Wednesday, 28 February 2018

America;s missing 1.2 trillion dollars


The US Government Lost $1.2 Trillion In 2017

27 February, 2018



Earlier this month, the United States government released its annual financial report for the year 2017.

This is something the government does every year, similar to how large companies like Apple, or Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, publish their own annual reports.

Unlike Berkshire and Apple, though, whose financial reports typically show strong, positive results, the US government’s financial statements are a complete horror show.

Right at the beginning of the report, the government explains that it’s “net loss” for the year was an unbelievable $1.2 TRILLION.

Read that number again.

$1.2 trillion. That’s simply staggering.

It’s larger than the size of the entire Australian economy… and constitutes a loss of more than $2.2 million per minute.

This is not a conspiracy theory or irrational fantasy.

This is the Treasury Secretary of the United States of America publicly announcing that the federal government lost $1.2 trillion on page ‘i’ of its annual financial report.

What’s even more alarming is that 2017 was a great year.

There was no war. No recession. No epic financial crisis.

In his introductory letter, in fact, the Treasury Secretary proudly stated that [t]he country enjoyed a pick-up in [economic] growth in 2017. Unemployment is at its lowest level since February 2001, consumer and business confidence are at two-decade highs, and inflation is low and stable.”

In short, everything was awesome in 2017.

Even the government’s overall revenue was a record high $3.3 trillion for the year.
Yet despite all that good news… despite all those positive developments and record revenue… they STILL managed to lose $1.2 trillion.

If the government loses $1.2 trillion in a GOOD year, how much do you think they’ll lose in a BAD year? How much will they lose when they actually do have a recession to fight? Or another war. Or a major banking crisis?

More importantly, how long can something so unsustainable possibly last?
But the fun doesn’t stop here.

Further in the report, the government reviews its own assets and liabilities… effectively calculating its “net worth”.

It’s just like how an individual might calculate his/her own net worth– you add up the value of your assets, like your home, car, and bank account balances. Then subtract liabilities like mortgage and credit card debt.

The end result is your net worth. And hopefully it’s positive.

The government’s is hopelessly negative: MINUS $20.4 trillion. (See page 55 of the report.)

And that’s worse than its result from the previous year’s MINUS $19.3 trillion– meaning that the government’s net worth decreased by about 6% year over year.
To be clear, a net worth of negative $20.4 trillion means that the government added up the values of ALL of its assets. Every tank. Every aircraft carrier. Every acre of land. Every penny in the bank.

And then subtracted its enormous liabilities, like the national debt.

The difference is negative $20.4 trillion, i.e. the government has far MORE liabilities than it has assets.

If the government were a business, it would have gone bankrupt long, long ago.
On top of that, though, the government separately calculated its long-term liabilities from Social Security and Medicare.

As we frequently discuss, both Social Security and Medicare are running out of money.

And according to the government’s own calculations (on page 58), the “total present value of future expenditures in excess of future revenue” for Social Security and Medicare is MINUS $49 TRILLION.

Essentially this means that the two largest and most important pension and healthcare programs in the United States are insolvent by nearly $50 trillion.
Altogether, the government is in the red by almost $70 trillion.

It’s remarkable that this is not front page news.

There has not been a single utterance from mainstream media about the pitiful, dangerously unsustainable finances of the federal government.
I’m certainly not suggesting that the sky is falling, or that there’s some imminent disaster that will strike tomorrow morning.

But any rational person needs only look to the pages of history to find dozens of examples of once dominant powers who were crippled by their excessive debts.

It may take several years to feel the full impact. But it would be utterly foolish to believe that this time is different.
*  *  *
And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.



Michael C Mann on climate change

My coverage would not be complete without this inteview of the liar Michael Mann by the dreadful Kim Hill on Radio NZ

Quite how you can be "fighting for facts" when you're lying is beyond me.

Michael Mann: "fighting for facts"


Radio NZ

Michael Mann, the distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, is famous for his 'hockey stick curve' showing sharply increasing global temperatures since 1900.

Listen to the interview HERE

He was also involved in the 2009 ‘climategate’ scandal - the unauthorised release of more than 1000 emails from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, many of them private correspondence to and from Mann, which critics said proved dissenting voices on climate change were being silenced.

