NO STRINGS ATTACHED NEWS THAT MAINSTREAM JUST WON'T COVER.
A biracial rapper pulled out of a Michigan music festival after she learned that white people would be charged twice the amount to attend than “people of color.”
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/afrofest-festival-biracial-rapper-white-people-of-color
Rickards: Time To Reduce Exposure To The Stock Market
Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,
The major stock market indices will move sideways through the remainder of the month (and year) to end the year about where they are now. That said, if markets move outside a narrow range, there is more downside potential than upside.
This is a good time to lighten up on equity exposure and reallocate to bonds, cash and gold.
Stock markets haven’t gained much over the past two years. That may come as a shock to investors who feel like they’ve been on a roller coaster ride since early 2018. Yet, the fact is that the Dow Jones Industrial Index was 26,616 on January 26, 2018 and about 27,850 as of today.
That’s about a 1,200-point gain, or 600 points a year. 600 points is one good day for the market. Is that the best it can do over two years? Even adding an average 2% annual dividend yield, the annualized return is about 3%. That’s far less than an investor could have made in super-safe U.S. Treasury bonds.
If you’re a day trader, you might have made money buying dips and selling near the top in rallies. More likely, non-professional traders lost money chasing the rallies and bailing out during the drawdowns. If you’re the typical buy-and-hold investor watching your 401(k) statements, you’ve gone almost nowhere despite the fireworks. You’re right back where you started.
The question is, why?
The drivers of the sideways movement in stocks are slow economic growth and weak earnings growth in individual companies.The drivers of the short-term volatility along the way are good news/bad news on trade wars, and utter confusion at the Fed.
The bottom line is stocks are moving sideways on a sea of uncertainty. Let’s back up a minute to see how we got here…
After the Trump tax cuts passed in late 2017, the White House was predicting growth would return to the long-term trend (post-1980) of 3.2% or higher. That hasn’t happened.
The second quarter of 2018 did show annualized growth of 3.5%, but that was a one-time effect from employee bonuses and consumer confidence due to higher stock prices resulting from the Trump tax cuts.
That euphoria quickly faded.
Growth in the fourth quarter of 2018 was only 1.1%. For all of 2018, U.S. GDP grew by 2.9%, higher than the average growth since the end of the last recession in June 2009, but far less than the White House projected.
Since then growth has slowed even more as the effect of the 2017 tax cuts has faded. On an annualized based, the first quarter of 2019 showed 3.1% growth, the second quarter was 2.0% and original readings of third-quarter growth came in at 1.9%. It was upgraded to 2.1%, but that’s nothing to write home about.
This puts annualized growth year-to-date at 2.4%, almost exactly where it has been for the past ten years. In short, the Trump growth miracle is a mirage. We’re in the same 2.3% rut we’ve been in since 2009.
The cumulative impact of trade wars, currency wars and geopolitical tension is also reflected in a slowdown in global growth. The following summary comes from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook press conference on October 15, 2019 as presented by Gita Gopinath, Director of the IMF’s Research Department:
As for the global economy, the global economy is in a synchronized slowdown. And we are, once again, downgrading growth for 2019 to 3 percent, its slowest pace since the global financial crisis. Growth continues to be weakened by rising trade barriers and growing geopolitical tensions. We estimate that the U.S.‑China trade tensions will cumulatively reduce the level of global GDP by 0.8 percent by 2020. Growth is also being weighed down by country‑specific factors in several emerging market and developing economies and also by structural forces, such as low productivity growth and ageing demographics in advanced economies. … The weakness in growth is driven by a sharp deterioration in manufacturing and global trade, with higher tariffs and prolonged trade policy uncertainty damaging investment and demand for capital goods… Overall, trade volume growth in the first half of 2019 has fallen to 1 percent, the weakest level since 2012.
The good news/bad news volatility is also easy to explain. Stock markets are no longer traded by humans with different perspectives. Stocks are traded by robots, and robots are dumb.
Many investors still have the belief that their buy or sell stock orders are matched against other orders by humans with different views. The orders are matched by computers and the result is an orderly market with efficient price discovery. That scenario is not true.
