Fail: 9 Times Globalists Claimed Mass Immigration Necessary to Increase GDP

On this day in 1932,

Federal Troops Rout WWI Veteran Bonus Marchers from D.C. Camp

MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower Lead Attack

From The Sad Tale of the Bonus Marchers:

Following World War I, the U.S. federal government anticipated that its war-risk insurance plan would adequately protect American soldiers and sailors who had served during the war, and that there would be no demand for compensation to those who had suffered no injury during their service in the army or navy. In 1924, however, Congress enacted a law, over the veto of President Calvin Coolidge, providing for a system of adjusted compensation based on length of service, with a distinction made in favor of service overseas. Under this plan, veterans entitled to receive $50 or less were to be paid in cash; those entitled to receive more than $50 were to receive certificates maturing in 20 years.

Veterans up to the rank of major with at least 60 days service each received a dollar for each day of domestic service up to $500 and $1.25 for each day of overseas service up to $625. The bond that each received in 1924 (in lieu of cash) would accumulate compound interest, resulting in an average payment of about $1,000 for each veteran in 1945.

In order to meet full payment of these certificates when they matured in 1945, Congress provided that a trust fund be created through the appropriation of twenty annual installments of $ 112 million each. This would yield a total of $2.24 billion. Interest compounded annually would increase this sum approximately to the amount required to meet the face value of the certificates at maturity. By April 1932, there were 3,662,374 of those certificates outstanding, bearing an aggregate face value of $3.638 billion. By this time eight annual installments of $ 112 million had been paid into the fund by Congress, making a total of $896 million, and accrued interest had added $95 million, bringing the fund to $991 million. 

However, because of the national depression, in 1931 Congress expanded the privilege of borrowing with an amendment adopted over the veto of President Herbert Hoover, increasing the loan value of the certificates from 22 1/2 per cent to 50 per cent of face value. 

By April 1932, loans amounting to $1.248 billion were outstanding. The difference between this figure and the total face value of the certificates, $3.638 billion, was $2.390 billion. This was the additional sum which the veterans would receive if Congress, again over the President's veto, approved a new proposal for immediate redemption of the certificates at face value, thirteen years before maturity in 1945. 

This early redemption capability came to be referred to by members of Congress and veterans groups as a bonus, and during the early months of 1932 the bonus was a topic of ongoing discussion in the legislature. Because of the opposition of President Hoover and many senators and members of the House, due primarily to the fact that the country was trying to work its way out of the depression and this action would put a severe strain on the federal budget, veterans groups began to organize around the country with the idea of marching on Washington, D.C. to press their demands. 

Beginning in May, 1932, groups of World War I veterans began difficult journeys across the country, traveling in empty railroad freight cars, in the backs of trucks, in cars, on foot and by any other means that became available. By mid-June it was estimated that as many as 20,000 veterans and some family members had arrived in Washington, and were camping out, often in dirty, unsanitary conditions, in parks and military bases around the city, depending on donations of food from a variety of governments, churches and private citizens. On June 16, the House passed the bonus bill by a vote of 209-176, but on June 18, the Senate defeated the bill 62-18. 

At this point, the federal and district governments began to make arrangements to force the veterans to go home, but very few accepted the offer, vowing to stay until they received their bonus. Throughout July the veterans, known as the Bonus Expeditionary Force, continued to hold marches and rallies despite the fact that they were receiving ultimatums to leave, with the White House proposing use of troops to force an evacuation. 

Then on July 29, 1932, troops did storm several buildings that the veterans were occupying as well as their main camp, setting tents on fire and forcing an evacuation. When it was over, one veteran had been killed and about 50 veterans and Washington police had been injured in various confrontations. Over the next several months, a much smaller group of Bonus Expeditionary Force members continued to pressure Congress, and in May 1933 about 1,000 veterans marched again on Washington. Newly-elected President Franklin Roosevelt also opposed the bonus but demonstrated his concern for the unemployed veterans by issuing an executive order permitting the enrollment of 25,000 of them in the Citizens' Conservation Corps for work in forests. When the veterans realized that President Roosevelt would also veto the bonus bill but was offering an alternative solution they gradually backed away from their demands, and the issue of the veterans' bonus eventually faded from the news. 

Source Artice 
Wikipedia
History.net

Grant's Almost Daily Interest Rate Observer

China Reels, Opens Credit Spigots to Survive Trump Trade Sanctions

Deleveraging, we hardly knew ye.  As the Sino-American trade spat continues to hot up, Beijing has responded by further cranking the credit spigots open.  

On Monday, the People’s Bank of China unleashed a record Rmb 502 billion ($72 billion) injection of medium-term lending facility funds to commercial banks, a move, the Financial Times notes, that served to expand the money supply as “no previously issued loans were scheduled to mature” on that day. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that the PBoC alerted certain Chinese banks that a “structural parameter” of capital requirements will be cut by 50 basis points in order “to support local financial institutions in meeting credit demand effectively.”  China’s central bank has already cut its reserve ratio requirement for banks on three separate occasions this year.

State support for the economy has spilled into the fiscal realm as well as monetary: Today, Reuters reports that China “plans to put more money into infrastructure projects and ease borrowing curbs on local governments to help soften the blow” from the trade war.

The exertions have already made an impact: On Tuesday, the China Foreign Exchange Trade System reported record volume of repurchase agreements, as “bond traders have taken the slew of credit-boosting measures unveiled in the past week as a green light to borrow.”  Not just in heightened activity are the looser policies being felt. The iBoxx China High Yield Total Return Index, which lost nearly 8% from January to mid-July in a slow grind lower, has promptly recouped half of that downdraft in less than two weeks.

Currency depreciation is likewise accelerating, as the yuan today completed a seventh straight weekly decline against the dollar. Since April, the renminbi has depreciated by 8% against the dollar, a 25% annualized pace. Since July 9, redbacks are down by 3% against the buck, a 44% annualized clip.

Is the weakening currency part of a Communist party plan or the result of rapid capital outflows? Brad Setser, senior fellow for international economics at the Council of Foreign Relations, thinks the former. In a July 23 blog post, Setser argues that the renminbi’s decline, if not an outright policy maneuver by the Chinese authorities, is broadly in line with their strategic interests. Noting a rising “basic balance” (the current account plus foreign direct investment) in China, Setser concludes:

That suggests, at least [to] me, that if China clearly signaled that it didn’t want the yuan to depreciate further, it could hold the line relatively easily. . . The depreciation pressure right now stems, in large part, from expectations that China wants a weaker currency in response to Trump’s tariffs and a slowing domestic economy – not uncontrolled outflow pressure. 

Anne Stevenson-Yang, co-founder of J Capital Research and friend of Grant’s, has a somewhat different perspective. In a July 23 research note, Stevenson-Yang suggests that China’s credit-saturated economy (bank assets topped last year’s GDP by more than 300% and represent more than half of 2017 world GDP) is the primary force behind the recent gyrations in FX, while also arguing that the powers-that-be might ultimately hold less sway on the exchange rate than is widely believed:

The reality is that China’s currency is most intimately connected, as with any currency, to the domestic economy – debt, asset prices, real estate prices, and efficiency gains and losses rather than just trade. On that basis, this is the time for depreciation.

On the one side, Beijing faces very low growth outside of that driven mechanically by lending. Public confidence is low, and families that have wealth trapped in illiquid property are growing restive. People of means want to move abroad and want to externalize their assets. On the other side, Beijing has capital controls.

We are betting the people win.

If the yuan continues its powerwalk lower, the financial stability that Beijing covets could be put to the test. Today, Paola Subacchi of the South China Morning Post declared that the Middle Kingdom is “stuck between a rock and a hard place,” as monetary and fiscal easing designed to shoulder China’s massive debt burden stokes the risk of ongoing currency depreciation, capital flight and a potential drawdown of foreign currency reserves.

Watch the renminbi.

The Nation: 

The Elite's Fixation with Russiagate

On this day in 1974,

House Impeaches Nixon

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: Trump's End-Game Is "Zero Tariffs" With EU

Mexico’s 2018 Murder Count Already Surpasses 2017 Total

FT: Chinese View Trump As A Game-Changer Who Will Better The U.S.' Economy

Grant's Almost Daily Interest Rate Observer:

FACEBOOK ZUCK, ZUCK GOOSE

As Yogi Berra once said, 

"You can observe a lot just by watching."

A bump in the road, or something more?  As investors the world over are by now well aware, yesterday evening Facebook, Inc. (FB on the Nasdaq) shocked its cadre of bullish boosters by forecasting sharp slowdowns in both revenue growth and operating margins in coming quarters and years. What’s more, net daily active user growth of 22 million quarter-over-quarter was its smallest since early 2011, while European usage saw an outright decline and the North American daily user count remained flat. Growth that would be the envy of nearly any other large-cap (revenues and operating income jumped 42% and 33% year-over-year, respectively) was relegated to afterthought status.

