by Michael Krieger , libertyblitzkrieg:

I’m going to keep this relatively short. I’ve written thousands of articles over the years, and anyone who’s read me for any period of time knows where I stand when it comes to hatred, bigotry and violence. I find all these things repulsive, and think people who gravitate to such behavior to be operating on such a low level of awareness, it’s genuinely hard for me to believe these people exist in real life.

I published my seminal piece discussing the repulsion I feel with today’s political environment back in February in the post, Lost in the Political Wilderness. Now’s a perfect time to reread that piece, but here’s an excerpt if you’re short on time:

I think the U.S. citizenry is being afflicted by a sort of mass insanity at the moment. There are no good outcomes if this continues. As a result, I feel compelled to provide a voice for those of us lost in the political wilderness. We must persevere and not be manipulated into the obvious and nefarious divide and conquer tactics being aggressively unleashed across the societal spectrum. If we lose our grounding and our fortitude, who will be left to speak for those of us who simply don’t fit into any of the currently ascendant political ideologies?

For those of you who consider yourselves to largely reside in the yellow state (2nd tier consciousness), I have one key message for you. There’s a very deliberate attempt to manipulate you into devolving back into one of the lower tiers. Likewise, there is a very deliberate attempt to prevent those on the cusp of higher consciousness from ever evolving. The reason is simple. The lower tiers are very tribal and easily divided and conquered. The higher tiers are not.

Unlike most people writing articles on Charlottesville, I’m not going to spend my time getting on a pedestal to prove to everyone how much I hate neo-Nazis. My contempt for bigotry and violence has been a constant theme throughout all my writings over the years. In contrast, the purpose of this piece is to try to knock some sense into people so that we don’t lose sight of the bigger picture. Let’s start by discussing a tweet I wrote earlier today.

I set myself up for hysterical criticism with that tweet by saying “both sides,” which dishonest people will surely twist into support for Trump’s commentary on this weekend’s violence. I don’t care. While I certainly don’t want to minimize the disturbing scenes from Charlottesville, and the terrible loss of life and multiple injuries that occurred, it’s always important to keep our eyes on the bigger picture.

by Pam Martens and Russ Martens , wallstreetonparade:

According to the latest data from the New York Stock Exchange, margin debt has hit new peaks four times this year, starting with a new record of $513 billion in January; $528 billion in February; $536.9 billion in March; and reaching a whopping $549 billion in April. The most recent reading for June shows a decline to $539 billion – but that is still an increase of 64 percent from the margin level of January 2008, the year of the epic financial crash on Wall Street.

Spiraling margin debt, where investors pledge securities at their brokerage firm to obtain a loan, typically to buy more securities, is frequently associated with stock market crashes. The dot.com bust followed a margin buying binge in 1999 and early 2000. Margin debt exploded from $153 billion in January 1999 to $278.5 billion by March of 2000, according to data from the New York Stock Exchange archives.

Loans using securities as collateral may be even more dangerous this time around. According to an enforcement action filed by the Massachusetts Securities Division on October 3, 2016, brokerage firms may be pushing securities based loans on their clients for purposes of mortgage funding, tax liabilities, weddings, and graduations. The enforcement action was brought against Morgan Stanley, the behemoth brokerage firm that gobbled up Smith Barney brokers, but the charges include an interesting statement from a former Morgan Stanley broker that suggests that another giant brokerage firm, Merrill Lynch, is offering similar loans. The statement from the broker reads:

“Morgan Stanley told our office during the end of February [2015] and beginning of March to pitch this product to all its customers. Management said they were doing this to keep up with its major competitor, Merrill Lynch, who was already offering express credit lines. They told us that there was big money to be made by having our customers take out credit since the variable interest rate was profitable to the company and they could just sell out of the customers positions if the customer failed to make the payment. They told us to call our customers to tell them that they could use the credit line to buy a house, pay for a home improvement project, buy a car and/or pay for school, etc. They asked us regularly how many people we had put in these products and used measurement tools to compare us amongst our peers. I did not feel comfortable recommending every customer establish a credit line because I felt that my role as a Financial Advisor and Fiduciary was to help customers save and make money and not go into bad debt.”

Offering securities based loans for purposes other than trading is not illegal if the full set of risks are disclosed and there are not inherent conflicts of interest. According to the Massachusetts Securities Division enforcement action, Morgan Stanley ran a sales contest to promote the loans and offered business development incentives to brokers of $1,000 for 10 loans; $3,000 for 20 loans; and $5,000 for 30 loans. The incentives apparently created excitement, with one broker responding in an email: “Game on!”

by Gage Cohen , CNS News:

On Friday morning, The New York Times promoted its article entitled, “North Korea Aside, Guam Faces Another Threat: Climate Change,” by asking its Twitter readers the question:

“What’s a greater threat to Guam? North Korea, or climate change?”

 

“The island of Guam made rare headlines this week when North Korea, responding to blustery language from President Trump, threatened to fire four ballistic missiles into waters near the American territory’s shores,” began the article. “Some Guam residents told reporters that they worried what might happen if North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, were actually to follow through.”

“Scientists in Guam, however, say they have at least one other major threat in mind: climate change.”

 

The Times article states that the small U.S. Pacific territory is under threat from changes in temperature, weather, and an increase in oceanic acidity. According to cited experts, such changes have the potential to increase the number of tropical storms in the region, raise the local temperature, and damage the island’s coral reefs.

The article also discusses different “adaptation” projects currently underway in Guam to assist the island in coping with the ever-changing climate. However, the author adds a notable caveat in its final paragraph:

“Guam’s topography is no guarantee that its climate adaptation projects would be effective over the long term, she [Dr. Keener] added. ‘Climate change adaptation: It’s a new field,’ she said, ‘and you really don’t know how well you’re preparing for things until 20 years, 30 years down the road.’”