Today, over 95% of New York Stock Exchange trades are generated by robots using algorithms to decide when to buy and sell. These are not matching systems (which have been around since the 1990s). These are trading robots that decide what to do without human intervention.
Trading is no longer man v. man or woman v. woman. It’s robot v. robot with a small number of trades in the form of man or woman v. robot. You’re not trying to outwit another human. You’re trying to outwit a robot.
The good news is that robots are easy to figure out. They act automatically based on source code and algorithms developed by coders and applied mathematicians who don’t necessarily know much about the psychology of markets. Robots buy or sell based on headlines or key words.
They also buy “high” (as defined) and sell “low” (also as defined) based on boundaries set by the developers.
This dynamic explains both the short-term volatility and the longer-term range bound trading. On the one hand, robots will scramble (in microseconds) to dump stocks if there’s a negative report in the trade wars.
They likewise buy stocks if there’s a positive report in the trade wars. At the same, robots will sell when stocks approach Dow 27,000 (or similar benchmarks on the S&P 500) and buy when stocks approach Dow 25,000.
Unfortunately, neither the robots nor their human developers were ready for the Age of Trump.
President Trump will call President Xi of China his “best friend” on Monday and denounce Chinese “theft” on a Wednesday. Robots are good at reading headlines, but they’re no good at understanding nuance, body language or Trump’s Art of the Deal style.
The same is true of the robots’ ability to understand the Fed.
Jay Powell was a hawk in December 2018 (when he raised rates), a dove in January 2019 (when he promised not to raise rates), a super-dove in the spring of 2019 when he decided to cut rates and end Fed balance sheet reductions, and utterly confused in September 2019 when he said he might not cut rates soon, but would expand the balance sheet. Then Powell cut rates again in October.
How is a robot supposed to understand a highly conflicted human? It can’t. But, it can issue automated buy and sell orders on every new headline.
The bottom line is that growth is weakening, the Fed is cutting rates, the trade wars are not over (despite happy talk) and political tensions are rising.
That’s a mix of support for stocks (Fed rate cuts and good trade war news) and headwinds for stocks (bad trade war news, weak growth and politics). These forces will tend to offset each other and leave stocks in early 2020 about where they are now.
That’s a reason to reduce equity exposure and consider some of the stronger plays in bonds and gold.
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 14:40 Tags Business FinanceHow Smartphones Add To Election Chaos
A study by The Guardian and research agency Revealing Realty has concluded what we've known for some time; people tend to cram as much information into their brains, as fast as possible, with little to no scrutiny.
What that leads to, according to the report, is the rapid spread of misinformation while people ignore the substance of an article - often instead heading straight to the comments sections for an argument before absorbing key information.
While The Guardian says the analysis is a "snapshot" and not a "statistically representative sample of the population" due to the fact that they tracked the smartphones of just six volunteers in the UK who agreed to have their smartphone behavior monitored over three days - the publication says the results comport with previous studies to illustrate patterns of behavior across the political spectrum. Given the source, this may also be part of some argument that the nanny state needs to do a better job monitoring and filtering content - for our own good, we're sure.
Charlie in Sunderland consumed much of his election news through memes on lad humour Facebook pages, spending more time looking at posts of Boris Johnson using the word “boobies” than reading traditional news stories. Fiona in Bolton checked out claims about Jeremy Corbyn’s wealth by going to a website called Jihadi Watch before sharing the far-right material in a deliberate bid to anger her leftwing friends. And Shazi in Sheffield followed the BBC leaders’ interviews purely by watching videos of party supporters chanting the Labour leader’s name outside the venue. -The Guardian
"News is becoming intermingled with entertainment," says Revealing Reality's Damon De Ionno, who spearheaded the project after inventing the method of recording participants' smartphone screens. "You’re no longer asking: what’s going on in the world today? It’s very different – you want to be entertained."
Notable (though not entirely surprising) findings:
Several of the subjects shared Facebook articles without clicking the links - and instead dove into the comments sections. People tend to read news that confirms their existing views. We "may be becoming a nation of trolls" (Only right-wing abusing the left, of course).One 22-year-old Conservative-voting woman was observed going out of her way to read reputable mainstream news sources so she had a balanced understanding of Labour policies. But she would then seek out provocative far-right blog posts to share on Facebook because their headlines would anger her leftwing friends and create online drama.