Prof Mann has been the target of threats and there have been about a dozen investigations of his work, which have exonerated him every time.
Michael Mann



The author of several books, his most recent is The Madhouse Effect, which features cartoons by Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Tom Toles.

It portrays the "intellectual pretzels" into which denialists must twist logic to explain away clear evidence that man-made activity has changed our climate.
Climate change “contrarians”, Mann says, like to portray themselves as sceptics but are anything but.

 “Scientists are the real sceptics. You question a new result, something that’s unusual. We apply scrutiny to all sides of the problem - that’s different from simply rejecting mainstream science based on flimsy arguments that don’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

When you present anti-science to a journal and it gets sent out to leading scientists, of course they’re going to say ‘this is junk, this doesn’t even pass the smell test’.

Too many contrarians or climate change deniers present themselves as sceptics but they’re not, Mann says. A sceptic is equal-sided, questioning their findings, at least as much as people's.

True scepticism, he says, is ‘the self-correcting machinery of science.”

That global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is incontrovertible, he says.

There is as widespread and solid a consensus on that as there is on the theory of gravity and yet you don’t see when a new exoplanet is discovered many light years away, you don’t interview a space physicist along with a member of the flat earth society.”

Mann says he has had no choice but to become increasingly political.
Trump administration officials have asked the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to avoid phrases such as “evidence-based”.

To them that is a politically-loaded term. We’re now in an environment where simply advocating for a fact-based discourse is portrayed as political.”

Despite the current political climate in the US he remains cautiously optimistic.
I definitely think we can rise to this challenge. It’s become a more uphill challenge.”

The Paris [climate change agreement was a good start but the job is far from done, he says. And even with 1 degree of warming “dangerous climate change has already arrived.” Which is why he’s fighting for primacy of facts.

You fight back, in my view, because the stakes are too great. This isn’t about us, it isn’t just about the scientific community this is really a debate over whether or not were going to allow science to inform this discussion about potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilisation."

Sane Progressive on mental illness as a scapegoat for civil rights


MENTAL ILLNESS IS THE BIG TENT SCAPEGOAT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS/POWER GRABS FAR BEYOND GUN CONTROL


To listen to the video GO HERE


Sane Progressive

HALF the population will have a mental health issue diagnosis at some point in their lifetimes! This is NOT a partisan issue. It is one of basic civil rights. LISTEN to what is being pushed, it goes FAR outside the current media discussion. They do this with every tragedy, use events to argue why we need to give up our rights for security they never provide!!!! 

LINKS:

John Kelly states rescinding of rights, mass surveillance, preemptive wars hasn't made us more secure.

"In his own words: The threat to our nation and our American way of life has not diminished. In fact, the threat has metastasized and decentralized, and the risk is as threatening today as it was that September morning almost 16 years ago...This is all bad news, but it gets much worse"

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/04/18/home-and-away-dhs-and-threats-america


Corbert Report & Media Monarchy Video:

Mental Illness is the BIG TENT for Civl Rights Power Grabs:

Mentally Ill do NOT have a higher rate of violence than general population. It is STUNNING that they can target a group for detainment and rights denial based on disinformation and some on the left/right UNITE on that premise:

While I do not agree with their arguments on guns based on my own finding around the shooting evetns, the citation of the studies and information on mental health is important:


Radio NZ is AGAIN silent about devastating news from the Arctic


In my despair and sense of powerlessness all that is left is to inform those who want to know and to hold a public service broadcaster with a "public interest" role in its charter accountable.

No news is good news, but not when it comes to climate change
Arctic headlines go round the world: Radio New Zealand is silent

I was in a state of shock, despite all the work I do on this every day of my life at the news that went around the world, from the Washington Post to the Sydney Morning Herald and even Fairfax (stuff.co.nz).

This is the headline from the Sydney Morning Herald

'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast


I quickly realised that Radio NZ was not going to cover this event as it has either ignored or distorted news from the Arctic as well as the Antarctic.

Needless to say I am thoroughly disillusioned with mainstream, corporate media and expect very little from them.

Radio New Zealand is in a class of its own. As a publicly-owned independent broadcaster it has its own charter:

As an independent public service broadcaster, the public radio company’s purpose is to serve the public interest

That (as well as making a futile gesture in the face of my own helplessness) is why I continue to hold their feet to the flre.

I decided to confront them once again and ask why they are not covering such earth-shattering news.




