In response to a request from NLC and other local stakeholders, the FCC has extended its reply comment deadline until November 13. Cities, towns and villages know their community needs best. Use this extended opportunity to advocate for the preservation of important local control and authority.
Homelessness in California has already reached a state of crisis, but with the winter approaching and the homeless population growing, the problem continues to worsen. A lack of affordable housing coupled with the national opioid crisis has resulted in a growing homeless population that lives on the streets of California.
California homeless populations live in squalor in makeshift homes made of tarps, tents, and discarded scrap wood. Sanitation for that many people living outside is virtually non-existent and feces and urine are left in the open next to filthy bedding.
Filth in the streets, particularly “Skid Row”, has lead to the comeback of “Medieval Diseases” once thought to be eradicated.
The housing situation in California shows no signs of improving.
As Californians continue to witness the desolation camped right outside their front doors, their patience grows thin and their tolerance dissipates.
California may pride itself on its commitment to tolerance and liberal values, but across the state, record levels of homelessness have spurred a backlash against those who live on the streets. (source)
The homeless arrive on the streets of California for various reasons, but lack of housing is the resounding cry. Affordable housing is scarce and lower-income citizens are forced out as rents continue to rise. But another huge factor has resulted in new homeless that have overrun the already overwhelmed resources: wildfire evacuees. As a result, more recent homeless are clashing with the older homeless population. Many of the State’s “new” homeless have nowhere to go after their houses went up in flames. The two camps may have come to homelessness in different ways, but their needs are the same. And these two camps of homeless are fighting for dwindling resources.
The wildfires are contributing to the housing problem.
Wildfire destruction is making the lack of affordable housing into a bigger and more urgent problem. Wildfires are wreaking havoc on the already limited housing, forcing families displaced by fires onto long waiting lists for even temporary shelter. Even if families had the resources to move into permanent housing, there’s little left available. The fires are torching what little housing there is left and making already insanely priced housing even harder to come by. Compounding the problem is the lack of affordable home owner’s insurance. Even longtime homeowners are being forced out due to insurance companies dropping property coverage in “high risk” areas and tripling rates. This is displacing even more Californians….
The long-awaited trade agreement between the United States and China would turn the African continent into a land of opportunity for bond and equity investors.
That’s according to Bank of America (BofA) strategists David Hauner and Claudio Irigoyen. They wrote in a client note seen by Bloomberg: “At a minimum, we think the removal of tariff and recession fears at least until the November 2020 US elections should lead to some restocking effect and green shoots by the first quarter.”
The strategists said that among the main emerging-market beneficiaries would be “some of the less loved currency and high-yield markets, the African ‘China plays.’”
They have explained that a trade deal would reduce the risk of a strengthening dollar, supporting emerging-market currencies and high-yield debt. Some currencies, including South Africa’s rand, would also benefit from equity inflows, given that stocks are the asset class most likely to profit from an economic rebound.
BofA also predicted the biggest gainers if the US and China reach a trade agreement.
“We also like Africa, where several external credits have lagged amidst the global growth concerns: Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa,” it said….
The western media has been hit with warnings of “financial Armageddon” and the need for a “global hegemonic synthetic currency” to replace the collapsing US dollar under a new system of green finance. These statements have been made by former and current Bank of England Governors Mark Carney and Mervyn King respectively and should not be ignored as the world sits atop the largest financial bubble in human history reminiscent of the 1929 bubble that was triggered on black Friday in the USA which unleashed a great depression across Europe and America.
While I’m not arguing that a systemic change is not vital to protect people from the effects of a general meltdown of the $1.2 trillion derivatives bubble sometimes called “the western banking system”, what such central bankers are proposing is a poison more deadly than the disease they promise to cure.
In principle, the world crisis, is no different from the artificially manufactured crises which the world faced in 1923 when unpayable Versailles debts were heaved onto a beaten Germany, which I elaborated upon in my previous report. It is also no different from the nature of the folly that unleashed unbounded speculation during the “roaring 1920s” which led to the bank-run and general meltdown. Similarly, the solutions being proposed to put out the fire by those same arsonists who lit the matches today are identical to what the world faced in 1933 as a “central bankers” solution for the world depression.
How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured
While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.
Speaking at a roundtable of reporters and editors at business network Bloomberg November 1, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a strong message for Bernie Sanders and other Presidential nomination hopefuls who endorse Medicare for All: “What are you thinking?!” The 79-year-old Californian characterized the idea as virtual political suicide, claiming that it may poll well in liberal circles but will fall flat in battleground states crucial to securing a 2020 victory against the incumbent Donald Trump. “As a left-wing San Francisco liberal,” she warned, “what works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” adding that many Americans would be sorry to lose their private health insurance plans.
There are fair grounds to treat this advice with suspicion. Two late 2018 polls from Reuters and Harris found that at least 70% of Americans supported universal healthcare (including a majority of Republican voters). Thus, Medicare for All could become a huge vote winner, attracting both non-voters and many in Trump’s base.
Gauging the lack of health coverage in the United States is not a simple task, but a recent Gallup poll suggests about one-seventh of the adult population has no health insurance whatsoever. Regardless, America spends around twice as much on health per capita as comparable countries, with inferior results. Medicare for All has been forced into public consciousness by the campaign of Bernie Sanders, although it has been embraced, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and authenticity by other candidates, including Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Andrew Yang. The plan would create a system not unlike those existing in most of the countries in Europe and the developed world.
