The S&P 500 has spent the month of May bouncing in the range between 2,800 and 3,000. While the index remains 11% below its all-time high, there is a cautious sense of optimism, that the worst of the bear market is behind us.
Investors may be feeling upbeat, and anticipating a recovery in 2H20, but times are still volatile. To make sense of them, TipRanks offers the Smart Score, a comprehensive tool which analyzes every stock in the TipRanks database according to 8 interrelated factors. The data is measured and collated by sophisticated AI algorithms, and used to generate a single score for each stock. Shown on a 1 to 10 scale, the Smart Score is based on analyst, blogger, and investor sentiment, and collective indicators such as hedge activity and insider trading.
Today, we’ll look at three high-yield dividend stocks that have earned a ‘perfect 10’ from the Smart Score. For investors seeking a clear forward path, the data shows that these are the picks most likely to bring solid returns. Each of these stocks combines its perfect Smart Score with a reliable dividend history, giving investors a secure income stream. Let’s dive in.
First up is Bunge, an important company in the world’s food and agriculture food chain. Chances are, the food you eat depends on Bunge. The company specializes in oils and milled grains used by commercial brands and restaurants around the world. Bunge also deals in storage, transport, and processing of raw materials for end products in high-protein livestock feed. Other operations include corn, sugarcane, and wheat growing and processing.
Since we all need to eat, Bunge benefits from occupying an essential niche. Even so, the coronavirus pandemic found ways to hit the company. The various lockdown and shutdown policies enacted globally in Q1 slowed restaurant and commercial food businesses almost to a halt. BG saw reported income swing from a $1.27 per share profit in Q4 to a $1.34 per share net loss in Q1. BG shares have underperformed in recent months, and are still down 31% from February levels.
Despite the earnings slide, Bunge’s management has chosen to maintain the company’s dividend – a dividend that has been paid out regularly since 2001. At 50 cents quarterly, the current payment annualizes to $2.00, and gives an impressive yield of 5.65%. This is almost triple the 2% average yield found among peer companies in the industrial good sector.
The Smart Score on BG shares gets its boost from the ‘sentiment’ factors. As may be expected in a difficult market environment, the technical and fundamental analysis factors are negative – but insiders have purchased $9.9 million worth of BG shares in recent months, and hedge fund activity has also increased. The professional stock watchers, both analysts and bloggers, are also strongly positive on this stock. These upbeat indicators outweigh the negatives in this case.
Covering BG shares for BMO Capital, 5-star analyst Kenneth Zaslow writes, “BG remains our "Top Pick" for 2020, as BG's underlying business fundamentals relative to its value appear to be largely misunderstood… BG’s internal operational improvements, nimble risk management framework, and underlying fundamentals enable BG to maintain its Agribusiness outlook… Despite BG's stock reaction, BG's economic earnings reduction represents less than 5% on EBITDA (i.e., majority is non-cash) and likely is temporary.”
In line with his position that this stock has a fundamentally sound foundation, Zaslow gives it a Buy rating. His $72 price target indicates his confidence, suggesting a 91% upside in the coming year. (To watch Zaslow’s track record, click here)
Wall Street is in general agreement that Bunge represents a buying opportunity. The Strong Buy analyst consensus rating is based on 4 reviews, including 3 Buys and a single Hold. Shares are priced at $35.53, while the average price target of $57.50 implies a health upside of 61%. (See Bunge stock analysis at TipRanks)
Next up, Hudson Pacific, is a real estate investment trust, a type of company well-known for offering high-yield dividends. REITs operate by buying, managing, and leasing a range of residential and commercial properties, or by offering and investing in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. HPP focuses on office space, in the lucrative Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver markets. The company’s assets include 15 million square feet of leasable office space, located in prime high-tech development areas. Among Hudson’s clients are Alphabet and Netflix.
Q1 has been difficult for the REIT sector. With economic activity mainly shut down, business income streams have slowed to a trickle – which trickles down, as no income makes expenses, like rent, hard to meet. HPP reported EPS of 54 cents in Q1, down 2% from Q4, and Q2 is forecast at 50 cents. The company has maintained its dividend during the downturn – but this is no surprise, as the payout ratio is only 46% and REITs are required by tax code to return a high proportion of profits directly to shareholders. The 25-cent quarterly dividend represents a yield of 4.7%, more than double that found among peer companies.
