Thursday, March 31, 2016

Four Simultaneous Downturns Could Trigger the Next Economic Meltdown

Four Simultaneous Downturns Could Trigger the Next Economic Meltdown 

By Ted Updated 03/31/2016
   
Glenn sat down with world renowned economist Harry Dent on Wednesday to discuss signs of an impending economic crash that could drive America into the next Great Depression. Known for successfully predicting economic trends over the past 30 years — including the housing bubble of the last decade — Dent’s latest prediction was startling to say the least. “The DOW is going to crash to a degree we haven’t seen since the Great Depression,” Dent said. He went on to describe how demographic cycles are largely responsible for long-term changes in the economy, although governments can artificially delay certain consequences temporarily. Using what he referred to as the Hierarchy of Macroeconomic Cycles, 

Screenshot / TheBlaze TV

Dent pointed out four key cycles which dictate the ups and downs of economies in developed countries. 

1. The 39-year Generational Spending Wave. 

2. The 36-year Geopolitical Cycle. 

3. The 45-year Innovation Cycle (NEW). 

4. The 8-13-year Boom/Bust Cycle (average 10 years). Screenshot / TheBlaze TV 

Dent told Glenn the most critical piece of information was that all four cycles have entered their downward phase, which will last at least until late 2019, he said. “As we move through the latest iteration of this phenomenon, we can expect another major catastrophe to slam into us before any one of these cycles turns the corner and begin to head back up,” Dent said. But not everything is “doom and gloom.” 

The good news with all four cycles pointing down together now is that they all head up together as well, Dent explained. “It’s during such ‘up’ times that we see the markets and economy boom,” Dent said. Glenn asked Dent flat-out whether the next economic bubble-burst will be deeper or longer than the Great Depression. Watch Dent’s response in the clip below. What will the next economic crash look like? 

  Dent reiterated his belief that bubbles always burst. It’s just what they do, he explained. So when is the next economic bubble going to burst? “I don’t know exactly when it’s going to happen, but the signs I’ll talk about — it looks like it’s getting ready,” Dent said. “I think this summer, you’re likely to see some fireworks.” Bubbles only do one thing. They burst. 

  To sign up to Harry Dent’s Free newsletter, Economy & Markets, click here. Featured Image: Screenshot / TheBlaze TV

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/03/31/four-simultaneous-downturns-could-trigger-the-next-economic-meltdown/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

