions spun in pursuit of the narrative, the consequences are firmly bound to reality.

Narrative is fiction. Consequences are reality. 

This has always been so. As Matt Taibibi notes in his deconstruction of the media hysteria surrounding the Russian Collusion Hoax, the narrative of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction was fed by government bureaucrats wanting an excuse to invade Iraq. The consequence was an invasion of Iraq, with thousands of American soldiers dead, thousands more horribly injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured, and a country that is barely governed, and has given succor to the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists.

Nor is this a recent phenomenon: The 1898 sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor helped propel the United States into war with Spain, driven in large part by salacious and sloppy reporting by the "Yellow Press" of the day. The narrative of Spanish sabotage and sloganeering resulted in real war, with thousands of real deaths.

Narrative is fiction. Consequences are reality.

This is the constant caution we must heed as we read and watch either the legacy media or the alternative media bidding to replace it. News stories are, first and foremost, stories. At best they are a restatement of reality, one journalist's reinterpretation of facts as he or she observes them to be. At worst, they are a departure from reality. Most lie somewhere in between.

What no story in the media, legacy or alternative, can ever be is reality itself. A news report quoting an individual is not the reality of either that individual or that quote, but merely a citation of the fact that said individual made said quote. Whether the story contains sufficient nuance, sufficient context, to frame such quote properly is inherently problematic. All media reporting operates within that limitation.

Every story, be it objective reporting or Clown World propaganda, must come to an end. After that final paragraph, after that closing statement, reality invariably sets in. The real world returns in full force, every time. It is in the real world that we must live, and it is in the real world that we must choose, decide, and act. It is in the real world that consequences will apply.

Narrative is fiction. Consequences are reality.

We are well advised to be mindful of the consequences, not only to ourselves but to the central characters of any narrative. If a government official becomes a "whistleblower", what will become of him? If a Congressman or Senator becomes embroiled in controversy, what outcomes are just and proper? If American troops are dispatched into an overseas conflict, how many of them will not come back alive?

The news events of the past week have been a stark reminder that narratives end, that Clown World must end. What remains is the equally stark reality--the reality of the parlous nature of our economy, the reality of prosecutorial abuse of General Flynn, the reality of the crimes committed in advancing the Russian Collusion Hoax. That the legacy media is shamelessly starting new narratives, new arcs for their propaganda, will not change the reality by so much as a punctuation mark.

The curtain call comes for every drama. The denouement awaits every narrative. Clown World must end. Reality will prevail--every time. Be prepared for reality, not for Clown World.

Narrative is fiction. Consequences are reality.

19 October 2019

Welcome To Clownworld

America must love a good cat fight.

How else can we view the latest lunacy of the legacy media, which is giving serious treatment to the latest conspiracy theory to emerge from the one-time Queen of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton: flailing and wholly irrelevant Democratic 2020 Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset.

CNN believes this is actually "news". Seriously.

Even the alternative media weighed in on the circus, as ZeroHedge summarized the Twitter "war" that arose when Tulsi Gabbard responded by tweeting out that Hillary Clinton was the "queen of the warmongers":

Welcome to clownworld.

Let us be clear about this much: Whatever her politics, Tulsi Gabbard serves in the National Guard, has deployed multiple times to combat zones, in addition to being a four-term Congresswoman from Hawaii. The claim that she is in league with the Russian government, or of any government hostile to the interests of the United States, is an extraordinary one for which extraordinary evidence must be provided before the claim can be taken seriously. Hillary Clinton has provided no such evidence.

Since Hillary's claim cannot be taken seriously on its face, we are quite justified in considering what alternative motivations might exist for such a claim. We do not need to look very far, merely as far as the forefront of the Democratic 2020 contenders: Elizabeth Warren.

It is known that Hillary Clinton has been having behind the scenes meetings with Elizabeth Warren, the substance of which is not publicly disclosed. It is widely assumed among Democrats that a lack of support for Warren from Hillary Clinton would be "counterproductive." Hillary Clinton's public commentary in this Presidential cycle has not mentioned Elizabeth Warren at all.

Then we have the impact of Hillary's comments. This is the relative news search interest among Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren the day before Hillary made her remarks:


Note that Warren and Biden are in rough parity, in keeping with their status as co-frontrunners in the race.

Consider the change in News Search interest in just 24 hours:


With a single conspiracy theory, Hillary Clinton pushed both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren right off the front page pretty much everywhere. With "friends" like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren surely has no need of enemies.

It is purely speculation on my part, but I venture to say that talks between Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton have not gone well.

What is not speculation is that I have just provided more evidence that Hillary Clinton is actually attacking Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton has provided regarding Tulsi Gabbard's presumed ties to Russia, something I pointed out on Gab at the time.


There is an alternate conspiracy theory to consider: Tulsi Gabbard needs notoriety to stay in the hunt for the Democratic nomination.  Part of her response to Hillary Clinton's intemperate attack has been to make another plea for campaign contributions. Given the fact that, as of this moment, the hashtag "#IAmTulsi" is the number two trening topic on Twitter within the United States, the notion this was instigated by Tulsi Gabbard cannot be dsimissed.

What can be dismissed is that Tulsi Gabbard is in any position to contemplate any sort of independent run for President. With between 1% and 3% support in the polls making up the RealClearPolitics aggregate, Tulsi Gabbar has almost no following or constituency to support her bid for the Presidency.

What should not be dismissed are the news stories the legacy media is ignoring while it focuses on the inane and irrelevant.

While the legacy media pontificates over the Clinton-Gabbard catfight, the alternative media is exploring the shrinking global market for automobiles, and the recessionary impacts this has.

While the legacy media swoons over Tulsi Gabbard tweeting back smack to counter Hillary Clinton, alternative media outlet Human Events is documenting the plight of the Uyghurs in western China, and Beijing's campaign of genocide against them.

While the legacy media marinates in melodrama, ZeroHedge highlighted the constant struggle the Federal Reserve has had the past several weeks maintaining liquidity in this country's financial systems. If you only read the legacy financial media outlets you would not know America's financial systems are flirting with a 2008-style lockup, and the Federal Reserve is unable to get ahead of the problem--a rather significant oversight by the legacy media.

There is news people need. There are stories that must be told. There are stories of profound human interest that should prick our collective conscience. A twitter cage match between Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton is not one of those stories. Nor is a twitter blood feud between Tulsi and the legacy media over their "smears" directed towards her and her campaign.

The legacy media would rather cover Tulsi vs Hillary than provide actual news. The legacy media would rather serve up digital "bread and circuses" than meaningful, substantive content.

I will keep beating the same drum as in my last post, for the message is that important:
Read broadly. Read critically. Read for quality, and reward quality. Set high expectations for those who would call themselves "journalists". Critique, criticize, and challenge everything and everyone.
I will be blunt: clickbait works. I know clickbait works. Even I phrase my tweets and Gabs and other social media with an eye towards attracting intention and inviting response. Like every other blogger and would-be commentator and journalist, I want to be noticed. I will not be so much the hypocrite as to pretend otherwise.

Yet I want to be noticed for having something to say. I want to be noticed for having provoked a bit of thought, an occasional discussion, an inspiration to research independently and explore with a critical eye the world around us.   

I want people to know all the stories that are out there, A people cannot be truly free if they are not accurately and fully informed. Throughout the evolution of this blog, presenting information and encouraging discussion and debate have always been the overarching theme (I leave it to the reader to decide how well I succeed in this objective).

Sadly, the legacy media no longer appears to share this objective, if indeed it ever did. The extent to which the alternative media shares this objective is problematic, with some independent journalists such as Tim Pool, creator behind Subverse, striving to remove the spin and the clickbait from journalism, while other commentators preferring to wallow in various episodes of melodrama. This is a shame, for the world is rich with stories to tell--some good, some bad, some uplifting, some depressing, all important and relevant to everyone.

The warning and the caveat remains: If we are to once again have a truly free press, the one thing we must absolutely stop doing is trusting the press. Doubt and skepticism must become our cardinal virtues whenever we read anything that would presume to present "the news".

Do not trust anything. Verify everything. And look beyond the legacy media to see all that is happening in the world.

15 October 2019

All The World's A Stage. All The Media Are Very Bad Actors

What are people to do when the legacy media DELIBERATELY LIE?

Are any of them capable of telling the truth about #Syria? Or anything else?

Never trust the media. Verify instead.

This was the question I posed on social media earlier, after reading Paul Joseph Watson's Summit News article about journalist Kurt Eichenwald using a phony image to promote a false narrative regarding President Trump's recent decisions to pull back in Syria.

Sadly, this was not the only outright lie told by the legacy media on this story. ABC News spread a video of a live-fire display at a Kentucky military show as footage of actual combat in Syria. They were quickly forced to retract the video and tweet out an apology of sorts.

Additionally, while it is difficult to confirm, the media's reports of massacred Christians and Kurds in Syria by the invading Turkish army are at least somewhat contradicted by other reports claiming no such massacres have occurred.

Nor is Syria the only recent example of deliberate Fake News. A recent Fox News poll purportedly showing a significant upsurge in support for the impeachment and removal of President Trump was so obviously and ham-handedly skewed that even Fox News commntators felt obliged to call it out.

The legacy media is also the mendacious media. The legacy media is the lying media.

Why do they lie?

Certainly ratings is one reason. Some media organizations, such as McClatchy, have latched on to Fake News as a means of financial survival. They've made the conscious decision that tabloid trash is more reliable revenue than objective journalism.

Personal biases and hatreds is another. As Project Veritas documents in their "Expose CNN" piece, Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN, hates President Trump with a passion, and so all CNN news is targeted against Donald Trump, facts and journalism be damned.

If malice is not enough motive, there is also stupidity--witness the New York Times trundling out yet again the ludicrous and discredited notion the 25 Amendment is a substitute for actual impeachment.

The legacy media is not merely getting stories wrong. These are not accidents. These are deliberate efforts to misinform and misguide the public. These are deliberate efforts to ignore important stories and essential contexts to promote demonstrably false narratives. 

While the legacy media is pushing their propaganda, they are also ignoring central banks openly discussing the possibility of a financial system collapse and a return to the gold standard.

While the legacy media is pushing their propaganda, they are ignoring a growing body of real, verifiable evidence contradicting every aspect of the Democrats latest machination to impeach Donald Trump.

While the legacy media is pushing their propaganda, they remain committed to ignoring the dangers and potentials for harm their narratives can bring, as one young woman improperly given transgender hormonal therapies discovered to the permanent detriment of her health.

While the legacy media is pushing their propaganda, they shamelessly ignore other aspects of complex stories such as Brexit, only to be caught flat-footed when the EU blinks and admits that it needs a Brexit deal perhaps even more than the UK.

What the legacy media is showing is that it is not enough to merely have a free press. A free society must have a free press that is committed to freedom. A free society must have a free press that seeks to inform even as it seeks to increase its revenue streams. People cannot make wise and informed decisions if they are prevented from having all relevant and available information, and what we are witnessing is the intentional efforts by the legacy media to withhold or corrupt that information.

Without a commitment to a full presentation of the facts, and honest coverage of all stories, not just the preferred narratives. we do not have a truly free press. By promoting propaganda, the legacy media are chained to propaganda.

What can the ordinary reader do about this? That was the question posed initially, and that is the question that must be answered.

Of course there is the obvious response: "Never trust. Verify instead."  No reader should blithely trust any media source. As i have stated, and as alt media journalist Tim Pool states repeatedly, "fact check me." Challenge what journalists, analysts, and commentators say, whether they are legacy media or alt media.

Accept that every media source is biased. CNN obviously is, and so is the New York Times. So is Tim Pool. So am I. Anyone presenting information will always present it through the lens of his own perceptions and perspectives. Anyone saying they are completely "objective" is lying, including to themselves.

Recognize there is a difference between "infotainment" and actual news. The first seeks only to entertain, while the second seeks to educate and inform. The bulk of the legacy media, particularly the online cable television shows, falls under the catgory of infotainment. Approach it with caution.

Recognize also that what matters most are the facts. It does not matter if a quote appears in the New York Times, or CNN, or in WND, or in the Epoch Times. It does not matter where a bit of commentary or analysis resides, be it this blog or the Washington Post or even Infowars. The facts are what they are, and opinions are as they are.  Take all of them with a grain of salt, and formulate your own opinions, your own understanding of things.

Understand that narratives frame the news. Narratives are never the news, and should not be taken as news. It might be entertaining to watch Hannity air his opinions for an hour every night, but his opinions about the evils of the Democrats or the virtues of Donald Trump are simply that--his opinions. The same holds true for Rachel Maddow, Laura Ingraham, and even the alt media personalities such as Wayne Dupree and Tim Pool.

Note that observation is not criticism. I follow both Wayne Dupree and Tim Pool on social media, and I pay attention to what they have to say. I take note of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham as well. I do not disparage them by saying their content is primarily opinion, I merely acknowledge the limitations inherent in such content. My own material suffers from the same limitations. These are my thought, my ideas, my opinions; they are never more nor less than this.