Mainstream news sources have ceded ground to alternative news outlets.“It’s total anarchy,” said De Ionno. “The idea of fake news and fake ads, with Russians manipulating people, is a really easy bogeyman. The reality is there’s many more shades of grey and it’s hard to unpick.”
How the study was conducted
At Revealing Reality’s headquarters in a converted ballroom in south London, a group of analysts working for De Ionno are attempting to piece together how Britons are consuming news in this general election campaign with the aid of a wall of photos of each volunteer in their home, pages of data, and transcripts of interviews.
Although there were some changes in behaviour during the study – one person complained they had had to restrict their viewing of online porn while the study was taking place – the researchers believe most people largely forgot their phones were being recorded.
Analysts then studied the recordings of each volunteer’s screen activity using an coding system adapted from software originally built for the study of animal behaviour, before comparing notes following a three-hour interview with each participant.
"They’re disengaging with mainstream sources," said one analyst.
"If social media content is playing such a central role in shaping people’s views on the election what are the implications for high quality journalism, reputable sources and well constructed and evidenced articles?" asked the researchers.
"News doesn’t stick as well. There’s a new drama every day and cliffhangers on a daily basis. A lot of the respondents didn’t have a good memory of what happened a week ago, said De Ionno.
In short, people don't trust mainstream news, often don't read past the headlines, prefer content that reinforces their worldview, and love sharing quick memes while arguing in the comments section.
"If everything people that people are seeing is via social media – who is accountable? There is very little human intelligence or decision-making behind it, no attempt to give a balanced view. That seems to leave all responsibility on the reader."
We're sure there's a nanny-state solution to that!
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 14:25Aramco Prices At Top-End Of Range: Raises Record $25.6BN In World's Biggest IPO
In line with expectations, Saudi Aramco just priced its IPO at the high end of the targeted range, selling 3 billion shares or a 1.5% stake at 32 riyals ($8.53) per share for a total of $25.6 billion, and giving the oil giant a market valuation of $1.7 trillion, making it the world's biggest company (surpassing Apple) thanks to the what is now the world’s biggest-ever IPO. The money raised by the state-owned producer breaks the record set by Chinese ecommerce giant Alibaba in 2014, but gives the company a valuation well below the $2 trillion sought by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
According to Bloomberg, the closely watched deal which was confined to Saudi accounts over fears of the types of questions that would emerge in an international roadshow, saw a total of $119 billion in subscriptions and was 4.65x oversubscribed but that is simply laughable considering that the Saudi were forced to once again extorting its oligarch like Prince Alwaleed to invest in the IPO at the metaphorical (and perhaps literal) barrel of a gun.
The oil company will also likely exercise its 15% “green shoe”, which would allow it to issue up to 15% more shares to meet demand and could see it ultimately raise more than $29 billion.
In Riyadh's panicked scramble to get the IPO done at any cost, local retail investors were offered loans to purchase stakes, promised bonus shares and targeted in a nationwide advertising campaign. Meanwhile, in a hilarious flashback two two years ago, wealthy Saudi families, many of whom were caught up in the crown prince’s 2017 corruption crackdown, were also pressured to invest.
Saudi Aramco executives have in recent weeks also tried to drum up interest from state-backed funds in the Gulf, including Abu Dhabi — which was expected to invest $1.5bn. Kuwait was also considering putting in $1bn.
To make sure the deal goes smoothly, Saudi Arabia hired almost all of Wall Street’s biggest banks to advise on the IPO that will see about 1.5% of the company sold. Some of Aramco's bankers had advised that a more prudent approach would be to sell shares more cheaply in an effort to ensure they trade higher after their debut, a person familiar with the matter said. Clearly, they were overruled, and so the question is how far will Aramco's price drop once it breaks for trading.
“The banks advised the client to play it safe,” the person said. “There is a risk to the lenders if the shares trade down.”