In some corridors, the business update elicited disbelief.  Of the dwindling growth outlook, Brent Thill, analyst at Jefferies LLC, remarked on yesterday’s conference call:  “I think many investors are having a hard time reconciling that deceleration. It just seems like the magnitude is beyond anything we’ve seen, especially across a number of tech [companies] we cover.”  Investors echoed Thill’s sentiments, sending FB shares down by 19%.  With the company sporting a gargantuan $630 billion market capitalization heading into the report, the decline represented the single largest one-day loss of stock market value in U.S. history according to FactSet. Since Aug. 11, 2017, shares are up by 3%, compared to a 17% gain in the S&P 500.

Of course, a dramatic fall first requires a great ascent, and few companies have enjoyed a steeper rise than Mark Zuckerberg’s social network. From July 2013 to yesterday, FB shares gained 861%, a 55% annualized pace. One can hardly argue the stock price rally was disconnected from fundamentals either. Over the trailing 12-month period, the company has generated $48.5 billion in revenues, $19.1 billion in net income and $28 billion in cash from operations. That’s up from $7.9 billion, $1.5 billion and $4.2 billion, respectively, in 2013.

But it’s a different environment in light of the Cambridge Analytica data-leaking scandal of March, one that Facebook has opted to manage through a litany of new hires and extra spending that looks set to cut into its future earnings potential. On the conference call, Zuckerberg had this to say about Facebook’s enhanced security and privacy initiatives:

Looking ahead, we will continue to invest heavily in security and privacy because we have a responsibility to keep people safe. But, as I've said on past calls, we're investing so much in security that it will significantly impact our profitability. We're starting to see that this quarter. 

But, in addition to this, we also have a responsibility to keep building services that bring people closer together in new ways as well. 

Now, in light of increased investment in security, we could choose to decrease our investment in new product areas, but we're not going to, because that wouldn't be the right way to serve our community and because we run this company for the long term not for the next quarter.

It’s no empty talk. Capital expenditures footed to $3.46 billion in the most recent period, well more than double the $1.44 billion capex line for the second quarter of 2017. According to yesterday’s earnings press release, current employee headcount at Facebook totaled 30,725 as of June 30, up a whopping 47% year-over-year.

Even without the baggage from Cambridge Analytica and the associated fallout, Facebook was set to brush up against commercial gravity sooner or later. There are only so many people in the world (7.6 billion according to the United Nations and Facebook reports 2.2 billion monthly active users), and only so many advertising dollars for the taking.  In the Aug. 11, 2017 bearish analysis of Facebook, Grant’s suggested that “maybe growth, momentum and a dazzling stock market performance have obscured the problems that will ensure that not even Zuckerberg’s tree reaches the sky.”

That analysis incorporated the views of Pivotal Research Group’s Brian Wieser, who was one of only two analysts to label FB shares a sell, compared to 44 sell-siders who rated the stock a buy into yesterday’s earnings release. By way of reaction to the second quarter results, Wieser reiterates the simple fact underpinning his bearish thesis:

The advertising industry – and digital advertising, no less – has limits to growth, which we think is the primary factor constraining Facebook’s revenue opportunity. . . While the company is still growing at a fast clip, the days of 30% plus growth are numbered.

For investors, the pain from today’s sharp pullback is distributed far and wide. According to analysts at Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 97 hedge funds counted Facebook as among their top-10 holdings as of the end of the first quarter. That’s the heaviest concentration of any one stock, and up from 81 funds that counted FB as a top-10 holding in September of last year. It’s not just the financial blue bloods who are taking a hit: Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas estimates that 27% of Facebook shares are held by mutual funds, while an additional 6% are in the hands of various ETFs.

As Wall Street has accumulated, Menlo Park has vacated. The persistent, aggressive open-market sales by Facebook executives and directors that have been extensively chronicled on these pages, continue apace: In the five trading days preceding yesterday’s update, CEO Zuckerberg disposed of 1.23 million shares, generating proceeds of $262 million.  Chief operating officer Sherryl Sandberg sold 55,000 shares for $11.5 million, while chief product officer Christopher Cox cashed out of 10,600 shares to the tune of $2.2 million.

As former Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once said: “You can observe a lot by just watching.”

Peter Thiel: Free Trade Theory ‘Totally at Odds’ with Reality of ‘Massive’ China Trade Deficits

The Art of the Deal,

Trump, EU agree to work on lowering tariffs, averting a potential trade war

Althouse: More Bland, Hysterical Anti-Trump Lameness from WaPo

Pat Buchanan,

Russia is but a weak shadow of the old U.S.S.R.

On this day in 1959,

The Nixon-Khrushchev "Kitchen Debate"

Current Affairs: The U.S. has meddled in more elections, including in Russia, than Russia

GQ: The Untold Story of Otto Warmbier, American Hostage

North Korea Begins Dismantling Key Facilities at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station

WSJ: The Trump Divide Grows and there is No Middle Ground

Former U.S. Atty Andrew McCarthy,

FISA Applications Confirm FBI Relied on the Unverified Steele Dossier

A salacious Clinton-campaign product was the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation.