As a side note, please recognize that I am deliberately not linking to any of the media personalities I mention here. All are readily found online, and I encourage one and all to look them up, along with the many others a simple search engine query will reveal. Their mention is not an endorsement of either their content or their views, merely an acknowledgement they exist.

Which is the final recommendation I have for confronting a mendacious and duplicitous legacy media. Recognize that alternative outlets and sources do exist. Do not shy away from Breitbart, or the Epoch Times, or CNS, or One America News Network, merely because they fall outside that pool of media sources collectively termed "legacy media". If they present good arguments built on good information using good logic their material is as worthy of consideration as any celebrity talking head on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. The one thing the Internet has brought all of us is a proliferation of choices--seek out and embrace all of it.

Read broadly. Read critically. Read for quality, and reward quality. Set high expectations for those who would call themselves "journalists". Critique, criticize, and challenge everything and everyone.

All the world is indeed a stage. Sadly, all the media are indeed very bad actors upon that stage. All the media is susceptible to the perils of shoddy presentation, inadequate research, and incomplete analysis. All the media is susceptible to the corruption of coin--clickbait is often more lucrative and easier to produce than solid fact-based news.

If we are to once again have a truly free press, the one thing we must absolutely stop doing is trusting the press. Doubt and skepticism must become our cardinal virtues whenever we read anything that would presume to present "the news".

Do not trust anything. Verify everything.






  

12 October 2019

Look For Rumors Not Just Of War, But Also Recession, Trial, And Tribulation

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

This caution by Jesus to His disciples stands as one of the most eloquent reminders that bad things happen, and whatever else one must not panic. Not every piece of bad news is a sign of imminent Rapture.

"Don't Panic" is good advice even without mentioning End Of Days or Climate Change (no apologies to Saint Greta of Thunberg, who delights in calling for panic). Very little that is either productive or helpful arises from panic.

Yet we should not confuse calm with complacency. We should remain calm, always, but we must also acknowledge we have plenty about which to be concerned.

We have war, of course: Not only is there seemingly endless war in Syria even as President Trump seeks to disengage from that perpetual conflict, but Iran and Saudi Arabia are enjoying endless proxy war, lately expressing itself in tit for tat strikes--Iran's tankers have been attacked in the Red Sea just weeks after Saudi Arabia's main oil processing facility was attacked by Iranian drones and cruise missiles.

We have rumors of war, particularly in Hong Kong, as Chinese President Xi Jinping hints at but stops short of threatening the pro-democracy protesters .there with an invasion. We have the foreign minister of Pakistan prattling about "accidental war" with neighbor and sworn enemy India.

Yet these are merely the most superficial layer of distressing news. Peel these back and we such much, much more.

Worried about epidemic disease? We have the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Africa spreading from the Congo all the way to Dar es Salaam on the coast of Tanzania. Also, the so-called "Pig Ebola" (African Swine Fever) outbreak in China is putting a serious strain on China's food supply.

War, Famine, and Pestilence.  The rumor mill is churning out three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Looking for rumors of looming if not imminent financial collapse? We have those in abundance, as both the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve engage in monetary madness.

That is not even considering the many warning signs that global recession is either upon us, about to be upon us, or perhaps never truly left us. Not only is small business formation in the United States in serious decline, but the soon-to-be-completed Brexit process of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union is projected to inflict significant job loss continent-wide. South Korea's exports--primarily of semiconductors and microprocessors--are in significant decline. Germany's manufacturing base appears to be in full blown recession and is already pulling the rest of the EU along with it.

Wars. Rumors of war. Rumors of just about everything else, as well--recession threats, trials, and tribulations abound.

You will be forgiven if you were not aware of some of these items. With the exception of the situation in Hong Kong and the flare-up of violence in Syria, very little of this has received front-page attention by the legacy media. The Tales of Trump, including the latest installment of the Democrats' impeachment drama, "Russian Collusion 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo" has been the chosen narrative of the moment. The sad and sober truth of the legacy media is that narratives involving President Trump are more revenue-enhancing than other, arguably more serious and consequential stories, of which I have outlined but a few.

Perversely, even just highlighting some of these news items might seem to be a call to panic, because without the mass publication of these stories by the legacy media, the call to attention easily becomes the call to alarm. Yet a moment's reflection suffices to demonstrate this is not so. The call to attention is merely the constant reminder that, to be well and truly informed, one must get the facts.