Instead of a senior journalist I got a young journalist who clearly didn't know (and cared even less) about climate change.

My questioning was perhaps not as fluent as I would have liked but the young man was clearly taken back by my questions but I will leave it to you to make up your minds about the nature of the interaction.

He trotted out the usual statement I've always got from Radio NZ public relations which is denial of the facts and the standard line that "we do plenty on climate change".

I am on solid ground when it comes to saying that they do not cover this subject, especially when it comes to the rapid melting of the Arctic.

RADIO NZ ON ARCTIC MELTING

This is demonstrated by this quick search on DuckDuckGo for "Arctic ice melt on Radio NZ" which comes up with essentially ONE result.  The second item in the search is my own item on the same RNZ report.

Here is the item, which relates back to November, 2016 which includes a very bland interview with Victoria University climate scientist, Prof. James Renwick.

The article refers to "unusual" weather shifts. We have not seen events like this since humans have been on the planet!




Unusual (sic) weather shifts around the North Pole are worrying scientists who see them as evidence the climate is irreparably changed.

Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean this year continued to melt during the polar winter -- the first time this has been observed in modern history.


A climate scientist at Victoria University, James Renwick, says the increase was caused by record global temperatures, unusually warm air currents, and the surface of the Arctic Ocean being warmer than usual.

After having failed to point out the real time news out of the Arctic they did do this piece on someone's fantasy of geoengineering.


Arctic Turbine Diagram
With predictions that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2030 (sic), an ambitious geoengineering project aims to create more ice by circulating water using no less than 10 million wind turbines.

The man with the plan is Professor Steve Desch, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University.

Geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the earth's climate system to combat climate change.

Attempts to block or reflect the sun's rays so far include giant space mirrors, releasing millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, even pouring cereal and ping-pong balls into the sea.

Professor Steve Desch plans to combat the melting of polar ice caps by covering 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean with wind turbines that will pump water on to the ice during winter to promote more freezing.

To do this on such a scale will take 10 million turbines each costing US$50,000 - a total bill of US$500 billion.

As if we needed reminding, while some computer modellers are saying that the Arctic ice will melt by 2030 (the line RNZ trots out regularly) or even 2100 the U.S.Navy thinks otherwise:


I was told once by email by ex-Radio NZ journalist Veronica Meduna back in 2014, (or at least it was strongly hinted) that the policy is not to cover the subject unless there is a "local component" (a "local component to GLOBAL warming!!!?).

So maybe this was reason to let the journalists off the hook?

Just wait, said Meduna, until the next IPCC report comes out.

As i turned out it was not worth the wait!

Of Radio New Zealand and "liberal"climate change denial

"There is scope to adapt but it would require what we call transformative adaptation, which simply means giving up protecting everything but deciding that some areas cannot be protected and we have to think about shifting some communities away from the coast over time. And that would mean major social upheaval."

However, there will be some benefits from climate change for New Zealand.Warmer winters will mean lower heating bills and might reduce winter illnesses, forest growth is expected to increase, and some parts of New Zealand can expect stronger spring pasture growth.

THAT LEAVES ANTARCTICA

I searched for previous articles from Radio NZ on Antarctica as it relates to climate change. We were on much better ground compared to the Arctic.

But really?

The following gives a clue to the content of most of the items on Antarctica.  Interesting, fascinating - yes, but nothing much to do with the rapid and shocking changes on the continent.

Here again, relating specifically to climate change - 

The science programme (since eviscerated), Our Changing World has done various items, none of which, again, was strictly on subject.

At the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 there were articles about the sudden and shocking retreat of Antarctic ice and even how scientists were shocked by rainfall in Antarctica.

One might have expected this to be reflected in RNZ's newsfeed but not a bit of it. Silence!

Instead, while the rest of the world media focused on the shocking retreat of Antarctic ice (reflected by the animation of Sam Carana below) Cathryn Ryan interviewed an academic from Otago University billing the item as "why Antarctic ice is not melting like the Arctic"

Did she mean that the melt was not like that of the Arctic (given the geography) - and as pointed out by the academic - or were they saying (as implied) that Antarctica is not melting.

After going through the material quickly, Ryan moved on to questioning what it was like to be a woman amongst male scientists.


Sometimes when I switch on Radio New Zealand I have to pinch myself and ask whether they (or I) exist in some parallel universe.