Hudson shares many of the same Smart Score advantages as Bunge, above. Analyst and blogger sentiment are both positive, and hedge and insider purchases are both increasing. While most of the technical and fundamentals are in the red, one of them – asset growth – is highly positive. Asset growth is up 6.39% over the past 12 months. All of this adds up to a perfect 10 on the Smart Score.
Piper Sandler analyst Alexander Goldfarb is deeply impressed by HPP’s potential looking forward. He sees the company as uniquely well-positioned to benefit as the economy reopens: “We are even more bulled up by the prospects of increased demand for HPP's studio and media-oriented assets coupled with its ability to re-imagine space for the gaming and entertainment industries. HPP stands alone in its material exposure to these industries (17% ABR to media and entertainment), which have a pressing need to return to production for new content in the wake of the binge consumption occurring during COVID... With talent hesitant to travel, car-loving LA makes HPP well positioned to not only re-open soon but also with the office product in high demand.”
Goldfarb puts a Buy rating on HPP, and his $28 price target implies a healthy upside potential of 21% for the coming 12 months. (To watch Goldfarb’s track record, click here)
The Street’s consensus on HPP is a Strong Buy, based on 5 Buy ratings and 1 Hold set in recent weeks. Hudson’s shares are selling for $23.14, and the average price target is slightly more bullish than Goldfarb’s; at $28.20, it indicates a 22% upside potential. (See Hudson Pacific stock analysis on TipRanks)
Last on our list is a company you’re likely familiar with. CVS is well-known for its pharmacy chain, an asset that has proven especially valuable in the current climate. Unlike most companies – and the overall market – which saw declines in Q1 2020, CVS actually reported a quarterly earnings sequential gain. While the company had been expected to show a decline to $1.62 per share, EPS was reported at $1.91. This was up 10% from Q4, and an even stronger 19% year-over-year. The demand for pharmacy goods and service should be obvious to all.
Solid earnings support a solid dividend. CVS is paying out 50 cents quarterly, or $2 per year, on each share. The company has kept its dividend payments reliable for the last 15 years, in good times or bad, adding to the dividend’s allure. The current yield is 3.2%, which beats the 2.5% average yield found among peers in the consumer goods sector.
The Smart Score for CVS includes favorable views from analysts and bloggers, and heavy purchase activity from insiders and hedges.
A good example of the positive analyst sentiment comes from Credit Suisse analyst A.J. Rice. Rice has upgraded his stance on this stock, raising his view from Neutral to Buy. His $75 price target suggests room for a solid 17% upside this year. (To watch Rice’s track record, click here)
Backing his view on CVS, Rice writes, “CVS’ Pharmacy Services Segment is Outperforming Expectations, as PBM Selling Season Shaping up Nicely. CVS is seeing an easing of rebate guarantee pressures which it saw peak in 2019, become less of a headwind in 2020, and are expected to be de minimis in 2021… CVS has remained on track-to-ahead of its synergies, modernization, and transformation initiatives, which could provide future upside.”
CVS shares have 13 recent reviews, breaking down to 10 Buys and 3 Holds and making the analyst consensus rating a Strong Buy. Shares are trading for $64.64, and the average price target of $79.50 implies a strong 23% upside potential for the stock over the next one year. (See CVS stock analysis on TipRanks)
To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.
After a yearlong and extensive nationwide search, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), the nation’s largest professional organization of bariatric and metabolic surgeons and integrated health professionals, has named healthcare association veteran Diane M. Enos MPH, RDN, CAE, FAND, to serve as its new executive director.
Credit: ASMBS
After a yearlong and extensive nationwide search, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), the nation’s largest professional organization of bariatric and metabolic surgeons and integrated health professionals, has named healthcare association veteran Diane M. Enos MPH, RDN, CAE, FAND, to serve as its new executive director.
Before joining ASMBS, Enos, a registered dietitian and certified association executive with a master’s degree in public health from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, was Chief Learning Officer of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the country’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. Enos was with the group for more than 20 years in various leadership positions and remains a Fellow of the Academy (FAND). Previously, Enos was Manager of National Consumer Communications for the USA Rice Federation.
“Diane brings a wealth of experience, a track record of success and new insights that will help strengthen our organization at a time of rising obesity rates and new thinking on how best to treat the disease and when,” said Marina Kurian, MD, President, ASMBS. “We expect increased utilization of metabolic and bariatric surgery and growing demand for the new class of obesity drugs to usher in a new era of obesity treatment that could transform public health.”
According to the ASMBS, more than 260,000 people had metabolic or bariatric surgery in 2021, the latest estimates available. This represents only about 1% of those who meet the recommended body mass index (BMI) criteria for weight-loss surgery. CDC reports over 42% of Americans have obesity, the highest rate ever in the United States.
“I’m looking forward to working with our team and our members to grow the specialty and increase the role of metabolic and bariatric surgery in the treatment of obesity,” said Enos. “Obesity remains the public health issue of our time and we owe it to our patients to remove barriers to treatment and help them navigate the new treatment landscape so they can turn their concerns about the dangers of the disease into action.”
Earlier this year, the ASMBS released a survey published in SOARD that found more than 6.4 million people thought about having bariatric surgery or taking obesity drugs for the first time amid the pandemic due to concerns over the link between obesity and severe outcomes from COVID-19.
Enos becomes only the second executive director in the organization’s history succeeding Georgeann Mallory who retired from the role in 2021. Kristie Kaufman, who has been with ASMBS for more than 20 years, served as interim executive director between 2021 and 2023, and has been promoted to Vice President of Operations.
About Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery
Metabolic/bariatric surgery has been shown to be the most effective and long-lasting treatment for severe obesity and many related conditions and results in significant weight loss.The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported significant improvements in the safety of metabolic/bariatric surgery due in large part to improved laparoscopic techniques.The risk of death is about 0.1%,and the overall likelihood of major complications is about 4%.According to a study from Cleveland Clinic, laparoscopic bariatric surgery has complication and mortality rates comparable to some of the safest and most commonly performed surgeries in the U.S., including gallbladder surgery, appendectomy and knee replacement.
About ASMBS
The ASMBS is the largest non-profit organization for bariatric surgeons and integrated health professionals in the United States. It works to advance the art and science of metabolic and bariatric surgery and is committed to educating medical professionals and the lay public about the treatment options for obesity. The ASMBS encourages its members to investigate and discover new advances in bariatric surgery, while maintaining a steady exchange of experiences and ideas that may lead to improved surgical outcomes for patients with severe obesity. For more information, visit www.asmbs.org.
From LTCM To 1966. The Perils Of Rising Interest Rates
Based on some comments, it appears we scared a few people with A Crisis Is Coming. Our article warns, "A financial crisis will likely follow the Fed’s…
Based on some comments, it appears we scared a few people with A Crisis Is Coming. Our article warns, “A financial crisis will likely follow the Fed’s “higher for longer” interest rate campaign.” We follow the article with more on financial crises to help calm any worries you may have. This article summarizes two interest rate-related crises, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) and the lesser-known Financial Crisis of 1966.
We aim to convey two important lessons. First, both events exemplify how excessive leverage and financial system interdependences are dangerous when interest rates are rising. Second, they stress the importance of the Fed’s reaction function. A Fed that reacts quickly to a budding crisis can quickly mitigate it. The regional bank crisis in March serves as recent evidence. However, a crisis can blossom if the Fed is slow to react, as we saw in 2008.
Before moving on, it’s worth providing context for the recent series of rate hikes. Unless this time is different, another crisis is coming.
LTCM’s Failure
John Meriweather founded LTCM in 1994 after a successful bond trading career at Salomon Brothers. In addition to being led by one of the world’s most infamous bond traders, LTCM also had Myron Scholes and Robert Merton on their staff. Both won a Nobel Prize for options pricing. David Mullins Jr., previously the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve to Alan Greenspan, was also an employee. To say the firm was loaded with the finance world’s best and brightest may be an understatement.
LTCM specialized in bond arbitrage. Such trading entails taking advantage of anomalies in the price spread between two securities, which should have predictable price differences. They would bet divergences from the norm would eventually converge, as was all but guaranteed in time.
LTCM was using 25x or more leverage when it failed in 1998. With that kind of leverage, a 4% loss on the trade would deplete the firm’s equity and force it to either raise equity or fail.
The world-renowned hedge fund fell victim to the surprising 1998 Russian default. As a result of the unexpected default, there was a tremendous flight to quality into U.S. Treasury bonds, of which LTCM was effectively short. Bond divergences expanded as markets were illiquid, growing the losses on their convergence bets.
They also wrongly bet that the dually listed shares of Royal Dutch and Shell would converge in price. Given they were the same company, that made sense. However, the need to stem their losses forced them to bail on the position at a sizeable loss instead of waiting for the pair to converge.
The Predictable Bailout
Per Wikipedia:
Long-Term Capital Management did business with nearly every important person on Wall Street. Indeed, much of LTCM’s capital was composed of funds from the same financial professionals with whom it traded. As LTCM teetered, Wall Street feared that Long-Term’s failure could cause a chain reaction in numerous markets, causing catastrophic losses throughout the financial system.
Given the potential chain reaction to its counterparties, banks, and brokers, the Fed came to the rescue and organized a bailout of $3.63 billion. A much more significant financial crisis was avoided.
The takeaway is that the financial system has highly leveraged players, including some like LTCM, which supposedly have “foolproof” investments on their books. Making matters fragile, the banks, brokers, and other institutions lending them money are also leveraged. A counterparty failure thus affects the firm in trouble and potentially its lenders. The lenders to the original lenders are then also at risk. The entire financial system is a series of lined-up dominos, at risk if only one decent-sized firm fails.
Roger Lowenstein wrote an informative book on LTCM aptly titled When Genius Failed. The graph below from the book shows the rise and fall of an initial $1 investment in LTCM.
The Financial Crisis of 1966
Most people, especially Wall Street gray beards, know of LTCM and the details of its demise. We venture to guess very few are up to speed on the crisis of 1966. We included. As such, we relied heavily upon The 1966 Financial Crisis by L. Randall Wray to educate us. The quotes we share are attributable to his white paper.
As the post-WW2 economic expansion progressed, companies and municipalities increasingly relied on debt and leverage to fuel growth. For fear of rising inflation due to the robust economic growth rate, the Fed presided over a series of rate hikes. In mid-1961, Fed Funds were as low as 0.50%. Five years later, they hit 5.75%. The Fed also restricted banks’ reserve growth to reduce loan creation and further hamper inflation. Higher rates, lending restrictions, and a yield curve inversion resulted in a credit crunch. Further impeding the prominent New York money center banks from lending, they were losing deposits to higher-yielding instruments.
Sound familiar?
The lack of credit availability exposed several financial weaknesses. Per the article:
As Minsky argued, “By the end of August, the disorganization in the municipals market, rumors about the solvency and liquidity of savings institutions, and the frantic position-making efforts by money-market banks generated what can be characterized as a controlled panic. The situation clearly called for Federal Reserve action.” The Fed was forced to enter as a lender of last resort to save the Muni bond market, which, in effect, validated practices that were stretching liquidity.
The Fed came to the rescue before the crisis could expand meaningfully or the economy would collapse. The problem was fixed, and the economy barely skipped a beat.
However, and this is a big however, “markets came to expect that big government and the Fed would come to the rescue as needed.”
Expectations of Fed rescues have significantly swelled since then and encourage ever more reckless financial behaviors.
The Fed’s Reaction Function- Minksky Fragility
Wray’s article on the 1966 crisis ends as follows:
That 1966 crisis was only a minor speedbump on the road to Minskian fragility.
Minskian fragility refers to economist Hyman Minsky’s work on financial cycles and the Fed’s reaction function. Broadly speaking, he attributes financial crises to fragile banking systems.
Said differently, systematic risks increase as system-wide leverage and financial firm interconnectedness rise. As shown below, debt has grown much faster than GDP (the ability to pay for the debt). Inevitably, higher interest rates, slowing economic activity, and liquidity issues are bound to result in a crisis, aka a Minsky Moment. Making the system ever more susceptible to a financial crisis are the predictable Fed-led bailouts. In a perverse way, the Fed incentivizes such irresponsible behaviors.
The tide is starting to ebb. With it, economic activity will slow, and asset prices may likely follow. Leverage and high-interest rates will bring about a crisis.
Debt and leverage are excessive and even more extreme due to the pandemic.
The question is not whether higher interest rates will cause a crisis but when. The potential for one-off problems, like LTCM, could easily set off a systematic situation like in 1966 due to the pronounced system-wide leverage and interdependencies.
As we have seen throughout the Fed’s history, they will backstop the financial system. The only question is when and how. If they remain steadfast in fighting inflation while a crisis grows, they risk a 2008-like event. If they properly address problems as they did in March, the threat of a severe crisis will considerably lessen.
Summary
The Fed halted the crises of 1966 and LTCM. They ultimately did the same for every other crisis highlighted in the opening graph. Given the amount of leverage in the financial system and the sharp increase in interest rates, we have little doubt a crisis will result. The Fed will again be called upon to bail out the financial system and economy.
For investors, your performance will be a function of the Fed’s reaction. Are they quick enough to spot problems, like the banking crisis in March or our two examples, and minimize the economic and financial effect of said crisis? Or, like in 2008, will it be too late to arrest a blooming crisis, resulting in significant investor losses and widespread bankruptcies?
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control.
Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.
Eight Predictions
Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns.
According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.
If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment.
In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.
In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
Meat consumption will be minimized.
Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
Western values will be tested to the breaking point..
Beyond Privacy and Property
In a publication for the World Economic Forum, the Danish ecoactivist Ida Auken, who had served as her country’s minister of the environment from 2011 to 2014 and still is a member of the Danish Parliament (the Folketing), has elaborated a scenario of a world without privacy or property. In “Welcome to 2030,” she envisions a world where “I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” By 2030, so says her scenario, shopping and owning have become obsolete, because everything that once was a product is now a service.
In this idyllic new world of hers, people have free access to transportation, accommodation, food, “and all the things we need in our daily lives.” As these things will become free of charge, “it ended up not making sense for us to own much.” There would be no private ownership in houses nor would anyone pay rent, “because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.” A person’s living room, for example, will be used for business meetings when one is absent. Concerns like “lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment” are things of the past. The author predicts that people will be happy to enjoy such a good life that is so much better “than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth.”
Ecological Paradise
In her 2019 contribution to the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum, Ida Auken foretells how the world may look in the future “if we win the war on climate change.” By 2030, when CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced, people will live in a world where meat on the dinner plate “will be a rare sight” while water and the air will be much cleaner than today. Because of the shift from buying goods to using services, the need to have money will vanish, because people will spend less and less on goods. Work time will shrink and leisure time will grow.
For the future, Auken envisions a city where electric cars have substituted conventional combustion vehicles. Most of the roads and parking spaces will have become green parks and walking zones for pedestrians. By 2030, agriculture will offer mainly plant-based alternatives to the food supply instead of meat and dairy products. The use of land to produce animal feed will greatly diminish and nature will be spreading across the globe again.
Fabricating Social Consent
How can people be brought to accept such a system? The bait to entice the masses is the assurances of comprehensive healthcare and a guaranteed basic income. The promoters of the Great Reset promise a world without diseases. Due to biotechnologically produced organs and individualized genetics-based medical treatments, a drastically increased life expectancy and even immortality are said to be possible. Artificial intelligence will eradicate death and eliminate disease and mortality. The race is on among biotechnological companies to find the key to eternal life.
Along with the promise of turning any ordinary person into a godlike superman, the promise of a “universal basic income” is highly attractive, particularly to those who will no longer find a job in the new digital economy. Obtaining a basic income without having to go through the treadmill and disgrace of applying for social assistance is used as a bait to get the support of the poor.
To make it economically viable, the guarantee of a basic income would require the leveling of wage differences. The technical procedures of the money transfer from the state will be used to promote the cashless society. With the digitization of all monetary transactions, each individual purchase will be registered. As a consequence, the governmental authorities would have unrestricted access to supervise in detail how individual persons spend their money. A universal basic income in a cashless society would provide the conditions to impose a social credit system and deliver the mechanism to sanction undesirable behavior and identify the superfluous and unwanted.
Who Will Be the Rulers?
The World Economic Forum is silent about the question of who will rule in this new world.
There is no reason to expect that the new power holders would be benevolent. Yet even if the top decision-makers of the new world government were not mean but just technocrats, what reason would an administrative technocracy have to go on with the undesirables? What sense does it make for a technocratic elite to turn the common man into a superman? Why share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the masses and not keep the wealth for the chosen few?
Not being swayed away by the utopian promises, a sober assessment of the plans must come to the conclusion that in this new world, there would be no place for the average person and that they would be put away along with the “unemployable,” “feeble minded,” and “ill bred.” Behind the preaching of the progressive gospel of social justice by the promoters of the Great Reset and the establishment of a new world order lurks the sinister project of eugenics, which as a technique is now called “genetic engineering” and as a movement is named “transhumanism,” a term coined by Julian Huxley, the first director of the UNESCO.
The promoters of the project keep silent about who will be the rulers in this new world. The dystopian and collectivist nature of these projections and plans is the result of the rejection of free capitalism. Establishing a better world through a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. Not less but more economic prosperity is the answer to the current problems. Therefore, we need more free markets and less state planning. The world is getting greener and a fall in the growth rate of the world population is already underway. These trends are the natural consequence of wealth creation through free markets.
Conclusion
The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy. Values like individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake, to be repudiated in favor of collectivism and the imposition of a “common good” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats. What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty. Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment, the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement. In this new world order, the state is the single owner of everything. It is left to our imagination to figure out who will program the algorithms that manage the distribution of the goods and services.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
