Find The Lowest Price HERE

By Tyler Durden

Authored by Dmitry Orlov,

Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no “smoking gun”—no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance or evil intent—but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis à vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent it did everything possible to further Russia’s agenda. And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama’s failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent… at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally irrelevant in world affairs. Let’s examine Obama’s major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international body.

Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia, Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to hurt Russia, but let’s look at the results instead of the intentions.

• First, Russia regained control of an important, strategic region.
• Second, the sanctions and the countersanctions allowed Russia to concentrate on import replacement, building up the domestic economy. This was especially impressive in agriculture, and Russia now earns more export revenue from foodstuffs than from weapons.
• Third, the severing of economic ties with the Ukraine allowed Russia to eliminate a major economic competitor.
• Fourth, over a million Ukrainians decided to move to Russia, either temporarily or permanently, giving Russia a major demographic boost and giving it access to a pool of Russian-speaking skilled labor. (Most Ukrainians are barely distinguishable from the general Russian population.)
• Fifth, whereas before the Ukraine was in a position to extort concessions from Russia by playing games with the natural gas pipelines that lead from Russia to the European Union, now Russia’s hands have been untied, resulting in new pipeline deals with Turkey and Germany.

In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an unsavory, embarrassing dependent.

Obama’s next “achievement” was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac. (Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting …read more

Source: Is Obama A Russian Agent?

100% Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Appetite Suppressant – Carb Blocker Capsules – 2100 MG – 90 Caps

Find The Lowest Price HERE

By Tyler Durden

As politicians and mainstream media blast Trump's apparently incendiary tweet regarding nuclear arms, none other than President Obama just signed legislation that, by striking a single word from longstanding US nuclear defence policy, could heighten tensions with Russia and China and launch the country on an expensive effort to build space-based defense systems.

Oh the irony… Following Trump's tweet…

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016

The mainstream media has lambasted the president-elect for “endangering the world” and “starting another nuclear arms race.” However, that same mainstream media appears mute in their response to what President Obama just did…

The National Defence Authorisation Act, a year-end policy bill encompassing virtually every aspect of the US military, contained two provisions with potentially momentous consequences. As AP reports,

One struck the word “limited” from language describing the mission of the country’s homeland missile defence system. The system is said to be designed to thwart a small-scale attack by a non-superpower such as North Korea or Iran.

A related provision calls for the Pentagon to start “research, development, test and evaluation” of space-based systems for missile defence.

Together, the provisions signal that the US will seek to use advanced technology to defeat both small-scale and large-scale nuclear attacks.

That could unsettle the decades-old balance of power among the major nuclear states.

Huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress approved the policy changes over the past month, with virtually no public debate.

Although the White House had earlier criticised the changes, it stopped short of threatening a veto. On Friday, Obama signed the legislation.

Leading defence scientists said the idea that a space-based system could provide security against nuclear attack is a fantasy…

“It defies the laws of physics and is not based on science of any kind,” said L. David Montague, a retired president of missile systems for Lockheed and co-chair of a National Academy of Sciences panel that studied missile defence technologies at the request of Congress.

“Even if we darken the sky with hundreds or thousands of satellites and interceptors, there’s no way to ensure against a dedicated attack,” Montague said in an interview. “So it’s an opportunity to waste a prodigious amount of money.”

He called the provisions passed by Congress “insanity, pure and simple.”

Republican Congressman Trent Franks, who introduced and shepherded the policy changes in the House, said he drew inspiration from former president Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Known as “Star Wars”, the initiative cost taxpayers US$30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.

Philip E. Coyle III, a former assistant secretary of defence who headed the Pentagon office responsible for testing and evaluating weapon systems, described the idea of a space-based nuclear shield as “a sham”.

“To do this would cost just gazillions and gazillions,” Coyle said. …read more

Source: While Blaming Trump For "Arms Race", Obama Signs Momentous "Star Wars II" Defense Bill

    

100% Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Appetite Suppressant – Carb Blocker Capsules – 2100 MG – 90 Caps

Looking for something special ? Find The Lowest Price HERE

Find The Lowest Price HERE

By Tyler Durden

Christmas is a time for giving.. and receiving (and piling up credit card debt). But judging by the '12 days of christmas', it has never been more expensive to satisfy your true love…

As The New York Times reports, all told, the whimsical splurge will run a little less than 1 percent more than last year, largely because of slow economic growth. That works out to a grand total of just $34,363.49.

h/t @Schuldensuehner

This year, there were wide fluctuations in the price of some products, based on the data that PNC gathered from retailers, hatcheries and dance companies.

A Partridge in a Pear Tree

Cost: $210

The true bargain in the gift package, the partridge price fell 20 percent, to $20, as a result of a larger supply of the game birds. Last year, the price soared because the partridge became a popular dish among foodies, but supply apparently met demand.

