A federal judge today ordered the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer and its controversial editor Andrew Anglin to pay $4.1 million to Muslim Comedian Dean Obeidallah for falsely accusing him of being the mastermind behind the 2017 terrorist attack at a U. K. pop concert that left 22 dead.
Authored by Chris Calton via The Mises Institute, In March 1919, the Communist Party headed by Vladimir Lenin stated in its newly drafted program that among the party objectives was the complete abolition of money. The State Bank of Russia would be “abolished and turned into the central bookkeeping office of the Communist society.” In theory, the ruling party could have simply decreed money out of existence, but this would fail to eliminate the circulation of currency throughout a vast country that the Bolsheviks did not fully control in 1919. Instead, their strategy was to resort to the printing press. The banks were among the first institutions the Bolsheviks seized, and control over the money supply allowed them to pay salaries to the recently formed secret police and Red Army that were used to consolidate Bolshevik control following the 1917 revolution. But the rapid printing of money was also part of a deliberate strategy to usher in the inevitable moneyless economy of communism. The strategy worked, but it did not bring about the outcome that Marxist theory predicted. By the time the Party adopted its program calling for the abolition of money in 1919, the Bolshevik regime was already adding between two and three billion rubles to the circulating money supply every month. But this was far too modest. In May, the regime authorized the State Bank (renamed the “People’s Bank”) to issue as much new currency as it saw fit. When the Bolsheviks took power, there were less than 20 billion rubles in circulation. By the end of 1919, the money supply had grown to 225 billion rubles, and by the middle of 1921, it reached a whopping 2.3 trillion. The following year, the money supply was counted in quadrillions. As the country sank into famine, the emission of “colored paper” stood as the only growing industry in the economy. The only limitation to the regime’s ability to print even faster was the need for ink and paper. The gold they seized from bank vaults was useful for the purchase of printing supplies from foreign economies. The presses ran nonstop, and by the end of the 1919, the mint employed nearly 14,000 workers. Two years after the first Party platform was drafted, the attendees at the Party Congress were ecstatic about their success in inflating the currency out of existence. Evgenii Preobrazhenskii, a leading Bolshevik economic planner, noted that the French revolutionaries had only depreciated their currency to 1/500th of its original value, whereas the ruble had been reduced to 1/20,000th of its 1917 value. “This means that we have overtaken the French Revolution 40 to 1,” he bragged.4 The goal of inflation was the abolition of money, and the ruling elite was proud of their success. The peasantry, struggling to survive, resorted to using salt and bread as media of exchange. Shockingly, the destruction of money failed to bring about the rational economic order that the communists believed to be inevitable. Instead of orderly production, the result was mass starvation and peasant uprisings. The Bolsheviks, with their unflinching faith in Marx’s predictions, had to contend with this mystery before they lost their tenuous control of the Russian economy. While Russia was inflating its economy to literal death, many western intellectuals viewed the failing Soviet experiment through rose-colored glasses. This is the backdrop in which Ludwig von Mises wrote his groundbreaking essay “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” with Socialism —his second major work—following shortly thereafter. For Mises, the chaos of Russia’s economy was no mystery: market prices formed through the voluntary exchange of private property were necessary for the rational allocation of resources. At least one leading Bolshevik begrudgingly acknowledged Mises’s great insights as a basis for the modest market reforms known as the New Economic Policy. In 1925, Nikolai Bukharin wrote: Although bourgeois critics of the policy of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia have offered mainly nonsense and foolishness, some of their comments were not so stupid and contained a relative truth. One of the most learned critics of communism, the Austrian Professor Mises, presented the following propositions in a book on socialism written in 1921-22. . . . So long as the communists attempted to arrange production by commands, with a stick, their policy would lead, and already was leading, to an inevitable collapse. It is hardly high praise to say that Mises’s critiques of socialism “were not so stupid,” but for a Bolshevik ideologue, it was a profound concession. Although Bukharin was unwilling to denounce socialism, he recognized that market reforms—albeit modest ones—were necessary to prevent the collapse of the nascent Soviet state. These reforms included the reintroduction of functional money At the end of 1922, the Party turned to a “bourgeois” banker, Nicholas Kutler—an advocate of liberal reforms prior to the 1917 revolution—to solve their fiscal crisis. Kutler’s solution was the return to a gold-based currency. The new banknotes, known as chervonets, were backed by gold bullion and foreign reserves. Over the next two years, Russian currency was stabilized as the worthless rubles were replaced by gold-backed bank notes. Lenin, embarrassed by the socialist backpedaling, insisted that the measure was only temporary, and as soon as communism became global, money would disappear (successfully, this time) and gold would only be used for the construction of toilets. It is important not to overstate the reforms of the New Economic Policy. Although the currency reforms and opening of markets prevented the complete implosion of the Russian economy, the Party continued to control the majority of the country’s industry. The result of the modest economic liberalization was a concomitantly modest recovery, coupled with an increase in political terror to reinforce Party rule. The Bolsheviks loosened their grip on the economy just enough to let the people breathe for a brief period. Instead of learning the lessons of their original failures and the subsequent gains achieved by mild reforms, the Party—under the leadership of Joseph Stalin—turned back to uncompromising economic controls by the end of the decade. The result would be the most severe economic calamity the world had yet experienced. The lessons from the Bolshevik policy of inflation are still relevant today. The arguments in favor of inflationary policy may no longer be justified by Marxist theory and the pursuit of a moneyless economy, but the consequences of inflation operate irrespective of the theorist’s intentions. As the inflationary doctrine of Modern Monetary Theory grows increasingly popular, Bolshevik history should not be forgotten. Regardless of the policy’s purpose, inflation serves only to distort economic signals and, ultimately, destroy the currency and whatever economy the currency is attached to.
As the jarring truth about Boeing's "cost-cutting above all" philosophy involving the company's deadly, ill-fated 737 MAX (or whatever the company's ill-fated plane may be called soon) receives an ever-wider public appreciation, the company is finding it increasingly difficult to do business as usual. Take the Paris Air Show, traditionally the venue where the world's largest aircraft makers lock in deals worth tens of billions of dollars. Well, the first day of the 2019 edition of this boondoggle couldn't have gone any worse for Boeing, and alternatively it couldn't have been better for Airbus, which locked in $13 billion in orders for new jets. Boeing's tally? $0. Among those lining up to order Europe's iconic (if subsidized) airlines included Air Lease Corp., the giant US leasing company, which agreed to buy planes worth $11 billion before customary discounts, including the new A321XLR. Virgin Atlantic also bought eight A330 wide-bodies with options for six more. And that's just the beginning: according to Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, "there’s room to run up the score", as Bloomberg reports, and with good reason: while Boeing is scrambling to drag the name of its workhorse 737 Max out of the mud as it languishes on the tarmac - literally - after it was idled indefinitely in March after two deadly crashes, Airbus said it was seeing “very strong demand” for its rival A320 family of single-aisle jets. “As far as we are concerned, you should expect a very positive Paris Air Show with a lot of orders,” Faury said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Boeing... not so much. Which is ironic, because just one year ago, the tables were turned. Back then, Airbus, having just gone through a jarring management transition - fallout from a multi-year bribery investigation - announced 431 orders valued at $62 billion at the alternating Farnborough air show in the U.K. That lagged Boeing’s commitments for 528 jetliners valued at $79 billion through the week last year. Of course, most of the Boeing buyers are now considering whether to cancel their orders depending on what the fate of the MAX will be. So it is now Airbus' moment in the sun: according to Bloomberg, "the Air Lease order in particular provided a vote of confidence in the A321XLR, a twin-engine jet that can travel 4,700 nautical miles, more than any other narrow-body on the market. The plane is positioned as a more fuel-efficient successor to Boeing’s discontinued 757, able to connect smaller cities that can’t support service by big wide-body jets." The model is also meant to take the wind out of the sails of Boeing’s planned “new midmarket airplane,” or NMA. That jet, dubbed the 797 by analysts, is on hold while the Chicago-based company works through the Max crisis. Airbus’s decision to start sales of the XLR could help sway customers who had been looking at both options. Airbus’s Air Lease deal also included the A220 plane that the Toulouse, France-based company acquired last year from Canada’s Bombardier Inc. and has been marketing harder, providing a further fillip. Defiant, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, gave no ground on either the Max or the NMA, saying that the former will return to service before the end of 2019 and remain the backbone of the company’s short-haul strategy for years to come, in a Bloomberg Television interview. He may be overly optimistic if the best strategy Boeing can come up with is rebranding the plane in hopes of putting its troubles away. As we reported earlier, CFO Greg Smith said - in all seriousness - that the Max’s branding could be dropped depending on an assessment of consumer and airline sentiment. Perhaps observing the uniform derision that greeted the news, Boeing emphasized in a subsequent statement that it had no immediate plans for a name change. But if the first day was bad, the final airshow total will be devastating for Boeing. According to aviation consultancy IBA Group, firm and outline orders will total 575 planes, with 435 going to Airbus. That would compare with close to 1,000 at Farnborough. "Like Farnborough 2018, the Paris Air Show started relatively slowly," Morris said, suggesting Monday’s action would be eclipsed in coming days. "Perhaps the fashion is now for Day 3 to be the high-water mark." Which begs the question: yes, buyers may be recoiling at the thought of buying a Boeing, so to speak, but just how much of a global collapse is there in aircraft demand right now, and is that an indicator that the global recession has - as Morgan Stanley mused earlier today - indeed arrived?
Boeing’s CFO said the company would rebrand the notorious 737 MAX aircraft if means getting it back in the air, a tactic promoted by Pres. Trump. Then the company backed off the idea.
Sir Richard Branson And Director Toby Wosskow On The Urgent Message Behind 'Sides Of A Horn'
"You cannot talk about poaching without talking about poverty, inequality, or corruption. The suffering of the animals is closely linked to the suffering of people, and Toby really brings that across."
Authored by Graham Noble via Liberty Nation, Apparently, anything is permissible until it benefits the president, at which point it becomes a crime... Politicians of all stripes quickly learn how to avoid giving straight answers to questions. Donald Trump is the first president in living memory who is not a politician, though, and he has not mastered the art of evasion. Either that or he simply prefers to take questions head-on. This tactic does not always serve him well, and his answer to a recent interview question opened the door for his detractors to pile on. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former CIA Director John Brennan were both resurrected by the media to respond to Trump’s recent remarks regarding foreign influence in U.S. elections. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether his son, Donald Trump Jr., should have contacted the FBI after being invited in 2016 to meet with a Russian national who allegedly offered dirt on Hillary Clinton, the president answered, “Give me a break – life doesn’t work that way.” The ensuing exchange led Stephanopoulos to ask the president: “Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?” Trump responded that, perhaps, the person in question should do both; look at the information being offered and notify the FBI. Stephanopoulos suggested this amounts to foreign interference in an American election, to which Trump responded: “It’s not an interference [sic]. They have information – I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI – if I thought there was something wrong.” The wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed this interview prompted the anti-Trump cable networks to bring in two men who were embroiled in the Russia collusion hoax. One of these men, Andrew McCabe, was fired from the FBI and is fortunate not to have yet been charged with multiple counts of lying to federal investigators. The other is hysterical Trump critic Brennan, who is almost certainly a subject of the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the genesis of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. McCabe’s Clinton Excuses McCabe feigned horror at the idea that the president would be open to receiving information on a potential election opponent from a foreign source. At the same time, however, he dismissed the idea that the Hillary Clinton campaign had done anything wrong in 2016 when it paid for Russian-sourced and unverified information to use against Trump. When asked by CNN’s Chris Cuomo about a