As the FT notes, the kingdom also sought to increase the company’s appeal by pledging a bumper annual $75bn dividend, which is relatively speaking, below what many of its western peers offer, changing tax and royalty rates as well as curbing long-term capital spending to help cash flows.
Despite such enticements, overseas investors have remained cautious.
The total amount raised -whether $26 or $29BN with the greenshoe - will be a huge disappointment to Prince Mohammed, who for the last four years pushed to raise $100 billion by selling 5% of the group in a global financial capital such as London or New York. In the end he had to satisfy himself with a quarter of this amount sold on a domestic market. Even so, the $25.6 billion total sale means the company surappsed the previous record of $25bn set by Alibaba when it went public in New York.
At $1.7tn, Saudi Aramco’s market capitalisation will still be more than that of the five next biggest oil companies combined. Still, it is worth recalling that just over a decade ago, another energy giant, China's Petrochina, became the world's first company to hit a $1 trillion market cap shortly after its 2007 IPO on the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
PetroChina’s market value has since plummeted to less than $140 billion, representing the largest destruction of shareholder wealth in world history. Will Aramco follow in Petrochina's footsteps? For those who say yes, you finally have a chance to short it.
For those curious for more, here is a good explainer by the WSJ:
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 14:10 Tags Business FinanceJohn Solomon: The 10 Most Important Revelations To Expect From The Russia Probe FISA Report
Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com,
Next week Americans will finally get their most complete accounting to date of what the FBI did right and wrong in the Russia collusion investigation that probed President Trump’s campaign with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant at the end of the 2016 election.
Predicted to span more than 500 pages and 100 witness interviews, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report Monday will provide a comprehensive catalog of what offenses, mistakes and oversights the FBI committed during one of the most politically polarizing investigations in recent history.
As such, it will serve as a non-partisan roadmap for a much longer process of holding the investigators to account, a process that now includes a criminal probe being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham and investigative hearings by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham.
In the evitable political bitterness that grips Washington, each political party will seek to score points by cherry-picking their favorite Horowitz findings. But there is a far weightier question than electoral politics to be resolved: Can the FBI be trusted going forward to adequately, fairly and honestly protect civil liberties of Americans while conducting counterintelligence, counterterrorism and criminal investigations.
With that bigger question in mind, here are the 10 revelations I believe will be most important in the Horowitz report.
1. The scope of failure and misconductWere there isolated mistakes, systemic cultural and procedural failures or intentional acts involved in the investigation, the pursuit of the FISA warrant against ex-Trump adviser Carter Page and the renewal of the FISA warrant for more than a year? I expect the Horowitz report to identify between six and 12 failures, mistakes and acts of misconduct. These will range from the serious offense of altering a government document to failures to provide the courts evidence and information required under the FISA process. The large number of problems, if confirmed, should be a wakeup call to the FBI and those who provide oversight of its activities.
2. Exculpatory evidence withheldThe issue of whether the FBI failed to tell the FISA judges, as required, about evidence of innocence concerning some of the Americans it targeted has been raised for more than a year by key members of Congress like Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Ca., and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C. I expect the IG to identify exculpatory statements made by key figure George Papadopoulos to an undercover informant that were not properly disclosed to the court. A second revelation to watch is whether the FBI possessed similar evidence of innocence involving Page that was not disclosed.
3. Derogatory information about informant Christopher SteeleThe FBI stated to the court in a footnote that it was unaware of any derogatory information about the former MI6 agent it was using as “confidential human source 1” in the Russia case. This claim could face a withering analysis in the report. Congressional sources have reported to me that during a recent unclassified meeting they were told the British government flagged concerns about Steele and his reliance on “sub-sources” of intelligence as early as 2015. Bruce Ohr testified he told FBI and DOJ officials early on that he suspected Steele’s intelligence was mostly raw and needed vetting, that Steele was working with Hillary Clinton’s campaign in some capacity and appeared desperate to defeat Trump in the 2016 election. And documents show State Department official Kathleen Kavalec alerted the FBI eight days before the first FISA warrant was obtained that Steele may have been peddling a now-debunked rumor that Trump and Vladimir Putin were secretly communicating through a Russian bank’s computer server. Most experts I talked with say each of these revelations might constitute derogatory information that should be disclosed to the court. On a related note, Horowitz just released a separate report that concluded the FBI is doing a poor job of vetting informants like Steele, suggesting there was a culture of withholding derogatory information from informants’ reliability and credibility validation reports. You can read about that here.
