Connect with us

Tim Pagliara on the steps to recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Tim Pagliara on the steps to recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Published

on

fannie mae conservatorship

ValueWalk’s Raul Panganiban interviews Tim Pagliara, Founder, Chairman and CIO of CapWealth group and Grant Stark, CFA, director of research at CapWealth Group. In this part, Tim and Grant discuss the steps to recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if the upcoming election cycle will impact the urgency for it.

Get The Full Warren Buffett Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Warren Buffett in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues

Q4 2019 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Raul Panganiban: Yeah. And what are those steps that they can be doing to recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie MacFannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Tim Pagliara: Well, I think that the, you know, the first thing that they they need to do is settle the underlying litigation and declare the senior preferred paid with interest. Right now there's an excess of the the, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that paid in excess of $30 billion over and above what they owe the government and 10% interest. That $30 billion can be put on the balance sheet, as a special periodic commitment fee as an asset that the government will hold for their role in during that the mortgage market continues. And and then they need to get them. You know, they need to get them out of conservatorship.

And to do that, and settling the litigation, the preferred stock, which has a face value of approximately $33 billion. Those shareholders can take a haircut, they can take 10 to 15%, less than, than face value, and then all of a sudden, you've got an additional $25 billion, you know, of capital that goes into these entities. So these entities can exit conservatorship under a consent decree with the instructions to raise additional capital to the private sector that will make the common stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go up and the government remember owns 80% of the common stock of Fannie and Freddie.

So all of a sudden they're making an additional 50 to one hundred billion dollars off of the investment that they've made and Fannie and Freddie over the last 12 years, that money can then be used as a source of relief for the American homeowner for the American economy, at the same time that you're attracting private capital back into this into the system.

And all of that can be done very quickly. It will provide the Federal Reserve with some additional relief because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they have the expertise to buy back and evaluate and appropriately build their portfolio and increase the size of their portfolio. They'll have capital that they don't have right now. And, again, this is going to be critical for the recovery part of what we're going through.

They will will have the ability once they get relisted on the New York Stock Exchange once they are fully functioning with with their board of directors, they will have the ability to go out and attract private capital and build capital reserves going forward, which is what they should have done anyway, we are very late to the party if this had been done in 2012. We would already have these fully functioning entities, you know, with adequate capital and we would be dealing with it you know, the average FICO score in Fannie Mae right now it's about 750. Again, this is not a credit problem.

It is not like 2008. It's a liquidity problem we get we need to get mortgage rates down. We need to allow the American family to recapitalize to redo their balance sheet to reduce their monthly payments and To create additional liquidity to help through the crisis.

Grant Stark: And I would just add to you know, it's I would say, back, you could look back all the way to 2010 2011 timeframe, there has been demand for participation, that probably, you know, private private market demand. It has not waned. You know, investors understand that these are these are essential businesses, these are strong companies, all they need is to be well capitalised. And that is something in the near term that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which is the regulator, the conservator is, is already well on their way to to finalising, in fact, they're going to put out some some standards in a month or two that that will be under review.

And so the idea is, you know, we're starting the conversation that should have happened years ago, but better, better now than ever, and it's it's a perfect opportunity for the government to take a win. and generate some liquidity that's much needed in the mortgage market. Because if you know if Bob from Iowa goes to his local bank to get a mortgage, and it's at 3.75%, when every other interest rates at zero, that's going to confuse him, right?

It doesn't it doesn't make sense. And there's there's not a reason for that, other than there's a fundamentally fundamental break in how the system is supposed to operate. And the beauty is, the gses have the size and scale to be able to fix that plumbing problem and provide liquidity. But they just need to have that faucet turned on. And they did so in 2008. That actually wasn't quite the issue. They helped the market through that if you look at total MBs issuance volumes, so the amount of these mortgages that were being packaged and sold it went from about a 50% market share between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they were issuing to almost 100% overnight and That's because they were the they were the only entity that could step up because everybody else ran scared.

And that's what's happening today. And that's what still can be prevented. But that's, you know, that gets me back to my original comment or the comment on, you know, this, this wasn't a human caused issue like 2008 was, in fact, it's the opposite. And we can also now have, we have the tools to make sure that we can get through a smoother and we know how to do that now.

Tim Pagliara: To add to Grant's point to that, you know, that we have these solutions, you know, the discussion, this was just a threshold moment, to force us to make the decision that should have been made a while back. And when you look at, again, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you know that their mission is to maintain liquidity in the mortgage market. That means that at times like this, they're not going to make as much money as they would during good Remember that guaranteed fee that they have is, you know, and don't quote me like an analyst on this, but it is somewhere around $30 billion a year in pre tax earnings. And so that money comes in is cycled through the mortgage market, we need to use that money right now we need to take the profitability of these entities in their book of business and put them towards the mission that they were intended for.

And, and this is, you know, this is why, you know, everybody needs to act. Now we've we've had that solution in place, you know, and no one is better qualified to deal with this than director Calabria and Secretary Mnuchin. They have, you know, tremendous experience in in the functioning of the mortgage market, the knowledge of the mortgage market, how these entities are structured. And, and so, this is something that could be done in 60 to 90 days or less. All they have to do is make the calls and put this in place.

They have a financial adviser, Houlihan Lokey that can run the interference and advise them on the particulars of how to get this executed through the financial markets. I know that the boards have both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they would, you know, they are chomping at the bit to go back to work on behalf of the American people. And it's the right thing to do at this point. And unfortunately, it's gone on too long. The only thing that would be worse than allowing this to go 12 years without a solution is to not grab the solution. That's right in front of us now.

Grant Stark: Yeah. Yeah. And I would I would say to highlight the importance of that point is, you know, we have we have senators and lead Slater's flying in on overnight flights, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, to get to a vote for a $2 trillion package to bridge liquidity in other markets, they're essentially burning the midnight oil trying to hurry up. And, you know, let's build a package. Let's get this this this package together.

The difference here is that every every mind, every financial mind, every every facet from the government to private markets, has thought about what is the most efficient solution and has sort of, you know, gone back and forth for almost a decade now on what makes the most sense, and refined to this point, right. And so to Tim's point is, this is not something that that is coming up based on a response to the issue. This is this is actually the opposite where we can respond to the issue based on what we've already been planning for for the last five to 10 years.

And so I think that's, that's Very helpful because there's no there's no sense of urgency as far as planning, right things. I mean, they couldn't have hired Houlihan Lokey and we couldn't have gone through all of the steps on looking at what are the proper capital levels within two weeks, like you could maybe do to send a check to everybody for $1,000. Right. This is a, this is a much more nuanced market. But the beauty of it is the works already been done. We just can't we just have to hit the button.

Tim Pagliara: I'm going to be contacting my senator, my representatives, I would hope individuals that that that understand this issue, you know, and and recognise the need to lower mortgage rates, increase liquidity in the mortgage market, I would encourage them to do the same. You know, everybody has an opportunity to contribute. I watched this morning as one of the suppliers for Major League Baseball They were you know, they make uniforms in the end and, and hats and memorabilia.

And in the middle of the night, the founder of the company, he got up, and he had an idea. He's making masks and protective gear now out of, you know, what was baseball equipment, this is a time for everybody to come together and move the needle forward. It's a time for solutions. It's a time for people to think and act in responsible ways. And there's nothing more responsible right now than to get this settled and move it forward on behalf of the American people.

Raul Panganiban: Definitely. And does the upcoming election cycle. Does that have any play into this and the urgency for it?

Tim Pagliara: No. And I would hope that the last thing anybody would want to do is politicise the needs of the American people to have some relief on interest rates, on their mortgages and the refinance needs that they have, and the need to continue to buy homes. I mean, the world is stopped, but the needs of the world have stopped.

You know, I've talked to builders that have had, but they've cancelled, you know, closings on homes because rates went up and people are concerned, you know, people need, you know, they need some incentives to go out and get their lives back to normal. And the best thing they can do this, we're going to start this economy back up in how fast this economy starts back up, depends upon some of the things that we do to facilitate it. That's what you know, I think Treasury Secretary, former Treasury Secretary Bernanke, he said you know, in his talk, you know, there is a V scenario which is the optimistic scenario.

There's a U scenario. And then there's a scenario that if we don't act extends this economic downturn, you know, much longer. And we don't want that. Yeah, you know, we want to, we want to minimise the impact of this virus on the American people. And this is one of the ways we can do it.

Grant Stark: And if you look back, you know, in history, if you look back in history, if you certainly go back to 2006, the gses were probably the most politicised entities in the US if not in the world. And and they were by no means a bipartisan organisation. But the just back to my earlier point on being able to refine and debate the what what the best outcome is, for the American people over, you know, the last five years has enabled all the stakeholders, including the government, which as Tim mentioned, owns, you know, 79.9% of the common law Exercise there, they're a stakeholder as well.

And so there is a win win solution where it's sort of it'd be the solution becomes agnostic to the party because there's an obvious need forFannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I've talked about that in the past that these are these are essential businesses. And this is part of our plumbing.

I mean, heck, they make up a little almost 30% of the bond in market with with MBS. And, and it's, you know, if you put these if you put these two entities on the books, it would dramatically increase the, the outstanding debt. So I think everybody gets that these are critical.

They're, they're critical for liquidity. They're critical for every American for wealth, and it's certainly a way that underserved and and low income individuals can also have an opportunity to build wealth and start a family and housing is still very much a part of that in the US. So, you know, I think it's a little bit agnostic who's coming in and the the outcome is becoming ever more clear that they are one necessary in two, there is a path forward that works for both sides of the aisle.

Continues at ValuewalKPremium

The post Tim Pagliara on the steps to recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending