Authored by Lawrence Kadish via The Gatestone Institute,

When I was a sparring partner for professional boxers many, many years ago, I was taught to be wary of the jab. It is a tactic used to distract an opponent while setting him up for a devastating power punch that takes him down for the count.

Biden is throwing jabs.

The power punch is a little noticed Executive Order with the innocuous number 14067 and its title, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets.”

In a 21st Century world where cryptocurrency and cybercrime are now embedded threats to our collective financial security, this Executive Order would seem to address these issues. That is the jab.

In fact, this order includes language that allows the Federal Reserve System to “explore” the possibility of introducing digital currency into the United States. This means that your cash becomes so much colored paper. That would not be the only catastrophic impact on our society and the nation’s economy. 

Under this new digital currency, any transfer of funds to family, friends, charities, or clients would be able to be tracked by the nation’s central bank that issued this virtual money. Big Brother will be in your wallet every hour or every day. 

You will not be able to buy a stick of gum without a Federal Reserve computer knowing where, when, and to whom you just put down a buck.

Like any jab, its starts with a feint.

“At this stage, the Fed is just introducing the subject into the public debate and is weighing the options,” according to Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economics professor who was interviewed by the Associated Press in an Aug. 24 story.

Apologists for the White House insist that the Executive Order does not implement digital currency or give Washington the power to control it.

Assuming that is true, what it does accomplish is to introduce the possibility of even considering a currency move so radical, so profound, and so disruptive that it make George Orwell’s “1984” nightmare novel a day in the park?

We should be rightfully concerned about inflation, energy independence, aggressor nations armed with nuclear weapons, and woke public policies that denigrate the very foundation of this great country.

But these are jabs compared to the enormous destructive power of a digital currency “option” slipped into Executive Order 14067.

Nations have risen and fallen far from the battlefield, their destinies determined by their economic policies.

We should bring our collective outrage to confront even the idea of introducing digital currency in America’s future: if it becomes reality, we will not recognize our democracy.

One of the apocryphal conspiracy theories floated in recent years is that the establishment’s – and corporate America’s – fascination with pushing an LGBTQ agenda while minimizing (and in some cases openly ridiculing) traditional family-focused Judeo-Christian values, is that this is a core spoke of the World Economic Forum’s great reset. After all, what easier way to “depopulate” the world (as World Economic Forum participant Jane Goodall famously suggested in 2020 when she said “we can solve all the world’s problems if we reduce the world population to where it was 500 years ago”, at the 27 minute mark of the linked video) than to convince hundreds of millions to pair with a member of the same sex and thus avoid having children. One certainly wouldn’t need World War 3 or even a global viral pandemic to achieve a depopulation outcome if enough people are L, G, B, T, Q, “they/them” and so on (at last check, over 7% of the US population now identifies as LGBTQ). One just has to wait a generation.

There now appears to be another potential twist to this: it appears that workers who identify as the cool du jour pronoun pair of “they/them” are being systematically ignored by potential employers, and face far fewer job offers compared to their less pronoun-sensitive peers.

According to a new report from Business.com, a business resource platform, over 80% of nonbinary people believe that identifying as nonbinary would hurt their job search. Similarly, 51% believe their gender identity has affected their workplace experience “very or somewhat negatively.” Why? Well, for those confused, a quick reminder: the Biden admin’s “non-binary” hero is – or rather was – none other than Sam Britton, who worked as a nuclear engineer, or technically “deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy”, at least until it was revealed that he is a pathological liar and kleptomaniac with a penchant for stealing other people’s suitcases (and then wearing stolen female clothing). Clearly a person with zero mental issues and pristine decision-making skills. In any case, Britton lost his job recently after his crimes were exposed, prompting a cascade a question about the mental stability of the “they/them” cohort.

Which is why even though Ryan McGonagill, director of industry research at Business.com and author of the report, said that the latest statistics show just how much “inclusive” work there is to do…

“We clearly have more work to do on several fronts. Over the past 10 years, DEIB efforts have been prioritized by many companies; however, the results of this study and past research show that teams in most industries aren’t proportionately representative of the U.S. population,” McGonagill tells CNBC Make It. “And worse, many people (like the nonbinary individuals we spoke with in our research) feel like they don’t belong.”

… perhaps employers have it right?

Rhetorical questions aside, CNBC notes that Business.com also went a step further by sending two identical phantom resumes to “180 unique job postings that were explicitly open to entry-level candidates” in an effort to test “whether or not the inclusion of gender-neutral pronouns impacts how employers perceive resumes.”

“Both featured a gender-ambiguous name, ‘Taylor Williams.’ The only difference between the test and control resumes was the presence of gender pronouns on the test version,” McGonagill said in the report. “The test resume included “they/them” pronouns under the name in the header.” She/her and he/him pronouns were not tested.

The phantom resume including pronouns received 8% less interest than the one without, and fewer interview and phone screening invitations.

According to the report, over 64% of the companies that received these resumes were Equal Opportunity Employers, something that made the results even more “worrisome.”

“The law makes it clear that you cannot base any employment decision (hiring, terminating, or otherwise) based on their gender identity,” McGonagill says. “It’s incredibly disappointing and unethical that many of the hiring managers in our study would disqualify a candidate for being authentic.”