Open Letter From Ex-Trump Supporter


Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.
The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.
It pains me to say, but he is the presidential equivalent of Sanjaya onAmerican IdolPresident Trump would be President Sanjaya in terms of legitimacy and authority.
And I am now taking full responsibility for helping create this monster — and reaching out directly to those voters who, like me, wanted Trump to be the real deal.
My support for Trump began probably like yours did. Similar to so many other Americans, I was tired of the rhetoric in Washington. Negativity and stubbornness were at an all-time high, and the presidential prospects didn't look promising.
In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness.
I was sold.
Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC.
It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money.
After the first debate, I was more anxious than ever to support Trump. The exchange with Megyn Kelly was like manna from heaven for a communications director. She appeared like yet another reporter trying to kick out the guest who wasn’t invited to the party. At the time, I felt excited for the change to the debate he could bring. I began realizing the man really resonates with the masses and would bring people to the process who had never participated before.
That was inspiring to me.
It wasn't long before every day I awoke to a buzzing phone and a shaking head because Trump had said something politically incorrect the night before. I have been around politics long enough to know that the other side will pounce on any and every opportunity to smear a candidate.
But something surprising and absolutely unexpected happened. Every other candidate misestimated the anger and outrage of the “silent majority” of Americans who are not a part of the liberal elite. So with each statement came a jump in the polls. Just when I thought we were finished, The Donald gained more popularity.
Advertisement — Continue reading below
I don't think even Trump thought he would get this far. And I don’t even know that he wanted to, which is perhaps the scariest prospect of all.
He certainly was never prepared or equipped to go all the way to the White House, but his ego has now taken over the driver's seat, and nothing else matters. The Donald does not fail. The Donald does not have any weakness. The Donald is his own biggest enemy.
A devastating terrorist attack in Pakistan targeting Christians occurred on Easter Sunday, and Trump’s response was to tweet, "Another radical Islamic attack, this time in Pakistan, targeting Christian women & children. At least 67 dead, 400 injured. I alone can solve."
Ignoring the fact that at the time Trump tweeted this (time-stamped 4:37 p.m.) the latest news reports had already placed the number differently at 70 dead, 300 injured, take a moment to appreciate the ridiculous, cartoonish, almost childish arrogance of saying that he alone can solve. Does Trump think that he is making a cameo on Wrestlemania (yes, one of his actual credits)?
This is not how foreign policy works. For anyone. Ever.
Superhero powers where "I alone can solve" problems are not real. They do not exist for Batman, for Superman, for Wrestlemania and definitely not for Donald Trump.
What was once Trump's desire to rank second place to send a message to America and to increase his power as a businessman has nightmarishly morphed into a charade that is poised to do irreparable damage to this country if we do not stop this campaign in its tracks.
I'll say it again: Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now.
You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.
He doesn't want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.
The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump.
And if you are one of the disaffected voters — one of the silent majority like me — who wanted a candidate who could be your voice, I want to speak directly to you as one of his biggest advocates and supporters.
He is not that voice. He is not your voice. He is only Trump's voice.
Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many "pieces of ass." He is, at heart, a self-preservationist.
In fact, many people are not aware of the Trump campaign's internal slogan, but I will tell you. It is stolen from a make-believe television presidency onThe West Wing where Martin Sheen portrayed President Bartlet. The slogan on the show amongst the idealistic group of Bartlet's staff was “Let Bartlet Be Bartlet.”
Inside the Trump camp, the slogan became "Let Trump Be Trump."
It is a repurposed slogan that seemed spot-on for the candidate. He is an intelligent, charismatic man who is involved in every aspect of his organization and would rather speak from the cuff than read briefing notes and recite them. I, in fact, admire Trump for this. But saying this qualifies him to be president is like saying that Seth Rogen is suited to be president. Another extraordinary improvisor, not an extraordinary presidential candidate.
Trump has undoubtedly lived up to the slogan, right down to his main public-relations liaison. Rather than go for a focus-group Washington insider, his communications person had previously taken press calls for the Trump Organization and directed them to the appropriate Trump child. She joked that before joining the campaign she thought "Common Core" was a class at Equinox.
The primary problem with this? What I've seen the longer I've helped prop him up along with the millions who are helping Trump is that we got the slogan wrong. A more accurate internal slogan would read, "Let Trump Help Trump."
I don't dismiss any single Trump constituent, which is why I believe it's important to let you know that the candidate does.
I, too, think our country has gone off track in its values. I, too, think that we need a dramatic change of course. But I am, in my heart, a policy wonk and a believer in coming to the table with necessary knowledge for leading the free world.
The man does not know policy, nor does he have the humility to admit what he does not know — the most frightening position of all.
I remember watching the second Trump debate and thinking, After this, he is going to have to start hammering it home on policy; the country needs substance to make an informed decision.
I wished for it six months ago and am still waiting for it today. He had an opportunity after the terror attacks in Belgium and instead he used the opportunity to talk about closing the borders and what a mess that country had become. I was appalled that he offered no condolences or words of support; he merely gave his "build a wall" stump speech and talked about his greatness.
I felt sad for him at that moment.
And now, with the latest horrifying terror attack in Pakistan, my sadness has turned into anger.
I consider myself a part of the silent majority that led to Trump’s rise, which is why I want you to know that I am with you — I wanted Trump to be real, too.
Advertisement — Continue reading below
He is not.
His presidential candidacy? That's a character, too.
The problem with characters is they are the stuff of soap operas and sitcoms and reality competitions — not political legacies.
Trump made me believe. Until I woke up.
Former Trump Strategist Stephanie Cegielski
And he has no problem abusing your support the same way he cheated hard-working men and women out of millions of dollars, for which he is now being sued.
I came into this eager to support a savvy businessman who received little outside funding. I loved Trump's outsider status. But a year has now passed since I was first approached to become part of Team Trump.
While the pundits pontificated about what type of PR stunt Trump had up his billion-dollar sleeves, I met with people who convinced me he was serious about changing the political conversation. I wanted to raise millions for him. I wanted to contribute to millions of votes.
And as part of that support, in October, I supported the internal decision to close the Super PAC in order to position him as the quintessential non-politician. I still supported him with great passion after that. The decision to close the Super PAC was part of that devotion to his message of outsider change.
But something was shifting.
Without intending to do so, I began to hear and evaluate him more critically and skeptically as a member of the voting public rather than a communications person charged with protecting his positions.
I no longer felt that he was the leader the country was looking for, and I found myself longing — aching, really — for policy substance that went beyond building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. What were once bold — although controversial — statements now seemed to be attempts to please the crowds, not direction to lead this country to a better place. I began to realize his arrogance and isolation had taken over and were now controlling his message.
And here's what he tapped into: the unprecedented, unbelievable anger.
Because we are all angry — and we all have a right to be. But Trump is not our champion. He would stab any one of his supporters in the back if it earned him a cent more in his pocket.
Unfortunately, the more vitriolic Trump has become, the more the people responded to him. That drove him to push the boundaries further and further.
I also started seeing a trend of incompetence and deniability.
When there was a tweet that contained an error, he would blame it on an intern; when there was a photo containing a World War II Nazi Germany background, he would blame it on an intern; when he answered questions in an overtly controversial fashion, he would claim that he did not properly hear the question. He refused to take responsibility for his actions while frequently demanding apologies from others.
Imagine Trump wronged you, even in the smallest possible way. He would go to the grave denying he had ever done anything wrong to you — ever.
Trump acts as if he's a fictional character. But like Hercules, Donald Trump isa work of fiction.
No matter how many times he repeats it, Trump would not be the "best" at being a president, being in shape, fighting terrorism, selling steaks, and whatever other "best" claim he has made in the last 15 minutes.
He would be the best at something, though. He is the best at looking out for Donald Trump — at all costs.
Don’t let our country pay that price.