During the interview, Pelosi also refused to endorse a wealth tax like that proposed by Sanders and Warren, instead, calling for a “bipartisan” solution to the issue. Given the Republicans’ record, this may essentially amount to calling for a tax cut. Pelosi may have her own reasons to oppose leftist policies like tax increases for the super-wealthy. She receives a yearly salary of over $223,000 for her position as Speaker of the House of Representatives, making her the third highest-paid elected official in the U.S., behind only the President and Vice-President. But this is dwarfed by the $120 million net worth of her and her business tycoon husband Paul, who owns enormous real estate ventures across California and large stakes in Facebook, Apple, Comcast, and Disney. Paul Pelosi is also a regular attendee of the shadowy, elitist Bohemian Grove Club, the subject of many lurid conspiracy theories. [?? seriously? like child trafficking? -rw]
Despite this, she continues to present herself as a left-winger concerned that certain Democrats are being too radical by proposing a system like Medicare for All. “Protect the Affordable Care Act — I think that’s the path to health care for all Americans. Medicare For All has its complications,” she said, claiming, “the Affordable Care Act is a better benefit than Medicare.” This, “I’m a liberal but” is a common trope in bad-mouthing left-wing proposals, with Pelosi expertly combining it with the “this is how Trump will win” tactic as well, where conservatives offer leftists supposedly good-faith advice on how to prevent another Trump victory. A tactic that always seems to include embracing conservative politics. Fox News particularly likes the “I’m a liberal but” trope when it comes to healthcare, allowing self-styled liberals to warn readers that Medicare for All is “not the answer” but a “pie-in-the-sky idea” and claim that it would “put the government in charge of making decisions about your health” and your body….
With obstetrical and vaccine quackery feeding into ever growing psychiatric quackery it appears such fears are not at all unfounded. Peoples’ lives are being ruined by “evidence based medicine”. It wasn’t that long ago that insurance companies refused to cover psychiatric interventions at the same level as more reality-based medicine, because they understood the history and enough of the science to know that it was a black hole of self-perpetuating munchausen by proxy abuse. What has happened since? Mutual back scratching. At the top levels of ownership, the pharmaceutical industry has merged with the insurance industry. Concentration of wealth is consolidating the entire economy into cross-networked hedge funds.
Medicare for all without addressing these issues will simply give more teeth to the medical industrial complex as it cultivates and grows into wider battlefields.
… As if the revelations that a major U.S. network hid potential evidence and information related to one of the most shocking scandals in history, it has now come out that the person responsible for this leak has been fired.
Not only has no one responsible for burying this incredibly important story been fired, held accountable, punished, or publicly named, an entirely different mainstream network has now fired the employee that formerly worked for ABC News and who possibly leaked the Robach recording to Project Veritas.
According to journalist Yashar Ali, “CBS News has fired the staffer in question.”…
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project blame for the public’s doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party’s subversion of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment’s willingness to address even one of these critical failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party’s bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel doubling down on its right to rig the race during the fraud lawsuit brought against the DNC, as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova, indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred “pied-piper candidate.” One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race….
What is a good way for the Fed to deflect attention from the fact that after a decade of liquidity injections it has created the world’s largest asset bubble? Why point to another, even bigger – in its view – threat. And with green bonds, unlimited fiscal deficits and MMT all the rage (if not today, then soon), what better bogeyman for the Fed to wave in front of the public than the hottest topic, so to speak, of the day: climate change.
Speaking at the GARP Global Risk Forum, NY Fed executive vice president Kevin Stiroh warned in his prepared remarks, that climate change – not, say, asset bubbles created by his employer – is a major threat that risk managers can’t ignore.
“The U.S. economy has experienced more than $500 billion in direct losses over the last five years due to climate and weather-related events. In addition, climate change has significant consequences for the U.S. economy and financial sector through slowing productivity growth, asset revaluations and sectoral reallocations of business activity” he
That was how Stiroh framed the one danger that, according to the Fed, is emerging as the biggest threat to the US economy.
But why is the Fed, whose only concern should be the cost of money, suddenly preoccupied with the weather? Because as the EVP says in his speech, “as supervisors, we can consider climate-related risks in terms of both microprudential and macroprudential objectives.”
In other words, it’s only a matter of time before the Fed blames the weather for the next great, “unexpected” crisis… which like the bubbles of 2001 and 2008 was entirely the Fed’s doing.
Lulckily, the Fed apparatchik did stop before providing advice on how to combat climate change – of which it is the primary enabler, as its loose money policy allows zombie corprorations with outdated emissions standards to stay in business – and said that “supervisors should take a risk management perspective, not a social engineering one. It is beyond our mandate to advocate or provide incentives for a particular transition path.”…
They know very well that all the “transition paths” to their bizarre nightmare will result in gargantuan death and impoverishment. What can you say but that it’s a huge nazi hoax to convince people to agree to their own enslavement. People have very little effect on the earth’s climate, and given the much more realistic predictions of a mini-ice age, we need all the CO2 we can get.