The Salafist group organizers claimed unfair censorship after strict conditions were imposed on Muslims calling for a caliphate in Germany and against anti-Semitic rhetoric…
Thousands of Islamists took to the streets of Hamburg again on Saturday for what organizers called a “defense of Islamic values” in the face of political intimidation and media censorship.
The protest was organized by Muslim Interaktiv, a group under investigation by Hamburg’s domestic intelligence agency for “extremism.” It claimed on its social media accounts that over 6,000 Muslims had turned out to participate, although police estimates put the figure closer to 2,300.
The demonstration was in response to recent attempts by German politicians to restrict the group’s activities after a recent march in the port city sparked outrage amid calls for Germany to become a caliphate under Sharia Law, and participants chanted anti-Semitic slogans.
Muslim Interaktiv claimed it wanted to “set an example” to protect “Islamic identity,” and posted that the requirement for Muslims to “commit to Western values” was the “lie of the year.”
The demonstration was allowed to take place under strict conditions, which included a wholesale ban on anti-Semitic rhetoric, calls for a caliphate using any medium, and a ban on any incitement of hatred or violence.
Organizers called the conditions ahead of the march “repressive” and revealed it had been seeking legal advice to take action against the measures imposed on the group.
Attendees held placards claiming they were being censored by the German government.
BREAKING:
3000 Islamists took to the streets of Hamburg today.
The Salafist organization “Muslim Interaktiv” and the protesters called for German law to be replaced with Sharia Law and for the Caliphate to be established in place of the German state.
After the controversial protest held last month, Germany’s Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser denounced the demonstration despite overseeing the country’s open borders immigration policy in recent years that has seen millions of Muslims, many of whom have originated from countries that practice fundamental Islam, arrive in Germany.
“Seeing an Islamist demonstration of this kind on our streets is difficult to bear. It’s a good thing that the Hamburg police counteracted crime with a large presence,”she told Tagesspiegel.
She told the Funke newspaper group last week the new conditions imposed on the group’s activities gave the police greater power to intervene and disperse the participants if necessary.
“Anyone who would rather live in a caliphate, and therefore in the Stone Age, is against everything that Germany stands for. We defend our constitution — with the means of our constitution,” she said.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has watered down some provisions of its pandemic agreements ahead of the upcoming World Health Assembly on May 27. Critics in the United States, however, say the changes don’t do enough to address the concerns over the policy.
Provisions in prior drafts of the WHO pandemic treaty and International Health Regulations (IHRs) together aimed to effectively centralize and increase the power of the WHO if it declares a “health emergency.”
The release of the latest draft of the amendments, dated April 17, are the first public update on the IHR draft, which was initially made public early 2023.
“In most areas, and for all of those which most concerned us from a legal perspective, the interim draft reflects a major retreat by the WHO Working Group from the text of the original proposals,” write English solicitors Ben and Molly Kingsley in an April briefing paper regarding the new amendments.
Some WHO-watchers remain wary, however.
“Practically all the bad things are still there,” Dr. Meryl Nass, a U.S.-based physician and vocal critic of the WHO agreements, told The Epoch Times.
“The language is gentler, but since there is so much to be decided later it is not clear the gentler language is meaningful,” Dr. Nass said.
“My best guess is that they are desperate to get something passed, so the options are likely to be either a vanilla version of the treaty … or a delay. But they fear delay because people are waking up.”
The WHO and its advocates—including celebrities, politicians, and religious groups—have launched a global campaign urging the 194 member states to sign the documents.
“Give the people of the world, the people of your countries, the people you represent, a safer future,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a May 3 Geneva meeting. “I have one simple request: please, get this done, for them.”
He urged any countries that don’t support the agreements to refrain from encouraging other states to oppose it.
WHO ambassador and former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown on March 20 lauded “a high-powered intervention by 23 former national presidents, 22 former prime ministers, a former U.N. general secretary, and 3 Nobel Laureates … to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord.”
Mr. Brown called for unified global action to “expose fake news disinformation campaigns by conspiracy theorists trying to torpedo international agreement for the Pandemic Accord.”
He refuted criticisms that the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments would cede any sovereignty from member nations to the WHO.
Despite these assurances, however, the efforts to vest more power within the WHO continue to face resistance.
In recent months, Louisiana and Florida passed laws stating that state officials will not obey WHO directives, and other states, such as Oklahoma, are considering similar legislation.
On May 8, attorneys general from 22 states signed a letter to President Joe Biden urging him not to sign the WHO agreements, and stating that they will resist any attempts by the WHO to set public health policy in their states.
“Although the latest iteration is far better than previous versions, it’s still highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote. “The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return.
“Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health. It’s to cede authority to the WHO—specifically its director-general—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders), and informed consent.”
Amid this recalcitrance, the WHO has stepped back from some of the more controversial measures. The Biden administration is involved in negotiating the WHO treaty and have expressed support for it, but haven’t stated a definite intention to sign.
The Latest Draft
Struck from the latest draft is a provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to follow the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are non-binding.
As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, according to the latest study by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), the number of operational robots in China’s manufacturing industry reached a ratio of 392 units per 10,000 employees in 2022, a robot density now similar to that of Japanese industry.
China currently ranks fifth in the world, behind South Korea (1,012 per 10,000 employees), Singapore (730), Germany (415) and Japan (397).
As the following infographic shows, China and South Korea are the countries that have made the most progress in the race to industrial automation in recent years.
In Europe, robot density has seen a pretty big jump in Swiss industry, with the ratio more than doubling between 2017 and 2022 – from 129 to 296 robots per 10,000 employees.
France’s manufacturing industry still had a lower level of robotization than most of its neighboring European industries: 180 robots per 10,000 employees in 2022 – compared, for example, with 216 in Belgium (and Luxembourg) and 219 in Italy.
This era began, as almost all of us realize now, with COVID-19 when all of us were told to put on masks or our friends and relatives might die. We might expire ourselves.
How necessary this was has been the subject of much discussion. My “Spidey sense” says no. Others may differ.
Nevertheless, as with all pandemics—real, imagined, or something in between—the need eventually diminished. People were liberated. Sort of.
Only masks are still around us, startlingly so. In some cases they are more around us than ever.
I think it was on Clay Travis and Buck Sexton’s radio show I first heard the masks referred to, ironically, as a “fashion statement.” True enough—they do often tell us where the wearer stands on a whole raft of things—but that was a few months ago. It almost seems like ancient history.
Now masks are upon us with a vengeance—black ones, miscellaneous scarves, and, of course, keffiyehs. The wearers have various intents—to scare us; to hide their identities from the police, college administrators, or potential employers; or simply, pathetically, to be a faddist, part of what they think of as an “in crowd.”
We have seen this song before during Antifa and Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Exercise your right of free speech but don’t tell us who you are. We could call this cowardly, because it is, but it is also quite dangerous as it expands.
In some ways it reminds me of internet trolls, especially paid ones, who turn up virtually everywhere under assumed names, some obvious and some not. Does the First Amendment give you permission—legally, or more importantly, morally—to lie about who you are while exercising your right of free speech? Interesting question.
Many of the masked demonstrators on our campuses, we have been told—and considering the numbers who aren’t students, it is almost certainly true—are also paid for their “work,” not to mention transportation, tents, food, etc.
Who pays?
These are the people I termed in my title the Super Masked. They are the truly nefarious. The masked are their witting or unwitting foot soldiers.
It is the Super Masked who are behind the anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-free market capitalism, open borders, anti-religion, anti-Semitic, often pro-Chinese communist, gender fluid movements, and so forth.
Someone is paying for the campus chaos across our country. It doesn’t come free.
Who, then, are the Super Masked, and why are they doing this?
Park MacDougald has some answers in his Tablet article “The People Setting America on Fire.” Mr. MacDougald isolates, as have others, three groups as the principal organizers of the protests—Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and Within Our Lifetime (WOL).
Who is behind them? Mr. MacDougald has interesting details of the various cutouts, but it comes down to many of the “usual suspects”—the Rockefeller Foundation, George Soros in his various guises, and, to a great degree, the Tides Foundation. The author has this to say about Tides:
“Tides, you might have noticed, is a name that keeps coming up again and again. The Tides Nexus, of which the Tides Foundation is a part, is one of largest progressive dark-money networks in the country, controlling upward of a billion in assets; its list of major donors is an all-star cast of left-wing billionaires and foundations, including Soros, Peter Buffett and his NoVo Foundation, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, and the New Venture Fund, controlled by another Democratic dark-money powerhouse, Eric Kessler’s Arabella Advisors. A pioneer of what critics have called ‘charitable money-laundering’ through the use of fiscal sponsorships to obscure money trails through multiple layers of bureaucracy, Tides, through its donations and fiscal sponsorships, has emerged as a major backer of the anti-Israel protest movement across the country.”