4. News leaks as evidenceOne of Horowitz’s earlier investigative reports that recommended fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for possible prosecution put an uncomfortable spotlight on the bureau’s culture of news leaks. Since then, a handful of other cases unrelated to Russia have raised additional questions about whether the FBI uses news leaks to create or cite evidence in courts. One key to watch in the Horowitz report is the analysis of whether it was appropriate for the FBI to use a Yahoo News article as validating evidence to support Steele’s dossier. We now know from testimony and court filings that Steele, his dossier and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson played a role in that Yahoo News story. If so, was the use of the article “circular reporting” instead of independent corroboration? It’s an important question for Horowitz to resolve.
5. Verification under the Woods ProceduresFor years the FBI has been required to certify to the FISA court that all information submitted in a warrant application was “verified” under the so-called Woods Procedures. Lawmakers with access to classified information have said for months they fear a key allegation gleaned from Steele’s dossier – that Carter Page had met with two senior Russian officials close to Putin in summer 2016 – was never verified when it was used as evidence in the FISA warrant. We know from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report that those contacts alleged by Steele never happened. Horowitz should provide valuable insight on this issue.
6. Steele dossier heartburnFormer FBI Director James Comey has consistently testified he understood the Steele dossier to be “salacious” and “unverified” and yet the bureau submitted four “verified” warrant applications that relied on evidence from the dossier. A major question for Horowitz to answer is: who else besides Comey shared that distrust and how early did those concerns about the dossier emerge? Congressional Republicans have demanded the release of a series of email chains they claim might show FBI and DOJ officials had similar heartburn about the reliability of the document. In addition, the FBI kept a spreadsheet analyzing the claims in Steele’s dossier. Sources who reviewed it have said the vast majority of the dossier’s claims fell into one of three categories: debunked, could not be verified or traced to open-source intelligence typically found on the Internet.
7. What investigators learned from SteeleWe know from State Department memos that more than a week before the first FISA warrant was obtained, Steele visited with senior State officials and acknowledged he was working with the FBI, leaking to news media and had an election day deadline to get his information public. Likewise, Steele similarly indicated to senior Justice official Bruce Ohr as early as summer 2016 he was desperate to stop Trump from being elected and was working in some capacity with Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton. So here is a big development to watch: What did Steele tell the FBI about these very important issues? And when did the FBI first learn he might be leaking? The FBI ended its informant relationship with Steele on Nov. 1, 2016, a little over a week after using his dossier to support the first FISA warrant. And the reason they did so was because agents had concluded he improperly leaked to the news media. But did the FBI know or have reason to suspect that problem before the first FISA warrant? Stay tuned.
8. Bias, intent and incompetenceThe issue of which of these three problems to blame will be the political football most tossed around by partisans. But in the end it is less important to the question of protecting civil liberties. One’s privacy is infringed wrongly whether the FISA application was harmed by intentional bias or incompetence. That said, expect a mixed verdict on this issue. I suspect there is evidence that an FBI lawyer intentionally altered a piece of evidence that affected the FISA process. That could be criminal. I suspect it is less likely that the IG will conclude that the audacious anti-Trump bias expressed in the official text messages of FBI agent Pete Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page impacted specific actions in the FISA process, especially because many more DOJ and FBI than those two were involved in the process. But we already know from the release last month of Strzok’s disciplinary file that the FBI considered the bias expressed in the text messages to be “misconduct” that cast a pall on the credibility of the FBI and its Trump-Russia and Clinton email cases. And I suspect the IG will identify a number of systemic and individual mistakes that tarnished the FISA process in the Russia case.