I have been covering news from Antarctica for five years and so you can imagine my surprise when I heard an item advertised on “why the Arctic ice is melting and Antarctica is not”




Some time later the news came of Larsen C calving.



I woke up this morning to a Facebook message alerting me to the latest headline – something we have been waiting to happen for weeks.

What I noticed was that they gave prominence to a Prof Helen Fricker, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who emphasised (and this could really have been their headline) that THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.



This time I took the step of formally complaining. After receiving a response from the broadcaster with the usual weasel words I decided that taking a complaint further was futile and a waste of time

CONCLUSION

I am not of course saying that Radio New Zealand is not covering climate change at all.  Their coverage is all designed around government policy and whether or not we are meeting our (meaningless) voluntary commitments to the Paris Agreement.

It is designed to give the impression that climate change is a crisis that can be solved.  There is absolutely NO sense of urgency whatsoever. Why should there be when we are unlikely to see the effects (as presented by RNZ) in our lifetimes (put 2100 in your diaries - sic).

So any evidence that climate change is actual and the changes are happening in front of our eyes (and therefore, that the IPCC and the climate modellers are as wrong as it comes has to be kept from the public eye.

That fits brilliantly into the Radio NZ charter - NOT.

I do not expect that the broadcaster agree with or reflect my own dire conclusions, but I do insist as a minimum that their coverage reflects what media all around the world are saying.

Similarly, I am not so much interested in the occasional interview (with Peter Wadhams or Michael Mann). It is the news stories that interests me most.

By contrast the commercially-driven print media in New Zealand are dutifully reflecting what is being reported across the world.

But Radio New Zealand is not.

That is why I class them as climate change deniers

Here is an example of propaganda (not news) from RNZ that came out on the same day as the disastrous news from the Arctic

NZ economy gains outstripping gas emission increases – report
Greenhouse gas emissions: vehicle, agriculture, electricity.





















26 Febraury, 2018

New Zealand's economy is growing faster than our greenhouse gas output, signalling industries are becoming more efficient with their emissions.

Greenhouse gas emissions: vehicle, agriculture, electricity.Photo: RNZ
The findings have been released in the first-of-its-kind System of Environmental-Economic Accounts report by Statistics New Zealand.

The report contains information which show the interactions between the environment and the economy and what's being done to protect the environment.

Around 70 percent of New Zealand's export earnings depend on natural resources.

Economy-wide, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 24 percent over the past 25 years.

Agriculture, transport, storage, electricity, gas, water and waste services account for 76.5 percent of industry emissions in 2015.

In particular, primary industries - such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining - account for 57.1 percent.

Agriculture's emissions rise 0.6 percent a year, while the sector's GDP increased by 1.4 percent a year.

Greenhouse gas intensity lowered for all these sectors.

However, intensity increased for forestry, food, beverage, tobacco, petroleum, chemical, polymer, rubber and metal product manufacturing.

Statistics New Zealand's Michele Lloyd said it was great to know the country was on the right path.

"There are some industries whose emissions are actually falling while their GDP is increasing, that's what we call Nirvana.

"Its great to be able to show there are industries who are able to do that, that's a way forward for the future," she said.

The information would be useful for policy making, she said.

"It shows which industries are contributing the most to emissions and which industries are able to decouple their growth from their emissions growth, [that's] very useful in the context of understanding how we can transition to a low-carbon economy."

There had been a demand for the information for the past two years and reports would now be released annually, she said.

How much are our natural resources worth?

(From the latest 2016 figures)

Calculated asset value of commercial fish resource was $7.2 billion, an average increase of around 5 percent per annum from 1996-2016. Rock lobster had the highest asset value at $2.4bn.

The value of cultivated (exotic and commercially viable) timber stocks reached $18.3 billion. Timber stocks increased $961m on the 2015 value.
Returns to electricity operators from the use of all renewable energy was $818m, $574m of which was from hydroelectricity. Renewable energy accounted for 82 percent of total electricity generation.

Primary industries as a whole (agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining) accounted for 5.5 percent of GDP in 2016, amounting to $14bn. This is a decrease of 12.1 percent since 1972

At the end of my "discussion"with the young man from RNZ I said I would send evidence of what I was saying.

As part of this I have put together an incomplete list of press articles just from January and February this year: