NAFTA has always been a bad deal for America. Look at the trade deficits we have ran for decades for proof.

I believe that as long as the black market exists, cash will remain king. The black market is very powerful and has been around for centuries, probably before currency.

Source: Foreigners Selling UK Debt as Hard BEXIT appears | Armstrong Economics

https://www.bitchute.com/video/V8_lfPyerVc/

Mueller is Conspiring to Overthrow Trump & How to Stop Him

Mueller has conspired with others in the Deep Stateto take down Donald Trump as President. The way they do that is, in fact, to prosecute absolutely everyone around him to compel them to give false evidence against an individual. That is the standard operating procedure in how criminal cases are brought.

The talk behind the curtain is that Mueller will not only target all of Trump’s companies to try to destroy his empire and pass info to the Southern District of New York to bring charges as he did with Michael Cohen, but he will most likely indict Trump’s eldest son for even meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower. That meeting was to brief Trump’s son on the Magnitsky Act and that it was a cover-up for the US attempt to take over Russia and control the 2000 elections. This was the Bank of New York case, blackmailing Yeltsin, who then turned to Putin for help in return for making him the head of Russia. This is what Putin requested to interrogate in the USA in return for Mueller to interrogate Russians. The USA has rejected to allow Putin to question any American official.

Another of Trump’s friends, Roger Stone, has also gone public stating he expects Mueller to try to indict him in order to testify against Trump.

The Man Behind the Barcelona Attacks Was on Police Radar for Years. How Did They Let It Happen?

St. Louis Fed: 60% of Jobs Automated in Next 20 Years (Spotlight Transportation) @Blacklisted News/Mish Shedlock

Advances in technology are almost always considered positive because they increase productivity and ease frustration of completing simple, menial tasks. However, technological improvement does not come without cost; some tech advancements can result in the automation of jobs that used to be performed by humans.

Currently, automation is occurring more in service and manufacturing positions. It is one factor that contributes to labor market polarization, or the disappearance of middle-income, routine task type jobs in the U.S. Despite a strong labor market, fear of job loss from automation is common. Some parents with young children already worry that robots will take all potential jobs for their children in the near future.

The short-term impact of automation is not directly observable, but two economists at the University of Oxford, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, attempted to quantify jobs that are at risk in a 2013 article about automation. The researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to estimate the probability that an occupation will become automated in the next few decades. The probability is calculated based on three major factors of the occupation: perception and manipulation, creative intelligence, and social intelligence. The result can be interpreted as the likelihood that engineers will be able to produce machinery that performs tasks required in each occupation.

The economists found that 47 percent of jobs in the U.S. are at risk of becoming automated. Jobs that are repetitive or routine-intensive have the highest probability of this happening. The economists predicted that the transportation and logistics occupations, as well as the office and administrative support occupations, will lose the most jobs to automation over the next decade or so.

The Oxford economists predicted that automation will occur in waves, first replacing routine tasks, then slowing as engineers reach a technological plateau. A good example, provided by Frey and Osborne, is that paralegals and legal assistants (which are considered relatively low-skill, routine-based occupations) are seeing their jobs quickly becoming automated; however, it will be a long time before computers are advanced enough to replace lawyers (whose jobs are considered high-skill, nonroutine).

Color Me Raped

When I was a child, one of the many life lessons my parents taught me is that it’s easy to complain, but if possible, one should strive to be constructive and add something positive to a situation beyond merely pointing out what’s wrong. No one likes a negative nudnik (funny enough, Negative Nudnik was the original title of Elie Wiesel’s Night). Last week I complained about the fact that the U.S. Department of Justice flatly refuses to release detailed interracial rape statistics. I am, on principle, against withholding data. And I’m especially against a government agency withholding data from the public in order to please the social justice mavens on the left.

My overall point was, the media is always lightning-quick to tell people of color how much “danger” they face from white women, but white women are prevented from seeing any facts or figures regarding how much danger (scare quotes oddly absent there) they face from people of color.

But still, in the end, all I was doing was bitching about something that isn’t there. I was shouting at a hole for being hollow, which is rarely productive.