Adding in the pear tree, which cost $190 — the same price as last year, according to Cinnaminson Nurseries in New Jersey — the grand total for the set is $210, or 2.3 percent less than last year.

Two Turtle Doves

Cost: $375

The costs of two turtle doves, sometimes considered a symbol of true love, are adding up this year. The brace of lovebirds cost $375, or 29.3 percent more than last year, because of a shortage of birds. According to PNC, a turtle dove lays eggs, called clutches, only two or three times a year, and each clutch has only two eggs.

Three French Hens

Cost: $181.50

The brood of imported hens, sometimes called faverolles because the breed was developed in the 1860s near the French villages of Houdan and Faverolles, came in at $181.50, the same price as 2015.

Four Calling Birds

Cost: $599.96

Once called colly birds — an ancient term for blackbirds — they are ringing up at $599.96, the same as last year. Prices for these, and other birds, can swing from year to year.

Five Golden Rings

Cost: $750

Image

CreditShah Marai/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The price of gold rings held steady for the fourth year in a row. Even though gold commodity prices dipped earlier this year, they later evened out.

(According to some, the reference to five golden rings in the classic carol might have actually been to five ring-necked pheasants — which would be more in keeping with the lineup of birds in the song.)

Six Geese a-Laying

Cost: $360

The gaggle of geese remained at $360, holding steady from last year. Prices of the birds, sometimes associated with Christmas dinner, have varied, according to information PNC gathered from a waterfowl farm.

Seven Swans a-Swimming

Cost: $13,125

The cost for swans has historically been volatile. This year, the wedge of elegant birds had an impressive $13,125 price tag — or $1,875 each — the same as last year. But the price on their heads can be so variable that it skews the index’s outcome in some years.

Eight Maids a-Milking

Cost: $58

With no increase in the …read more

Source: The Real Cost Of Christmas Has Never Been Higher

100% Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Appetite Suppressant – Carb Blocker Capsules – 2100 MG – 90 Caps

Find The Lowest Price HERE

By Tyler Durden

Submitted by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,

There’s compelling evidence that US stocks are overvalued. Yet just in the last month, we saw investors react to the US election by bidding the benchmarks up to new all-time highs.

This implies they expect even higher prices next year. Can it happen?

Louis Gave of Gavekal took on that question in a lengthy and masterful presentation last week titled “Something’s Gotta Give” (article is behind paywall).

The prime question, says Louis, is whether the US economy is a “coiled spring” ready to bounce higher based on the new political environment. We know changes are coming.

Are they the kinds of changes that will help the economy, and so corporate earnings will grow enough to justify sharply increased stock prices in an already overvalued stock market?

Louis doesn’t have a firm answer, but I think it’s fair to say he is dubious. I’ll share with you just two of his 63 slides.

Government spending effect on stocks is overblown

The first one concerns government spending. Part of the present rally comes from expectations that Trump and the Republican Congress will launch an infrastructure stimulus program and also raise defense spending.

That’s not a sure thing. Even if it were, Louis points out that higher government spending historically correlates with lower P/E ratios.

Some people will dispute this. You can argue that the higher spending is a response to the lower growth that caused the low P/E ratio.

But if you believe that government is by nature less efficient than the private sector, then higher government spending will mean more capital misallocation, which is not good for stock valuations.

Higher inflation isn’t positive for stocks

A second justification for the current rally is that new policies and perhaps delayed Federal Reserve tightening will mean higher inflation. People say this will be positive for stocks. With this chart Louis again says, “Not so fast.”

The vertical shaded areas are periods of rising inflation. Other than 1979–1981, we see stocks falling in those periods, not rising. Louis says this is because inflation misallocates resources. Companies must hold more inventory, spend more on payroll and benefits, and otherwise take their eyes off more important goals.

Time will tell

Of course, the Trump administration will do more than just raise spending. Trump intends to reduce taxes, roll back excessive regulation, and otherwise make the US more business-friendly.

He will go about it differently than other Republicans would. His intervention in the Carrier outsourcing indicates that this is not going to be a conventional GOP White House.

We’ll see how well his approach works, and whether other changes can outweigh the drag caused by higher spending and inflation.

* * *

John Mauldin's wildly popular newsletter, is a must-read for informed investors who want to go beyond the mainstream media hype and find out about the trends and traps to watch out for. Join hundreds of thousands of fans worldwide, as John uncovers macroeconomic truths in Thoughts from the …read more

Source: 2 Charts That Debunk The Bullish Case For Stocks

    

100% Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Appetite Suppressant – Carb Blocker Capsules – 2100 MG – 90 Caps

Looking for something special ? Find The Lowest Price HERE