This is, needless to say, not just about anti-Israel activities but about every progressive cause imaginable. Tides might be described as the king of the Super Masked.
One is tempted to channel the immortal words of President Ronald Reagan and say, “Mr. Tides, tear off that mask!”
My intention is to point out the level of often-deliberate obfuscation going on and the amount that people are being used, their ignorance exploited, consciously or unconsciously.
It’s easy to say that the infamous “globalists” are behind all this, and quite possibly it’s true, but I think there is a level at which people of all sorts have been swept up in causes they think are good without stopping to realize what they really are doing. It’s “my team,” and I will do what they say, even if it involves using “dark money.” And hiding my identity behind a mask.
The fight for transparency in our culture has been going on for some time with, unfortunately, little success. Meanwhile, we hear endless blather about preserving “democracy.” But without transparency, there is no democracy or constitutional republic, whichever you prefer.
“A progressive nonprofit that has been shelling out cash to anti-Israel protest groups is being sued by Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation for fraud and withholding more than $33 million in donations, a bombshell lawsuit claims.
“Tides Foundation, which has managed hundreds of millions in donations for progressive groups since it was founded in 1976, has ‘refused to honor its promises and continues to commandeer BLMGNF’s donations,’ according to the 285-page lawsuit filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on Monday.
“Instead, Tides doled out an undisclosed amount of donations to a radical BLM breakaway group run by anti-police activist Melina Abdullah — who lost a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against BLMGNF — according to court papers and an attorney for BLMGNF.”
What was it that Sir Walter Scott said? “What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Which Countries Have The Highest Infant Mortality Rates?
Infant mortality rates are generally regarded as the barometer of an overall population’s health. A higher rate indicates unmet needs of a population, especially with regards to food availability and sanitation.
Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao visualized the top 15 countries with the highest infant mortality rates, according to 2023 estimates from the CIA World Factbook. It is measured as the number of infant deaths under the age of one, per 1,000 live births in a given year.
ℹ️ Comoros has been excluded from the map for visibility reasons.
Ranked: Countries With the Highest Infant Mortality Rates
Afghanistan currently has the highest infant mortality rate in the world at 103 deaths per 1,000 babies born. Decades of conflict have pushed the country to the brink and a prolonged drought since 2021 has made food more scarce.
Meanwhile, the other 14 countries on this list are all from Sub-Saharan Africa. Some of them are also experiencing civil unrest, a breakdown of state machinery, and high undernourishment rates.
While this is concerning, Africa’s infant mortality rate as a whole has improved tremendously in the last seven decades. Between 1950–2024, the continent’s average fell 73% to 41 deaths per 1,000 births.
Expansion of healthcare, improving nutrition, access to clean drinking water, and mass immunization programs are some of the reasons behind this massive decline.
Estimates assume Africa’s infant mortality rate will improve further to 25 per 1,000 live births by 2050—which is roughly the same as Asia today.
Chestnuts are champions for vitamin C, for instance. Pistachios contain the most vitamin A and potassium. Both are high in folic acid. Cashews enrich us with magnesium. The level of vitamin B3 (niacin) is the highest in peanuts, and vitamin E (tocopherol) is found in almonds.
Walnuts are especially high in alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), a neuroprotective omega-3 fatty acid important for normal growth and development. It also has been shown to induce apoptosis (programmed death of cells) in breast cancer cells.
Our bodies cannot produce ALA, hence, nutritional intake is a must, as it is with many other key nutrients.
Research Supports the Benefits of Nuts
A 2023 review published in the journal Foods, found mounting evidence that a nut-rich diet can potentially prevent numerous chronic illnesses.
According to the report, “The ingestion of phytochemicals from nuts and their positive influence on several diseases (cancer, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, birth defects, cataracts, diabetes, diverticulosis, and obesity) are established.”
In addition to the improvement of cardiovascular disease, depression, and cognitive function, nut consumption is correlated with lower cancer incidence and cancer mortality, and decreased all-cause mortality, states a 2021 review.