9. Criminal referrals and disciplinary actionsHorowitz has already referred Comey’s mishandling of sensitive Russia memos for possible prosecution, which was declined. He also referred McCabe for prosecution for lying, an issue which McCabe contests and which appears unresolved. Lots of people will be watching to see if more referrals for prosecution are included in the latest Horowitz report. I would expect at least one, if not more, referrals will have grown out of the Horowitz’s FISA report, which is likely why Durham’s probe recently was converted from administrative to criminal. Other remedies for accountability could fall into the disciplinary category.
10. Lessons LearnedThis may not be the most politically hot topic to emerge from the report, but it is potentially the most important for protecting against future civil liberties violations and FBI intrusions on an American election. What will Horowitz recommend as remedies so we don’t have another Russia collusion fiasco in the future? Do FBI and DOJ need new rules and thresholds for opening probes of candidates and campaigns? Does the FBI system for vetting informants need to be fixed? Does the FISA court need a public advocate to protect the liberties of Americans targeted for warrants to create a check and balance on the FBI? Do the Woods procedures for verifying evidence for a FISA warrant need revision or overhaul? These are weighty questions that the FBI, DOJ and Congress almost certainly will face in the coming months.
The Horowitz report Monday and the IG’s testimony next Wednesday before the Senate start a new phase of accountability for the FBI and those government officials in the intelligence community who worked on the Russia case. But it is only a beginning of a process that likely will take many more weeks or months.
And the final script won’t be written until Americans can be assured the FBI can conduct future counterintelligence investigations without repeating the mistakes made during the Russia collusion probe.
Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 13:50 Tags Politics"You're A Damn Liar": Biden Lashes Out At 'Fat' Voter Over Hunter-Burisma Question, Challenges To Push-Up Contest
Joe Biden lashed out at a voter during a Thursday event in New Hampton, Iowa, after the man suggested that his primary problems are that he's too old, and that he 'set his son up with a job in Ukraine.'
You "sent your son over there, getting him a job to go work for a gas company that he had no experience in - nothing - in order to get access to the President," says the man.
It goes downhill from there:
WATCH: A tense exchange with a voter at @JoeBiden’s event in New Hampton, IA this morning, where a voter started out by telling Biden he had two problems with him: he was too old, and his son’s work in Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ok7m0ShFPd
— Molly Nagle (@MollyNagle3) December 5, 2019"You're a damn liar, man," Biden clapped back. "That's not true. And no one has ever said that."
"Look, the reason I'm running is because I've been around a long time and I know more than most people know. And I can get things done, that's why I'm running."
"And you wanna check my shape, let's do pushups together man, let's run, let's do whatever you want to do, let's take an IQ test. OK?"
"Number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong and I did not on any occasion, and no one has ever said it..."
To which the man replies, "I didn't say you were doin' anyting wrong."
"You said I set up my son to work at an oil company, isn't that what you said? Get your words straight, Jack."
(The man said it was a gas company).
"You don't have anymore backbone than Trump," the man retorts.
— Andy Swan 🦢 (@AndySwan) December 5, 2019https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsSome have noted that Biden appears to call the guy fat.
Biden to Iowa voter: "Look, fat, look, here's the deal..." pic.twitter.com/s3MLUiVo5t
— 🌃 (@codyave) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsDid Biden just call an Iowa voter fat?
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 5, 2019Update: Biden's campaign press secretary claims he said "Look, facts."
That seems like a reaaaal stretch based on the video. It's at the 1:55 mark above
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsExcept when one looks at an enhance! version of the clip, Biden clearly says 'fat'.
This is a lie. It's on video. Biden said "fat" not "facts" https://t.co/arA5BalIPu pic.twitter.com/8vcMRQVBFv
— Zach Parkinson (@AZachParkinson) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsThe man later gets into an altercation with a Biden supporter after suggesting the former VP should drop out of the race.
"Stick it up your ass, fella." Voter that challenged @JoeBiden gets into confrontation with another voter that told him to "get out of here." 📹: @EmilyELarsen pic.twitter.com/VSz8u2yWC0
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) December 5, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 13:35 Tags Human Interest
![[CB] Panic, EU & WTO Ruling, Trump Moves Forward Against The [CB] - Episode 2036a](https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/aDggfyENYqE/hqdefault.jpg)