Bob Villa Household Hints



http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/diy/21-brilliant-hacks-for-everyday-home-repairs/ss-BBqyC26

Bob Villa Household Hints

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Gen. Michael Hayden on ‘the security challenge no one is talking about’

Quantitative easing’s chickens coming home to roost

Climate Change Debate: The Facts:

Climate Change Debate: The Facts:




CarbonHistory


Why “Green Energy” People Actually Mean “NO Energy



“…For today’s recommended reading, I would highly endorse this article from Alex Epstein at Forbes, titled “Why Green Energy Means No Energy.” The author covers some of the uncomfortable realities of the energy needs of not only our nation, but our species, and how those who seek to curb energy use are really fighting against the rise of civilization. Epstein points out that fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric are the only mass forms of practical energy which can meet our global needs, but these are precisely the types which the Greens oppose most strenuously.
Why does the green movement oppose every practical form of energy?
There is only one answer that can explain this. Greens oppose every practical form of energy not out of love for the non-existent virtues of solar and wind energy, but because they believe practical energy is inherently immoral.
It’s in their philosophical DNA.
To “be green” means to minimize our impact on nature. In the green philosophy, the standard of value, the metric by which we measure good and bad is human nonimpact—does an action make our environment more or less altered by humans?
If we take that idea seriously, then practical energy is not a good thing.
The major complaint of the Greens is that we produce too much CO2. But what has this production done in terms of the human condition over the course of recorded history? The author provides one simple chart which you should keep in your virtual pocket for future reference.
CarbonHistory
Some of the key figures in the history of the Greens have made their intentions clear over the years, and Epstein revisits a few of their golden oldies. Among the best examples offered are the responses of green energy proponents during the period when we thought we were close to making nuclear fusion power a reality. (A fantastic idea which may still someday come to fruition, but for the time being seems to be completely stalled at a technological barrier we can’t overcome. It still takes more energy to run a fusion reaction than can be sustainably produced from it.) If it had worked we could have provided most of the stationary power the world would need while fueling it with water. (Hydrogen, actually.) So how did the Greens respond to this prospect back in the 80s and 90s?
There are some quotes from a story in the Los Angeles Times called “Fear of Fusion:
Leading environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.”
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins was already on record as saying, “Complex technology of any sort isan assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Fusion energy would produce no carbon. It would require no mining of materials from under the ground or the cutting down of rain forests. It would produce helium. (We’re not actually running out of helium as you may have heard, but it is scarce.) So what was the basis of the objections raised by these green energy warriors? We simply can’t be trusted with it. Who knows what mischief we might get up to with all of the clean, low priced energy?

The fact is that it is only our mastery of technology which has facilitated the rise of man. Without vast energy resources available, our planet couldn’t support anywhere near the human population which now rides around on our blue marble in space. (Some estimates have indicated that if we cut off all the liquid and electrical energy the global population would need to be reduced by 75% or more.) The Greens are pining for a world which resembles the one which existed when people were still figuring out how to control fire and possibly create the wheel. But they would likely be horrified to discover how short, brutal and harsh life was for people back in the “good old days.”



image003

2016 Democrat Posters



Crazy liberals and bad cities







2u8e5oi

Barack Obama: The Last Communist Sympathizer

EDITORIALS

Barack Obama: The Last Communist Sympathizer

How far we’ve come since Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and famously demanded: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Today, President Barack Obama is singing serenades to communism.
While in Argentina last week, America’s apologizer in chief lamented:  “So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate. Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property.
“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”
What works? Have we arrived at a new ideological low that our president feels compelled to defend the evils of communism, a system that left people living under it — from the Soviet Union to China and East Germany to Cuba — in abject poverty, declining health and without the most basic of human rights?
What about the 200 million or more people who were killed after Big Brother decided what worked for them? Did rulers like Mao and Stalin just get a little carried away?
The enduring lesson of the 20th century, as Milton Friedman often reminded us, is that communism, socialism, Marxism, or whatever “ism” you want to call it, is an abject failure that degrades human dignity and progress. At least, Obama has finally fessed up to what Bernie Sanders would never admit, that communism and socialism are flip sides of the same coin.
Obama wants to portray the struggle between capitalism and communism/socialism as an “interesting experiment” yet unsettled. But the superiority of one system over another is no deep mystery. Statism in whatever disguise leads to deprivation, not prosperity.
Look no further than Korea, Germany and China after World War II. Each was separated into two countries with pretty much the same geography, culture, ethnic makeup and educational level. After 40 years of being split, communist China, North Korea and East Europe had become desperately poor, while free market-oriented Hong Kong, South Korea and West Germany became among the richest nations on the planet.
China, North Korea and East Germany actually suffered declining life expectancy, at a time when life expectancy surged almost everywhere else. One leading cause of early death in these repressive nations was suicide; another was alcoholism.
East Germany gunned down citizens who tried to escape past the Berlin Wall and Mao starved to death millions of peasant farmers. Things worked just fine otherwise.
At one time, Argentina was one of the five richest nations in the world, with a per capita income rivaling that of the U.S. But for most of the last 100 years Argentina has suffered under socialism and then economic collapse. It now operates as virtually a Third World country. Yes, Argentina, by all means: Choose what works.
America’s special place in the world, as Reagan used to say, “is to serve as a beacon of freedom” for the rest of the world to emulate. Nearly every modern American president — FDR, Ike, JFK, Reagan and even Clinton — served as ambassadors to the world for the virtues of free market capitalism.
Obama, by contrast, seems to want us to be more like them rather than them being more like us. It speaks volumes that few in the media didn’t pick up on the president’s morally offensive and economically dimwitted declaration — and almost no liberal pundits corrected him.
Sometimes we wonder if Obama and his sycophants in the media even believe that the right side won the Cold War.

Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.
Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”
What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”
In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”
This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a “crisis” to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists’ “better world” is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They’ve admitted this themselves.