The Nut/Cancer Health Connection
The World Health Organization predicts a considerable increase in cancer, with a potential of 32.6 million cases worldwide by 2045.
Effective strategies, such as increasing dietary fiber, eating more fruits and vegetables, and physical activity, could potentially reduce cancer risk factors by approximately 42 percent.
The journal Chronic Diseases and Translational Medicine published a 2023 review about the interrelation of nut consumption and different types of cancer, including women-related and gastrointestinal cancers.
Data suggests that eating nuts not only reduces “cancer-related risk and mortality,” but possibly prevents the occurrence of certain types of cancer and its advancement. Nuts contain active anticarcinogenic compounds such as “folate, phytosterols, saponins, phytic acid, isoflavones, ellagic acid, α-tocopherol, quercetin, and resveratrol,” according to the review.
The research points to certain phytochemicals and their mechanisms as preventatives for cancer.
Accordingly, walnuts, pecans, almonds, and pine nuts contain polyphenols, which inhibit carcinogenesis that is chemically induced. Likewise, hazelnuts and brazil nuts hold helpful properties, called isoflavonoids, to balance hormonal mechanisms.
Most nuts are strong antioxidants that counteract oxidative stress and guard our DNA—the health benefits list of nuts is long.
Nuts at a Glance
Walnuts
A review published in the journal Nutrition outlines the cancer-preventative properties of walnuts, as researched in animal studies with mice. It summarizes the following points:
A diet enriched with walnuts prevented the increase of “human breast cancers implanted in nude mice by [approximately] 80%.”
Mammary gland tumors were reduced by approximately 60 percent through a diet containing walnuts in a mouse model.
“Walnuts slowed the growth of prostate, colon, and renal cancers by antiproliferative and antiangiogenic mechanisms.”
Another interesting fact was shared in the review. Comparing the intake of whole walnuts to a diet equally rich in n-3 fatty acids, the reduction of tumors in the mammary gland was greater when ingesting whole nuts. This reinforces the idea that active components in walnuts act synergistically to suppress cancer.
Walnuts also proved their antitumorigenic qualities in an animal study in vivo in mice. Compared to the corn-oil-based control group, the walnut group featured two major improvements—the tumor growth rate was slowed by 27 percent, and the tumor weight was reduced by 33 percent.
Reducing inflammation in the body benefits many health conditions, amongst others cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Walnuts have proven valuable in all.
A randomized controlled trial tested a daily intake of 56 grams of walnuts (366 calories) in 46 overweight adults. Another trial analyzed the same amount on diabetic patients. Both results showed that the increased nut intake improved endothelial function significantly, which is key for healthy blood and lymph vessels. In turn, endothelial cells are needed to protect from vascular malfunctions—the hallmarks of several types of malignant disorders.
Almonds
Contrary to common belief, regular almond intake does not lead to weight gain, although the nuts contain almost 50 percent fat. Instead, almonds “appear to promote weight loss,” affirms a research paper published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, which benefits obesity-related illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
However, almonds also contain the highly controversial and much-researched bioactive compound glycoside amygdalin. Highly controversial because its pharmaceutical development as an anti-cancer treatment continues to be a topic of discussion in the pharmaceutical world.
As a commercial drug, amygdalin is distributed under the name Laetrile but has since been shown to have serious side effects, such as damage to nerves and the liver, a lack of oxygen in the blood, and confusion. Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved Laetrile and has said that the compound shows only little anticancer effect.
In contrast, a review in the Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics praises amygdalin’s few side effects, its low cost, and especially its excellent results in the battle against multidrug resistance. Furthermore, the compound can be easily naturally sourced as it occurs in the kernels of many fruits and is a compound in nuts.
A 2023 comprehensive review published in the International Journal of Molecular Science relates the same hopeful message: “Amygdalin seems to be a promising naturally occurring agent against cancer disease development and progression.”
While Amygdalin has proven its anti-tumor qualities, it is still not recommended as an extensive remedy, as some challenges need to be overcome.
Its correct dosage heavily depends on the type of bacteria present in a person’s gut. Therefore, researchers have not been able to find an across-the-board therapy. “Unfortunately, there is currently no foolproof method for determining the microbial consortium and providing a safe oral dosage for every patient,” researchers state in a 2022 review.
Scientists place their hope in modern nano-technologies as they further explore the qualities of amygdalin in cancer treatment. “There are several pieces of evidence to support the idea that amygdalin can exert anticancer effects against lung, breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and gastrointestinal cancers.” The compound “has been reported to induce apoptosis of cancer cells, inhibiting cancer cells’ proliferation and slowing down tumor metastatic spread,” according to the above-mentioned 2023 review.
A 2019 article published in Cancer Medicine that dials in on amygdalin, primarily found in bitter almonds, not only highlights its “antioxidative, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and immunoregulatory activities,” but investigates the clinical value of the anticancer agent.
The compound introduces cytotoxicity and apoptosis in the body and balances the immune function, which affects especially “solid tumors” such as lung or bladder cancer and renal cell carcinoma.
Despite limiting factors, such as the “primary stage” of both clinical and experimental research and the lack of high-quality publications on the topic, researchers still believe these studies to be promising regarding cancer treatments.
Many may not be surprised that walnuts and almonds provide us with these health benefits. However, the following nut, which botanically speaking, is a legume, often gets a “bad rap” as a common allergen. Nevertheless, research shows its valuable qualities in cancer therapy.
Peanuts
A human study published in the journal Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation showed that “High consumption of peanuts, walnuts, and almonds appears to be a protective factor for the development of breast cancer.”
The study group included 97 female patients suffering from breast cancer, and a control group of 104 healthy women. Researchers analyzed their seed consumption via the Mantel-Haenszel test method and found a correlation between dietary nut intake and the development of breast cancer.
Peanuts once again portrayed their qualities as functional food in a study that investigated phytosterols (PS), a natural compound that lowers cholesterol levels and prevents cardiovascular diseases. This research suggests that their sterol beta-sitosterol, in particular, holds protective anticancer effects against “colon, prostate, and breast cancer.”
With 207 milligrams PS per 100 grams, unrefined peanut oil has the highest concentration of valuable beta-sitosterol—even higher than olive oil. Peanut butter “contains 144-157 mg PS/100 g.” Further refinement of the product results in lower rates of the active compound.
Another healthy property of peanuts is the polyphenol phytochemical resveratrol—the target of a review focused on anticancer agents. In addition to peanuts, sources of resveratrol include grapes, red wine, and other berries.
Researchers point out that people benefit from the consumption of this powerful antioxidant, as it displays “strong anti-tumor activities through inhibiting tumor cell proliferation, inducing cell apoptosis, promoting tumor cell differentiation, preventing tumor invasion and metastasis, and further moderating the host immune system to kill tumor cells.”
In fact, the nickname “French Paradox” was given to resveratrol’s impact on the health of the French people, as it seems that the compound counteracts the French diet, which is often high in fats, and protects consumers from cardiovascular disease and more.
Pistachios
Another inconspicuous nut with plenty of healthy properties comes from the cashew family.
In comparison to other nuts, the health profile of pistachios is even more advantageous. They are low-fat, a good source of vegetable protein, contain a remarkable amount of minerals (potassium) and vitamins (C and E), and are high in dietary fiber.
Both, in vitro and in vivo models have indicated significant regulatory properties in pistachios on oxidative stress, according to a 2022 review. Consequently, eating pistachios also positively affected the risk of chronic diseases, including cancer.
Another 2022 review highlighted resveratrol in pistachios and its favorable role in breast cancer treatment.
Unfortunately, the high cost of this nut often keeps people from regular intake, which would be beneficial to their health.
Diet, Inflammation, and Cancer
It has long been known that lifestyle and diets greatly impact our health.
A 2010 review describes the multistage process of cancer as “initiation, promotion, and progression,” and explains that oxidative stress plays a role in all three phases of tumorigenesis (the formation of cancer), as does chronic inflammation in the body—conditions fought by nuts.
A diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids is beneficial to cancer survival, according to a review published in the Journal of Nutrition that examined several animal studies. In addition, it can lessen side effects that come with chemotherapy and increase the treatment’s efficacy. The review goes as far as stating that the “consumption of omega-3 fatty acids might slow or stop the growth of metastatic cancer cells,” after appropriate cancer treatment.
Walnuts contain the highest amount of omega-3 fatty acids.
Attention to Quality
As phenolic compounds in nuts are highly unstable, they may be impacted by various processing techniques.