On this day in 1885,

Ulysses S. Grant Dies

Dies Of Cancer Nearly Bankrupt Using Cocaine To Finish Mark Twain-Assisted Bio

On this day in 1885, General and President Ulysses S. Grant died. 

Grant’s original name was Hiram Ulysses Grant but the congressman who wrote his recommendation to West Point mistakenly referred to him as Ulysses S. Grant.  The new name stuck.

After serving successfully on the western front, Grant had about hit bottom in the business world before he resorted to asking his father for a job in Galena, Illinois.  When the Civil War began, Grant wrote a letter offering his services to the War Department, but apparently no one bothered to read the letter and it was later found in a miscellaneous file cabinet.  Grant then offered his services to General George McClellan but McClellan was too busy to talk to Grant.  Finally, the governor of Illinois, somewhat desperate for a commander, gave Grant a regiment of volunteers to lead.  As they say, the rest is history.

Grant died of throat cancer likely caused by his wartime habit of chain-smoking cigars, a habit he may have developed to kick his drinking habit.  Thanks to a fraudulent investment scheme recommended by his son, Grant was virtually bankrupt the last months of his life.  In order to provide income for his wife, Grant began working on an autobiography which his friend, Mark Twain, promised he would publish.  Aided by regular use of cocaine, Grant finished working on his life story just a few days before he died.

On this day in 1967,

The Riot That Destroyed Detroit For Decades

43 Dead, $50 Million Property Damage, 1/2 Million Leave City

On this day in 1967, the Detroit Riot started and became the third worst riot in American history (behind the 1863 New York Draft Riot and the 1992 L.A. Riot).  Five days later, 7,000 people had been arrested, 43 people were dead, 342 injured, nearly 1,400 buildings had been burned causing $50 million dollars of property damage, and 5,000 people were homeless.  Some 7,000 National Guard and U.S. Army troops, including paratroopers, patrolled the streets in tanks and armored carriers.

The riot started when police raided a “blind pig”, an illegal after-hours club.  85 patrons were inside to celebrate the return of two servicemen from Vietnam.  A small crowd gathered as police began to herd the patrons into paddy wagons.  Soon there was a crowd of 200 yelling at the police as they tried to maintain order.

Per the Detroit Free Press, the riot started when the owner of the club threw a bottle at the police – and missed:

William Walter Scott II, was the principal owner of the club, an illegal after-hours drinking and gambling joint. His older sister, Wilma, was a cook and waitress. The night was hot and sticky, and the crowd’s initial teasing of the arrestees devolved into raucous goading of police as they became more aggressive, pushing and twisting the arms of the women. 

“You don’t have to treat them that way,” Bill Scott yelled. “They can walk. Let them walk, you white sons of bitches.” 

By the time the wagons were full, the crowd had swelled, the taunts had grown more hostile and, though police manpower was thin early Sunday, several scout cars responded to the scene. Cops stood at the ready in the middle of 12th Street, billy clubs in hand, forcing the throng back on the sidewalk. 

Scott, tall and lean, mounted a car and began to preach to a crowd long accustomed to the harsh tactics of the overwhelmingly white Detroit police in black neighborhoods: “Are we going to let these peckerwood motherf—— come down here any time they want and mess us around?” 

 “Hell, no!” people yelled back. 

Scott walked into an alley and grabbed a bottle, seeking “the pleasure of hitting one in the head, maybe killing him,” he remembers thinking. Making his way into the middle of the crowd for cover, he threw the bottle at a sergeant standing in front of the door. 

The missile missed, shattering on the sidewalk. A phalanx of police moved toward the crowd, then backed off. As the paddy wagons drove away, bottles, bricks and sticks flew through the air, smashing the windows of departing police cars. Bill Scott said he felt liberated. 

“For the first time in our lives we felt free. Most important, we were right in what we did to the law.” 

The rebellion was underway.

Looting and fires started soon thereafter.  By the next morning, every Detroit police officer and firefighter was on duty, reinforced soon thereafter by the state police, the National Guard, and U.S. Army troops.

The city, which once had a population of million, would lose nearly 500,000 residents as people fled to the suburbs over the next few decades.

Some people believe the abandoned and destroyed building shown in the recent picture below is the location of the club where the riots started. 

Wikipedia Article 

Detroit Free Press Article

Law Prof Althouse: Is the Carter Page FISA Warrant Application as Ridiculous as it seems?