Indeed, if there is one thing about which we should be alarmed it is that these rumors of recession, trial, and tribulation, these reminders that the Four Horsemen are never far behind us, are studiously ignored by the legacy media. Deliberately, they choose to hype the Tales of Trump and Democrat Impeachment Coup nonsense.

How else to explain The New York Times rolling out yet another installment of the "Trump Is Crazy" canard, invoking yet again the mysterious magic of the 25th Amendment to allow Democrats to overrule the voters?

How else to explain that presumably "conservative" and "pro Trump" Fox News published a poll purporting to show broad support for impeaching President Trump and removing him from office, a poll so skewed, so obviously biased and even manufactured, even Fox commentators such as Greg Gutfeld were compelled to call it out as an example of "Fake News"?

How else to explain McClatchy's repeated decision to run demonstrably false anti-Trump news stories as a means to prop up the newspaper chain's failing finances?

Rather than report facts, the legacy media promotes "narrative". They peddle propaganda. They hype hysteria. They promote panic. Indulgence in alliteration notwithstanding, this is not an exaggeration nor an hysterical suggestion. The facts support this--and only this--logical assessment of the legacy media.

The legacy media has made panic the center of its clickbait business model. I submit it is for this reason they make a media sensation out of 16-year old Greta Thunberg and her obsessions with climate change, without regard to her complete lack of substantive commentary on the topic.  I submit it is for this reason the legacy media chooses to dwell on their reality-show-news political dramas "The Tales of Trump" and "Russian Collusion 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo" rather than give any serious attention to any of the news stories I have mentioned here. 

The legacy media want you to panic. They want you to believe that the United States government is crumbling under the assault of Donald Trump and his fascist family. They want you to believe the Earth will burst into flames at any minute. They want you to believe that behind every smile of every person past a certain age lies unspeakable hatred, anger, and violence. They want you to obsess over the Tales of Trump and ignore these other, more relevant, more meaningful news stories.

They want you to panic. I want you to not panic.

Fight back against the media-manufactured hysteria. Fight back against the media's call for panic. Fight back by not panicking. 

Fight back by calmly reading and listening to entire stories. Fight back by asking questions,  Fight back by pursuing all worthy stories--and fight back also by developing a keen eye for when a news story is not backed up by the facts. Fight back by learning the facts.

Above all, fight back by seeking out the stories the media does not want to tell you, the stories the government does not wish you to know. Learn the contexts, seek out the nuance. Look for the rumors not just of war, but also recession, trial, and tribulation. Look for those rumors, those neglected stories, and take the time to research the actual facts behind those stories. 

Read, observe, and, most especially, think. Lead the media where you want the reporting to go. Demand they report on the stories that are relevant to you. Demand they report on the rumors, not just of war but also recession, trial, and tribulation.

Never panic. Never trust. Always verify instead.

06 October 2019

Not Only A Lost Decade, But A False Decade

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once observed that “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” A great many notable economists from Ludwig von Mises and Friederich Hayak to the progressive (and frequently pandering) Paul Krugman have commented at length on the intersection of economics and politics, and of the correlation between a free society and a free marketplace, culminating in the Friedman quote just cited.

If we are to have a free society, we must have free markets. If we are to have free markets, we must have a free society.

Thus it is when the Federal Reserve's policy statements and forward guidances on interest rates are treated with scorn by financial markets, we should pay attention. When central banks around the world pursue interest rate policies that are demonstrably harmful to the world's banking systems, we should pay attention. When the Federal Reserve appears to talk out of both sides of its institutional mouth, we should pay attention.

We should ask questions. We should seek answers.

What we should not do is trust the media. As has become all too apparent, the media is less interested in informing than it is in entertaining. Narrative has displaced even a biased presentation of facts, and many of the media narratives have been shown to be demonstrably false.

Thus, when I witness the nonsensical statements that have been made by officials of the Federal Reserve, such as Fed Chairman Jay Powell's disingenuous statement recently that the economy "is in a good place" even as the Fed mounted emergency "repo" operations to inject liquidity into financial markets--emergency actions are not my notion of a "good place"--or Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Raphael Bostic proclamation the US economy is not headed into a recession, glossing over the aforementioned "emergency" actions by the Fed, the desire to research and answer the question "what the heck is going on here?" becomes overpowering.

In an essay I posted on LinkedIn last year, I argued that the essential question in any analytical framework is "does this make sense?" Any explanation for anything has to make sense or it is of no value. The logic has to be consistent, it has to be complete, and it has to be comprehensible; when it is neither consistent, nor complete, nor comprehensible, the one conclusion we must draw is that more research is needed.

Accordingly, after reading on ZeroHedge and other sites various criticisms of Federal Reserve monetary policy--all of which had compelling arguments behind them--it had become clear that a greater familiarity with the actual data underpinning reports of that policy was needed. While I am no professional economist, I do believe in doing my own research on important matters, and so I set out to perform a bit of research and analysis on my own, using only raw data, independent of any other analysis or report.  This post is the results of that research.

The data sets I used were the historical M1 money supply data downloaded from the Federal Reserve, going back to January 1 1997, the historical monthly CPI numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics going back to the same date, and the historical Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 stock indices, reported monthly and also going back to January 1, 1997.

Those wishing to review my source data may download a file with the data sets gathered together in either Excel format or in CSV format.

The questions in my mind were as follows:
  • How did the Federal Reserve find itself confronted with a crisis of liquidity during the month of September, 2019?
  • How is it that, after more than a decade of near zero interest rates and "quantitative easing" by the Federal Reserve, inflation has not ever materialized in the US economy (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter)?
I began by focusing on the reported size of the money supply from the Fed, looking at both the M1 and M2 numbers. The M1 money stock figure is that amount of money readily available for spending--physical currency and deposits in various on-demand bank accounts--whereas the M2 figure includes "near money" accounts such as various money market accounts and time deposit instruments. There had been a third figure, the M3, which included an even broader array of money equivalents, but reporting of that figure was discontinued by the Federal Reserve in 2006.

The M1 and M2 charts are fairly mundane and even predictable.

One point that is fascinating about the M2 curve was that there was no dramatic spike up beginning in 2008/2009, when the Federal Reserve instituted quantitative easing policies in response to the 2008 financial crisis. "Quantitative Easing" is broadly defined as an expansion of a central bank's open market operations, which are specifically intended to increase the money supply. There is an upward trend in the the M1 figure, but in moving from the M1 measure to the M2, the increase in money effectively disappears.

In part, this is almost certainly due to more rapid expansion of the M2 money stock vs the M1. Going back to at least 1997, the differential between the two figures is steadily increasing.

If we look at just the M1 in isolation, we do see a significant upward trend beginning in 2009, which is exactly what quantitative easing would produce.
But here is also the first surprise. The official Fed pronouncements on quantitative easing declared the quantitative easing programs to be fully ended on October 29, 2014. Yet the pace of money creation did not show any signs of diminishing until 2017. There is at most a brief pause in 2014-2015, after which the pace of money creation resumed.  This presumably was during a time of gradual tightening by the Federal Reserve. Either the Federal Reserve is greatly misinformed about the impacts of its various operations, or it was greatly deceptive in describing the same.

The initial rationale for quantitative easing was easy enough to understand: with stock markets plummeting and financial markets seizing up, the Federal Reserve wanted to avoid a repeat of the mistakes in an earlier era, when the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to shrink dramatically following the 1929 stock market crash, producing the deflationary downward spiral known as the Great Depression. Based on that rationale, and based on the behavior of the stock market indices in the wake of the Fed QE policy, quantitative easing certainly appears to have been a success, in that it prevented complete stock market collapse. This, at least is what the performance of the S&P 500 stock index shows.

After giving up all of the gains made between 1997 and 2008, the S&P began climbing steadily starting in 2008, and has largely kept on climbing.

Another curious aspect of the Fed's quantitative easing program was that it failed to produce significant inflation.  As this chart from Trading Economics shows, inflation during the past ten years has only rarely been above 2%, and only briefly below 0% (deflation) during 2008/2009.



The Consumer Price Index--the change in which is the primary benchmark for inflation--shows the same lack of inflation.


In monetarist economic theory--the primary developer of which was Milton Friedman--expanding the money supply ultimately produces inflation, as too many dollars end up chasing too few goods and services. The lack of inflation after 2008 would appear to discredit much of this.

Or did it?

(If you have hung with me this long, I promise this is where we get to the point of this entire post).

If we set the money supply, the CPI, and various stock market indices to a baseline value of 100, thereby eliminating differences in scale and units of measure, we can look at all of the values together. When we do, something interesting and unexpected shows up.

Prior to 2008, CPI and the M1 track very closely together, with only minor and transient deviations. The stock market indices, however, show absolutely no correlation to changes in the money supply.  The stock bubbles of 2000 and 2008 occurred without any dramatic expansion in the M1 money supply.

After 2008, however, the exact opposite is true.  The stock indices move along roughly the same upward slope as the M1 money supply, and the CPI continues on its same roughly linear trajectory completely divorced from the money supply. Only in 2017 do the stock indices show any sign of breaking free from the M1 trajectory.

What do we make of this? How do we explain this?

To my layman's eye, what this is showing is the reason why the Fed's quantitative easing strategies did not produce measurable inflation--the increase in the money stock never filtered out into the broader economy, but was completely soaked up by financial markets. Within financial markets, we see exactly the sort of inflation we would expect to see when the money supply expands.

There is something else that this chart suggests, something which is fairly disturbing. It suggests that much, if not all, of the economic growth posted during Barack Obama's Presidency was merely inflation--that there was no real growth at all

This is further suggested if we reset the baseline to January 1 2008:


The deflationary sag in 2008 is of course the consequence of the financial crisis in that year and the onset of the "Great Recession". Yet the deflationary "sag" never really disappears, as both the CPI and the stock indices run below the M1 growth level, and to an increasing degree over time. The influx of dollars into the economy did not produce a corresponding level of inflation even within financial markets. Moreover, if we were to flatten out the M1 chart (i.e., express the money supply in terms of constant dollars), we would see the stock indices as well as the CPI declining.  This would be especially true after the formal end of quantitative easing, where we see the M1 trend line essentially unchanged but the S&P 500 and DJIA lines appear to flatten out for a time

In other words, quantitative easing only served to mask deflation that was triggered by the 2008 financial crisis.

Only in recent years do we see this trend change.  Resetting the baseline to 2016, we see the stock indices finally running above the M1 curve, showing a rise in asset prices in real term, and not just due to the inflationary effects of growth in the money supply.

Real economic growth did not occur in the United States, it seems, until around 2016-2017. The policy of monetary stimulus begun in 2008 almost completely failed to stimulate, in large part because the money created by the Fed never trickled out into the general economy. Rather, it remained bottled up in the financial markets, which is to say it was parked on the balance sheets of the nation's banks--nominally there, but completely idle.

Thus we have a preliminary answer to the questions posed at the beginning. The Federal Reserve found itself facing a liquidity crisis over the past few weeks because the financial markets have been fundamentally illiquid since 2008, with banks essentially sitting on all the new money created. By the same token, quantitative easing never produced core inflation because the money created never made it into the general economy.

This also means that quantitative easing could not have had any material impact on the general economy, and only a muted impact on financial markets. The monetary stimulus of quantitative easing fundamentally failed to stimulate.

Having arrived at that conclusion, the next step was to test the conclusion using an independent metric.  For this I downloaded the reported Real GDP data from the St Louis Federal Reserve for the same time period, January 1, 1997 to the present, and charted it against money supply growth, again using a baseline of January 1, 1997.

Two things at once leap out. First, prior to 2008 there was rough correlation between money supply, inflation, and GDP growth. Second, beginning in 2008, the money supply decoupled from GDP growth. There is no comparison to be made between the two measures after 2008.  Drilling into the GDP and CPI numbers, however, is insightful.  Notice what happens when we set a baseline of January 1, 2008 for both metrics:

For most of the decade since Janaury 1, 2008, the CPI inflation curve is above the real GDP curve. Thus, even while the economy was technically growing, inflation was growing faster, and the economy overall was losing ground to inflation.  Only when we reset the baseline to January 1, 2016, do we see the real GDP curve rising above the CPI.
From January, 2008, until approximately July, 2017, the CPI curve lies above the GDP curve, yielding the same conclusion that a comparison of the money supply and stock indices produces--that there was little to no actual economic expansion under Barack Obama, and it is only during the past two years that the economy has expanded in real terms at all.  All previous GDP "growth" from 2008 onward can be ascribed almost entirely to inflation.

A further note on Real GDP and inflation: the Real GDP data is "real" because it has already been adjusted to account for inflation, using "deflator" factors calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (these deflator factors are similar in concept to CPI but differ in computation). The Real GDP data currently available from the St Louis Fed reports Real GDP in "chained 2012 dollars". 

Yet if Real GDP is already adjusted for inflation, there should be no correlation between Real GDP and the CPI (the benchmark measure for inflation). Real GDP is supposed to reflect economic growth independent of inflation, and independence precludes correlation. We should no more see Real GDP and CPI following similar trend lines from a common base year than we should see stock market indices and the money supply following similar trend lines. Yet we see both. 

These graphs show that, since 2008, there is a strong and persistent correlation between Real GDP and inflation via the CPI. Only very recently do the graphs deviate from each other. If Real GDP fully accounted for inflation, we should see significant variations between the trend lines, and we do not. We see this lack of correlation between 1997 and 2008, but the trend lines converge in 2008.


As the earlier graphs show, when we start from 2008 and 2016, Real GDP and CPI lie on very similar lines, and only in 2017/2018 do we begin to see any significant variation.

Thus, the conclusion from above is confirmed: The monetary stimulus of quantitative easing fundamentally failed to stimulate. It certainly did not stimulate the general economy. Looking at the trend line in GDP growth, very little if anything has had a stimulative effect on the economy. Stimulus would show as fluctuations in the trend line, appearing as the stock market bubbles did in the early 2000's, rising above the money supply only to drop back down again when the bubbles burst. The trend lines on GDP growth have been almost linear since the Great Recession.

Again quoting Milton Friedman, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." The policies of the Federal Reserve might have been well intentioned, but, looking at the data those policies produced, looking at the results, can we truly say those policies have been appropriate, effective, and successful?

No, we cannot.

These data sets tell a story vastly different from what the legacy media has reported, and continues to report. The legacy media argues that, after the "Great Recession", economic growth resumed and has continued on largely the same trajectory under President Trump as under President Obama. However, that assertion ignores the fact that inflation overcame almost all of the economic growth of the Obama years. While CNN crowed that Barack Obama had been one of the "best" Presidents for the stock market, most if not all stock market gains appear to have been the result of the Federal Reserve printing money during his term of office.

Much like Russian Collusion, the Obama Recovery appears to have been a long, drawn-out hoax foisted upon the American people by a corrupted and co-opted legacy media, pushing a particular narrative without regard for what the objective facts themselves indicate. Not only has the United States gone through a demonstrable "lost decade" of economic stagnation from which it has only recently and still briefly emerged, but it has endured a "false decade" of media denials that such stagnation was even occurring. While the legacy media paints a picture of the US economy being rescued from collapse by the bold efforts of then Fed Chairman Benjamin Bernanke and President Obama, the real story is considerably less flattering: given that Ben Bernanke arguably triggered the 2008 financial crisis with a series of interest rate hikes in 2006, his program of "quantitative easing" failed to clean up the economic mess he helped cause, while the best that can be said of Barack Obama is that he did not make things measurably worse.

The real story is that, in many regards, financial markets have truly not recovered from the 2008 financial crisis, and we are seeing the after-effects of that massive correction reverberate more than a decade on. We are seeing financial markets dependent upon constant streams of new liquidity just to function normally day to day.  We are seeing banks still failing "stress tests" that examine how their loan portfolios respond under "worst case" assumptions. We see large banks such as JP Morgan pulling cash out of their balance on deposit with the Fed in response to the Fed taking steps to trim its own very large balance sheet (the more the Fed sheds its portfolio of bonds acquired in the aftermath of 2008, the more cash banks pull out of the reserves on deposit with the Fed), thus triggering the September liquidity crunch.

The real story is that the Federal Reserve, and perhaps all of the world's central banks, have lost what little control over money supplies, interest rates, and financial markets they ever had. 

The real story is that even as the legacy media covers the real story, it continues to bury the lede, and assure the world that all is well.

The real story is that central banks are locked into a perpetual cycle of money creation, and woe betide the currency whose central bank opts to stop the printing presses. 

The real story is that the great unanswered question even now, more than a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, central banks still do not have an answer to the question "what happens when the music stops....again?"

Is the US headed for a repeat of 2008? It is quite possible--and there is no way to know for certain. The financial crisis of 2008 had its origins in the US, but first boiled over in Europe. Perhaps that history will repeat itself. Europe certainly has its share of banking and economic challenges, with the ECB arguably intentionally poisoning European banking systems with negative interest rates, even as Europe slides into recession and a chaotic Brexit looming on the horizon. It hardly requires a degree in economics or finance to envision a global banking crisis originating in Europe and spreading to the rest of the world.

What is certain is that central bank money printing cannot continue indefinitely. There is a limit, beyond which people lose faith in fiat money, where the printing presses simply will not suffice.

What is also certain is that the "too big to fail" big banks are inextricably tied to the Fed's current liquidity problems just as they were tied to the 2008 financial crisis.

And what is also certain is that this story, as with so many other relevant stories, has been and will continue to be underreported and misreported by the legacy media. There will be no crisis acknowledged until the crisis is too big to be avoided.