possible analogy between the two situations, the former FBI official said: “There’s no equivalence between those two examples … For a campaign to hire a law firm, an American law firm who then turns around and hires an American research company that then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal.” It is nothing short of alarming that a former deputy director of the FBI either does not understand the relevant laws or is deliberately misinterpreting them. In fact, it is illegal for a political campaign to “solicit, accept or receive” anything of value from a foreign national in connection to an election. The Clinton campaign certainly did solicit foreign-sourced information about her election opponent. Andrew McCabe Regardless of how a political campaign obtains research on an opponent, if that information comes from an overseas source, it means the election has been opened to foreign influence. McCabe is trying to argue, though, that foreign influence is acceptable if the campaign in question used a U.S.-based intermediary to obtain the information. However, there is a question about the interpretation of the relevant statute. What constitutes “something of value”? Does it refer to material goods, or does it encompass such things as vacations, invitations to events, promised favors in kind, and information? There is some dispute over this. Either way, the Trump campaign did not, after all is said and done, receive anything at all from the Russians that aided its cause, while the Clinton campaign did. Brennan Is “Concerned” John Brennan, meanwhile, resumed his farcical attacks on the president even as the DOJ investigation into the surveillance of the Trump campaign homes in on the agency he led – or, perhaps, because of that. John Brennan Brennan is now a contributor to MSNBC, a clear indication of where his political preferences lie. “I’m concerned about the upcoming presidential elections,” he told the struggling network’s Chris Matthews. “It’s clear that the Russians interfered to help Mr. Trump in 2016. Is Mr. Trump turning a blind eye because he doesn’t mind if the Russians involve themselves again to try to enhance his prospects for reelection?” The very fact that Brennan cannot bring himself to address Trump as the president of the United States speaks volumes about how he feels – and about how he obviously felt during the 2016 election campaign. More disturbing, however, is the fact that a former CIA director routinely indulges in paranoid hypotheticals. This says a lot about how that agency was run during the Obama years. Deep State A Law Unto Itself Real liberals have always been concerned with the prospect of the federal government exerting unchecked power. There are extremely few true liberals in the ranks of the modern American political left, though. Former government officials like McCabe and Brennan prove, with every statement they make, that a “deep state,” which considers itself above both the law and the will of the American people, does indeed exist and does not tolerate interference from outsiders such as Donald Trump. These deep state officials are aided and abetted by their lapdogs in the legacy media. That may be because the latter fear how much information the former has on them or it may be more of a symbiotic relationship, where the establishment media preserves its deep state sources by not rocking the boat. A clear example of this was the recent suggestion by CNN’s crime and justice reporter, Shimon Prokupecz, that the CIA should be above scrutiny and, by extension, above the law. Speaking of the DOJ’s inquiries into CIA involvement in the Russia collusion hoax, Prokupecz said, “It’s troubling because it’s not … you don’t do this. The CIA kind of operates in their own world.” The CIA is immune to oversight and foreign powers can influence U.S. elections so long as they funnel information through private American firms. This is the mentality of President Trump’s opponents. Since Trump’s inauguration, the narrative has been that anything is permissible until it benefits the president, at which point it becomes a crime. The very idea of a “deep state” would evoke cynical laughter in the past. Nevertheless, it is alive and well, and few serious political observers would now deny it. Only through prosecutions and prison sentences will it be rolled back. Will such measures finally be taken? We have yet to see, but the next 18 months or so will reveal whether political leaders have the will to fight it. We will also find out whether the Department of Justice is merely a part of the deep state, or willing to apply the oft-repeated mantra that no one is above the law.
Just two years ago, Carsten Spohr was named Germany’s manager of the year after delivering stellar returns. Now he’s just delivering profit warnings.
Just two years ago, Carsten Spohr was named Germany’s manager of the year after delivering stellar returns. Now he’s just delivering profit warnings.