So this week, as a supplement of sorts to last week’s column, I want to be a bit more constructive and analyze an academic study that, while a little old, is nevertheless the best (and perhaps last) scholarly examination of exactly the kind of thing the DOJ doesn’t want us to be able to study today.

“The Racial Patterning of Rape” could not be published in “the current year.” Not just because the required statistics are unavailable, but also because, in a time when even the suggestion that students should be free to choose their own Halloween costumes can get respected academics fired by angry black mobs from our most prestigious college campuses, no university-affiliated journal would ever allow such a tome to see the light of day (unless the entire editorial board was itching to find new jobs). “The Racial Patterning of Rape” appeared in the September 1990 edition of Social Forces, the quarterly, peer-reviewed academic journal of social science published by Oxford University Press in association with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Now, I would not use a 1990 study if I were writing a piece on iPhone vs. Android users. But regarding rapists and their motivations, I think human nature has remained unfluctuating enough over the past 28 years to justify the continued relevance of such a study. We’re still pretty much the same animal, with the same flaws, desires, and hatreds.

“The Racial Patterning of Rape” had two authors. Richard B. Felson is a professor of sociology and criminology at Penn State, and an adjunct professor of sociology at SUNY, Albany (he is also a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology). Scott J. South is a distinguished professor of sociology, also at SUNY, Albany (both men were at SUNY when the piece was written). For the record, in the 28 years since they prepared their report, neither gentleman has joined the Klan, the Nazi Party, or David Duke for brunch. So no, these were not two racist loose cannons.

Using records going back several decades, Felson and South (henceforth F&S) examined DOJ data for 1,396 U.S. male-on-female rapes. They begin their report with an admission that’ll likely produce seizures in today’s teat-suckling millennials: They’re not trying to see if black men rape white women to a greater degree than white men rape black women. They admit going in that it’s simply a statistical fact that black-on-white rape is more common than the converse. You could not make such an admission today. But F&S boldly proclaim that unpleasant truth right off the bat. In fact, they point out that of those 1,396 rapes, only twenty—yes, twenty—involved a white offender and black victim. That’s 1.4 percent. As a result, the study is not a “do they” but a “why do they.” What’s the reason for, as they put it, “blacks’ proclivity to rape whites”?

F&S compare the raw data to the prevailing theories regarding black-on-white rape, and the theories come up lacking. Is it a matter of poverty? This is known as the “deprivation” theory. Do blacks who feel especially “marginalized” and “trapped in poverty” rape white women at a greater rate than middle-class blacks? Does it all come down to feelings of anger at being “kept down by the man”? Nope. Not at all. The stats show that economic condition is not an indicator. F&S quickly jettison the “poverty” theory.

Next, F&S test out the “sexual access” theory. According to the proponents of that school of thought, black-on-white rape occurs because blacks, due to segregation, don’t have legitimate opportunities to socialize with white women. Deprived of normal channels of mixing, and watching white women from afar on TV and in movies, blacks begin to see white chicks not only as unattainable, but as forbidden fruit. This mixture of anger, desire, and a feeling of being “shut out” of normal human contact with white women leads to a compulsion to “steal” relations with white women via rape.

But guess what? F&S discover that in fact segregation is not a factor. Indeed, black-on-white rape is actually more likely to occur in cities in which integration is strong and the interracial marriage rate is high (i.e., “tolerant” cities). “Low levels of segregation are associated with high levels of black-on-white rape,” F&S write. The more that blacks mix with white women, the rapier they get.

F&S conclude:

We find little support for the hypotheses, derived from conflict theory, that interracial rape reflects black economic deprivation and politicalization. Interracial, as opposed to intraracial, rapes were no more frequent in cities with high black poverty, unemployment, or racial inequality. Nor does interracial rape appear to result from blacks’ limited sexual access to white women; we do not find the expected relationship between a city’s interracial marriage rate and the racial composition of rape.

In one fell swoop, F&S debunked two theories that the left has been pushing for decades as solutions to black crime: “end poverty” and “more mixing!”

As if I need to say it again, there is absolutely no way this report could be produced today. It also begins to become clear, the more you read it, why the deep staters at the DOJ don’t want researchers to have access to the same stats F&S saw. What’s at stake here is more than just hurt feelings on the part of blacks; there’s an agenda at risk.

F&S don’t seem particularly pleased with their findings. They’re honest researchers, but they come off as hesitant to admit what soon becomes very obvious—that black men, regardless of class, status, or access, simply prefer to rape white women. So F&S latch on to the one bit of data they feel can lift themselves out of the hole they’re digging. They point out that “during the course of robberies involving strangers, black men are slightly more likely to rape a black woman than a white woman.” Further in the study, that sentence transmogrifies to “during robberies of strangers, blacks are significantly more likely to rape a black woman than a white woman.” Yes, “slightly” becomes “significantly” (bad show, boys) as F&S try to stretch that one bit of anomalous data to suit their needs.

These robbery stats, F&S conclude, call into question “the hypothesis that black rapists prefer white victims.” Later they add that the rape-during-the-commission-of-a-robbery stats “would seem to dispel the view that black rape offenders have a special attraction to white victims.”

And here’s where their cogent analysis goes all Elmer Fudd. They fail to take into account several factors regarding blacks who plan a robbery only to decide during the course of it to commit rape. One factor is level of comfort. If you decide to turn your simple robbery into a rape, chances are you’re in a place where you feel comfortable doing so. Therefore, it just makes sense that this type of rape would be more prevalent in neighborhoods where blacks feel the most comfortable (i.e., their own). If you’re robbing a fancy house that may have a silent alarm and neighbors who notice noise, or if you’re robbing someone in a Beverly Hills parking garage, you may not exactly feel like taking your time with the task.

Moreover, I’d want to know the age of the women being robbed. Growing up going to majority-black schools, there was a belief expressed by many of my school chums that old white people are misers who stash money and jewels in their home. If blacks disproportionately target elderly whites for robberies, well of course that would influence spur-of-the-moment rapes. Elder-rape is a fetish. Lord knows there are lots of pervs (of all races) who have it, but it’s a fetish. If you don’t have it, you’re not likely to rape a 90-year-old just because she’s there. If a good portion of white female robbery victims are older, that may explain the difference in rape stats.

When discussing the profile of the average white victim of black stranger-rape, F&S state:

We found that among white victims education increases the probability of being raped by black offenders rather than white offenders. The interaction model anticipated this effect on the assumption that more educated white women hold more liberal racial attitudes and thus interact more frequently with black men. However, education was found to be a stronger predictor of the racial composition of stranger rape than nonstranger rape; the social interaction model, with its emphasis on rapes among acquaintances, would have predicted the reverse.

Educated white women are more likely to be victims of black rape, but not because they’re necessarily more liberal and thus more likely to mix with blacks. These women are more frequently the targets of blacks who are complete strangers. F&S kinda leave that thread hanging, offering no real hypothesis for the anomaly. Could it be that the sight of well-put-together, successful white women triggers something in black males? A hostility that transcends the offenders’ economic status or level of inclusion/exclusion from white society?

That sure would be a neat trail to follow. And it’s certainly high time for someone to pick up where Felson and South left off. You know what? I might just do that myself! Yeah, that’s the ticket. I think I’ll work on an updated version of their analysis. Now all I gotta do is contact the DOJ to get the current data and…

Oh, right.

Well, it was a nice dream while it lasted.

Maybe someday social scientists and statisticians will demand that the government make the raw data regarding interracial rapes available to the public. And maybe our esteemed academics will stop cowering before the social justice thugs and demand free inquiry on matters of public safety.

Yeah, that’s another lesson my parents taught me…always go out on a laugh.

Pay to Play – Put your money where your mouth is and subscribe for an ad-free experience and to join the world famous Takimag comment board.

Labour’s conspiracy of silence on immigration

4 mins

One of the characteristics of the modern Left is its obstinate refusal to accept inconvenient truths, its unwillingness to look hard facts in the eye and adopt honest arguments in response.

Nowhere is this more apparent than on the question of the consequences of mass immigration in working-class communities.

To argue that the impact has been deep and profound, and not always to the good, is to incite in a wide layer of Left-wing activists an unbridled fury. Emotion, boilerplate and cliché are elevated above evidence, logic and reason.

The bull-headed intractability of Left leaders in resisting any sort of candid debate on mass immigration and its effects on those for whom they claim to speak borders on the criminal. Take the recent publication of a report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), which highlighted that a tighter labour market, caused in no small measure by a slowdown in the rate of EU-born workers coming to the UK, had forced over half of employers to increase wages.

Did the leaders of the labour movement have anything to say about this? Was there any sense of mea culpa for having spent years attacking those of us who argued that EU free movement laws depressed wages? Was there hell.

They ignored this publication just as they ignored all previous research that established a link between higher immigration levels and worse outcomes for the lowest-paid workers, such as a Bank of England study which concluded that for every 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants, the pay of those working in semi- or unskilled services is reduced by 2%, and other research showing that UK immigration levels have had a significant effect on wage distribution, with medium- and higher-paid workers gaining and the poorest losing out.

There can be little doubt that, were the research to drill down specifically into those industries where the over-supply of labour was most acute, the effects would be found to be even more striking. It is no surprise, for example, that the hospitality and catering sectors have seen some of the sharpest increases in salary offers, following a post-referendum decline in the number of applications from EU workers.

It isn’t rocket science. Just as a surplus of anything reduces its cost, so most reputable economists, from Karl Marx to Milton Friedman, have agreed that an over-supply of labour depresses wages. A handful of us in the labour movement have been pointing out this simple truth for years, only to be regularly assailed by unthinking colleagues labelling us as ‘bigots’ and worse.

There was a time when support for open borders was a fringe position on the Left, for most mainstream socialists and trade unionists understood that, while properly-managed immigration could be a good thing, having absolutely no control over the numbers of people entering your country was inimical to socialist planning around employment, housing and welfare. They acknowledged too that, in facilitating the unimpeded movement of workers from low- to high-wage economies, open borders were a dream for bosses intent on reducing labour costs – a point refreshingly recognised by Bernie Sanders, hero to millions on today’s Left, who described a borderless world as a Koch brothers proposal that would make working people poorer.

In defending their position, Left-wing defenders of open borders will resort to the worst kind of sophistry and dishonesty. They will argue, for example, that so far as there is any impact on wages, it is only ‘small’ – as though that will come as any sort of comfort to someone on a low wage for whom, especially in these straitened times, every penny counts.

Or they will try to convince you that open borders aren’t responsible in any way for reduced wages; it is instead exclusively down to ‘rip-off bosses’ paying their workers too little – the equivalent of the ‘Guns don’t kill people; bad people kill people’ argument.

Or they will argue that regulating better, such as by increasing the minimum wage, is the answer – thereby missing two fundamental points: first that most workers already earn above the minimum wage and would therefore not stand to benefit in any way and, second, that no level of regulation can ultimately overcome the basic laws of supply and demand that dictate employers will always be under less pressure to increase wages the greater the supply of labour available to them.

Or they will drag out the ‘lump of labour fallacy’ argument, which, while correctly recognising that there is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy, goes on to assert that increases in the population through immigration lead to more demand and thus higher levels of growth and greater prosperity – a theory which, as well as being an argument for an ever-expanding population, has been shown to be deeply flawed by, among others, the Cambridge economist Bob Rowthorn.

Or they will just dispense with any attempt at coherent argument and brazenly misrepresent your position by accusing you of ‘blaming migrants’ or being ‘anti-immigration’.

There is a conspiracy of silence among labour movement leaders on the real impact of unrestricted immigration in working-class communities. It is their own version of ‘Don’t mention the war’, a symptom of the group-think that infects today’s Left from top to bottom. Most leaders and activists, comfortable in their own collective prejudices and with no experience of thinking critically or independently, are unable to comprehend that there might just be a credible alternative point of view on this issue – one that isn’t rooted in ‘dog whistle’ politics or ‘xenophobia’, but is perfectly commensurate with the traditions of democratic socialism and trade unionism.

No, opponents must instead be smeared and denounced.

They ought to take a long hard look at themselves. Because, in the end, their support for open borders, far from bringing about the unity of the international working-class and breaking down social and cultural barriers, has served instead to entrench a system that commodifies humanity, atomises communities and allows big business to cut wages in the quest for greater profits. How could any representative of working people be proud of that outcome?