Unfortunately, studies are rare, as certain types of nuts also react differently. Research that does exist indicates that thermal treatment negatively impacts nuts, such as hazelnuts, where most of the polyphenol content is found in the skin.
Roasting also alters the profile of nutrients in nuts, which can lead to increased allergenicity and changed protein levels, for instance in peanuts. This processing technique seems to affect almonds and pistachios less—they stay stable or might even slightly benefit from the process. In contrast, the antioxidant profile of hazelnuts and walnuts suffers.
A 2023 overview published in the journal Foods mentions that peanuts blanched in 100 degree Celsius water for 20 minutes were less allergenic. On the other hand, “boiling almonds for 10 min[utes], or cashews and pistachios for 60 min[utes] did not affect their properties.”
Authors of the overview suggest that consumers best educate themselves about the variation of bioactive compounds in nuts and the impact of food processing methods, as well as finding a quality source.
Recommended Daily Intake
A 2020 narrative review highlights the extremely low consumption of nuts and seeds worldwide.
Although nuts are continuously praised as a superfood, and the per-capita consumption in the United States increased to 5.6 pounds per person in 2022, recommended consumption is rarely met.
As a rule of thumb, a 2021 study comes to the conclusions that eating a “handful of nuts” is a practical way of “achieving recommended nut intakes.” Researchers explained that combining various types of nuts in a medium-size handful averages at about 36.3 g, which “resulted in a high proportion of individuals taking at least 80% of the recommended intake of nuts.”
Feel free to mix and match, bake with nuts and seeds, or add them to your salads, lunch, and dinner. Mostly though, just have fun going “nuts about nuts” and assisting your health at the same time.
Alexandra Roach is a board-certified holistic health practitioner, herbalist, and movement teacher who has also worked as a journalist, TV news anchor, and author. She has earned citations from U.S. Army commanders for her work with military personnel and writes with a broad perspective on health.
Services No Longer Required: Which Jobs Are Most At Risk?
Long before the emergence of ChatGPT and other AI tools threatening to take over our jobs, technological advancements have altered the way people work, making some occupations disappear, while others emerged.
Did you know, for example, that people used to work as living alarm clocks before actual alarm clocks became a thing?
“Knocker uppers”, as they were called, would walk around in industrial England, wielding a long stick with which they’d tap on workers’ doors to wake them in time for their shifts.
There also used to be “computers” long before the arrival of personal computers. They were persons performing mathematical calculations, a service that is no longer required today.
So which jobs might be next?
As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, each year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its Occupational Employment Projections – a report that’s looking at the U.S. labor market as a whole for the next 10 years, projecting changes in employment by occupation and revealing which jobs are most at risk from automation or other technological and societal shifts. In its latest edition covering the 2022-2032 period, the BLS identified four occupational groups that are projected to lose jobs over the next decade: office and administrative support occupations, production occupations and sales and related occupations as well as occupations in farming, fishing and forestry.
As the following chart shows, cashiers, who are at risk of being replaced by self-checkout, are projected to see the biggest drop in employment over the next decade with 348,100 fewer jobs in 2032 than in 2022.
Other jobs high on the list are secretaries, office clerks and customer service representatives, with each of these occupations expected to see employment decline by more than 150,000 jobs until 2032.
When looking at relative employment changes, word processors and typists (-39 percent) and watch and clock repairers (-30 percent) are most at risk of losing their jobs, with other relatively rare occupations also high on the list.
Few commodities wield as much influence in the intricate web of global economics as oil. Oil is pivotal in driving economic growth and development as the primary energy source for transportation, manufacturing, and countless other sectors. However, beneath its surface lies a hidden truth: oil can act as a tax on growth, imposing significant costs on economies worldwide.
The Economic Impact of Oil Prices
Oil prices have a profound impact on virtually every aspect of the economy:
1. Cost of Production: For industries reliant on oil as a primary input, such as transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture, fluctuations in oil prices directly influence production costs. Higher oil prices translate into increased business expenses, squeezing profit margins and potentially leading to higher prices for goods and services.
2. Consumer Spending: Rising oil prices can have a ripple effect on consumer spending patterns. As the cost of gasoline and other energy-related products increases, consumers may cut back on discretionary purchases or reallocate their budgets to cover higher fuel expenses, dampening overall consumption and economic growth.
3. Inflationary Pressures: Oil prices significantly impact inflationary pressures within an economy. As production costs rise, businesses may pass on these higher costs to consumers through higher prices, contributing to inflationary pressures and eroding purchasing power.
4. Macroeconomic Stability: Fluctuations in oil prices can disrupt macroeconomic stability, leading to volatility in financial markets, exchange rates, and interest rates. Oil-exporting countries may experience windfall profits during periods of high oil prices while oil-importing nations face trade imbalances, budget deficits, and currency depreciation.
Essentially, a high oil price acts as a tax on growth via its impact on economic activity, as businesses and consumers bear the financial costs – the same level of GDP, but at a higher cost. So far, there is nothing that we don’t know.
The oil dynamics have been changing over the years, which has been interesting to note. The most important change has been the shale revolution in the US. US oil production has boomed since 2005 due to fracking, recently resulting in the US becoming a net oil exporter and, as such, energy independent.
Source: US Energy Information Administration, May 2024
This changing dynamic has important implications regarding foreign policy and energy security. The US’s reliance on the Middle East is no longer what it once was. As a result, the US could be more hands-off in the future and potentially leave the ‘policing’ up to Europe. Presidential candidate Trump has suggested support for Ukraine could be withdrawn unless Europe increases its defence spending meaningfully. It’s fair to say that Europe needs to prepare for wavering US support and, as a result, has been scrambling to increase defence spending, which it can ill afford.
An escalation in the Middle East with the potential for less involvement from the US would not be good and would likely increase volatility in the price of oil. It would be in Europe’s best interest to ensure oil price stability.
Geopolitics aside, this newfound global supply should result in excess supply. This, in theory, should mean lower prices for us all. Unfortunately, this is too simple a view; oil prices are heavily influenced by both supply (largely OPEC) and demand (economic growth) factors. Another consideration is the shift to renewable energy, which should force the price of oil downwards, assuming supply remains constant, which it won’t. This renewable energy shift has been slow; oil will likely remain the dominant energy source for years to come.
So I ask myself, ‘is oil expensive or cheap? The answer: it depends.
Looking at inflation-adjusted oil prices in the US, we see that prices are in fact sitting at the long run average:
Source: Bloomberg, M&G, May 2024
Prices could double from here before having a meaningful impact on the US. The moderate price of Oil is no doubt contributing to some of the strength that we currently see in the US. This does, however, bring up an interesting dynamic. As we know, oil is priced in US dollars, and countries other than the US are hostage to the price of oil in dollars. Looking at the cost of oil in a foreign currency tells a very different story. The chart below looks at the inflation adjusted price of oil in JPY:
Source: Bloomberg, M&G, May 2024
Oil prices trading at or near the highs will become problematic for the Japanese economy as they are a heavy net importer. The factors discussed above will be at play. Inflation will continue to increase as the Yen weakens, potentially forcing the BoJ’s hand to raise rates more meaningfully, which is a challenge given the debt level.
Circling back to the oil price in US dollars, it has, in fact, been relatively stable despite the instability in the Middle East. A political misstep could see oil prices lurch higher, putting energy importers with very weak currencies in a very difficult position indeed.
Back in 1985, the Plaza Accord was signed, an agreement between the major economies to depreciate the dollar by intervening in currency markets. The dollar depreciated significantly as a result. There are similarities between then and now. Back then, monetary policy was tight, implemented by Paul Volker, and set against expansionary fiscal policy by the government at the time. This powerful cocktail sucked in capital, resulting in an extremely strong dollar. Sound familiar?
In fact, just recently, the US, Japan and South Korea met to “consult closely” on currency markets. What exactly this means is unclear, but it is very interesting. Speculation is rife about whether Japan recently intervened in currency markets as the yen hit 160 to the dollar. Are we inching towards a new Plaza Accord? The stresses and strains don’t look particularly stretched when you compare the DXY ( a weighted dollar index versus international currencies) from 1985 to today, so a new Plaza Accord may be some way off:
Source: Bloomberg, M&G, May 2024
That said, the composition of the world we find ourselves in today is very different. Countries have become increasingly unstable as debt levels continue to rise and the share of GDP between developed and emerging markets has completely flipped. The US has a dual mandate of stable prices and full employment; perhaps international stability should also be a consideration.
Source: IMF, May 2024
Emerging markets and highly indebted oil importers with weak currencies will struggle to continue fighting the strong dollar due to the fact that it is the currency of international trade and settlement.
Something is likely to break unless the Fed changes course. It’s hard to see the Fed cutting rates anytime soon, leaving us waiting for something to break. Will oil be the catalyst?
How Americans Feel About Federal Government Agencies
Come election time, America won’t hesitate to show its approval or disapproval of the country’s elected political representatives. That said, feelings about the federal bureaucracy and its associated agencies are a little harder to gauge.
Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao charts the results from an opinion poll conducted by Pew Research Center between March 13-19, 2023. In it, 10,701 adults—a representative of the U.S. adult population—were asked whether they felt favorably or unfavorably towards 16 different federal government agencies.
ℹ️ Access Pew Research’s methodology document to find out how they conducted their survey.
Americans Love the Park Service, Are Divided Over the IRS
Broadly speaking, 14 of the 16 federal government agencies garnered more favorable responses than unfavorable ones.
Of them, the Parks Service, Postal Service, and NASA all had the approval of more than 70% of the respondents.
Note: Figures are rounded. No answer responses are not shown.
Only the Department of Education and the IRS earned more unfavorable responses, and between them, only the IRS had a majority (51%) of unfavorable responses.
There are some caveats to remember with this data. Firstly, tax collection is a less-friendly activity than say, maintaining picturesque parks. Secondly, the survey was conducted a month before taxes were typically due, a peak time for experiencing filing woes.
Nevertheless, the IRS has come under fire in recent years. As per a New York Times article in 2019, eight years of budget cuts have stymied the agency’s ability to scrutinize tax filings from wealthier and more sophisticated filers.
At the same time poorer Americans are facing increasing audits on wage subsidies available to low income workers. According to a Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse report, this subset of filers was audited five-and-a-half more times the average American.
“I gave up shame years ago.” Those words from actor John Lithgow appear to have been taken to heart by Hillary Clinton who has severed any sense of self-awareness or shame in her public comments. Lithgow, who played Bill Clinton in Broadway production of Hillary and Clinton, appears to have inspired the subject of his play. In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton heralded the prosecution of former president Donald Trump in Manhattan as “election interference” by keeping “relevant information” from voters before an election. For those of us who criticized Clinton for the funding of the infamous Steele dossier, it was a perfectly otherworldly moment.
In the interview, Clinton went after the Supreme Court for delaying a trial of Trump despite the push by Special Counsel Jack Smith for a verdict before the election. She then left many in disbelief with the following statement:
“And the one going on now currently in New York is really about election interference. It is about trying to prevent the people of our country from having relevant information that may have influenced how they could have voted in 2016 or whether they would have voted.”
In the same election, it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that lied about funding the Steele dossier and then hiding the funding as a legal expense through then Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias.
(MSNBC/via YouTube)
The Clinton campaign staff has never been known for transparency. Buried in the detailed account is a footnote stating that Elias “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” Likewise, John Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.
Elias, his former partner Michael Sussmann, and the campaign were later found involved in not just spreading the false claims from the Steele dossier but other false stories like the Alfa Bank conspiracy claim.
It was Elias who managed the legal budget for the campaign. We now know that the campaign hid the funding of the Steele dossier as a legal expense.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Elias was also seated next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was asked about the role of the campaign, he denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Even assuming that Podesta was kept in the dark, the Durham Report clearly shows that Elias knew and played an active role in pushing this effort.
Elias is now ironically advising Democratic campaigns on election ethics and running a group to “defend democracy.” He is still counsel to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) headed by Rep. Suzan Kay DelBene, D-Wash. Elias was later severed by the Democratic National Committee from further representation and has been previously sanctioned in federal court in other litigation.
Notably, the Federal Election Commission sanctioned the Clinton campaign for hiding the funding as a legal expense. The Clinton campaign litigated the issue and insisted that the term is broadly used to cover a wide array of payments through counsel. That is precisely what the Trump team is arguing in the Manhattan case.
Lying to the media and hiding the funding was a conscious effort to hide “relevant information that may have influenced” voters. With the help of the media, these false stories were spread throughout the country and later were used to start the Russian collusion investigation.
Famous philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once declared that “the only shame is to have none.” Hillary has finally achieved that ignoble status. She appears now to have lost even the capacity for shame.