What is probably funnier, although it wasn’t analyzed, is that most of those hiring managers who overlooked the “they/them” stack also happen to be the most vocal virtue-signaling supporters of LGBTQ rights…. just not when it comes to their own company. In other words, a classic case of employment NIMBY: please hire all these wonderful folks… just don’t make me hire them.

“It’s incredibly disappointing and unethical that many of the hiring managers in our study would disqualify a candidate for being authentic” said McGonagill. Oh, if only Ryan knew just how unethical some of the most vocal virtue-signalers are, he would be in a state of permanent shock. As for being “authentic”… well, there is this thing called Darwinian selection. If enough people realize that identifying as a “they/them” is not all that cool, perhaps we will finally have some return to normalcy after progressive identify politics have pushed society to the verge of collapse. Just like what better way to solve society’s overpopulation problem than by encouraging the young and easily impressionable to join the growing LGBTQ cohort and avoid having any children. End result: widespread depopulation, just next generation not this one.

Inflation re-accelerated in the US and Europe last month, highlighting sticky price pressures that keep central banks ultra-hawkish and committed to increasing the terminal rate. Interest rate markets are still repricing the ‘about face’ in the disinflation narrative, which has caused cross-asset turmoil. Despite the lingering inflation storm, there is good news: global food prices in February declined for the eleventh consecutive month. 

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index fell .6% last month to 129.8. Last month’s decline was driven by the price of slumping cooking oils and dairy products, while grain and meat prices were flat, and sugar prices climbed. 

According to the data, the food supply crisis triggered by the Covid pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine is showing signs of improvement. The FAO’s index reached an all-time high following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but prices have since dropped by 18% from their peak. Nevertheless, prices are still 42% higher than their levels during the onset of the Covid outbreak.

Although global food prices peaked one year ago, consumers have complained supermarket prices are still high. This is because it takes time to filter through, while supermarkets deal with elevated transportation, energy, and labor costs. 

However, there is more promising news. The largest US meat company, Tyson Foods, missed Wall Street estimates for quarterly profit last month for operating margins this year in the face of falling – yes, falling – beef prices, easing demand for pork, and an ongoing crash in chicken prices as a result of overproduction.

Fast food restaurant chain Wendy’s Co. reported commodity inflation in the mid-single digits this year and beef prices to be deflationary in its current fiscal year. And Kraft Heinz Co. said there would be no more price hikes in North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia. 

Unless there is another global supply chain disruption or worsening of the war in Ukraine, food prices might not have just peaked, but declines could soon show up in supermarkets. 

Authored by Jimmy Song via BitcoinMagazine.com,

In the first two parts of this series, I wrote about the individual-level incentives and company-level incentives of fiat money. The individual-level incentives made personal lives have much higher time preferences through ubiquitous debt and lack of savings vehicles. The company-level incentives made communal life much more zombie-like and artificial through unnaturally-large companies that have replaced our families.

In this essay, I’m exploring the incentives at the nation-state level, where fiat money has perhaps its greatest effect. The power of fiat money gives governments the ability to become more authoritarian. Not only do we get a welfare/warfare state, but we also get a surveillance state, a police state and militaristic, corrupt tyrannies. The siren song of Marxism, of positivist law and an authoritarian vision are some of its rotten fruits. The unprecedented destructive power of governments in the last 100 years can be laid squarely at the feet of fiat money. Government authority and power have expanded more than the average American’s waistline and the consequences have been just as deadly.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

The central control of money is an enormous prize, like the Infinity Gauntlet of Marvel fame, giving those in power the ability to steal the wealth of their nations at will. This isn’t obvious at first because the mechanisms of central banking don’t make this monetary power dynamic easy to understand. Central banking is thus very attractive to governments and pretty much all fiat money since the 20th century has been of this type.

The main beneficiary of this obscured ability to print is the government that can run deficits on its budget. This was not the de facto practice historically as taking on debt under sound money is very expensive. Free market interest rates usually hover around 5.6% or higher, depending on the economic circumstances and credit worthiness. Taking on debt under sound money generally means really having to tighten budgets or raising taxes later, neither of which are popular. There’s an opportunity cost to spending that’s inherent in sound money that more or less disappears under fiat money. The major budget battles in the past used to be about trade-offs of various budget items. Under fiat money, budget battles are about who will get to hand out more rent-seeking positions.

Running a deficit means that hard choices don’t have to be made. Instead of having to choose between high-interest debt, increased taxes or budget cuts, fiat money lets governments avoid all three with an additional option: implicit taxation through inflation in the form of low-interest, easily-renewed debt!

The ability to run a deficit not only throws all discipline out the window, but it lets the people in charge use that money for the thing that people in charge tend to care about: staying in power. Hence, policies that favor certain constituencies or even straight up bribes proliferate. The power of controlling money is great and, unlike Spiderman, governments don’t use this power with much responsibility as can be seen in how they run themselves.

STAYING IN POWER

Governments, no matter what form they take, have as a major priority the goal of staying in power. This is true not only of dictatorships, but also of representative democracies. The differences between them are the means employed. A dictatorship may arrest, jail and kill political dissidents. A representative democracy may give new entitlement benefits to political allies. The goal in each case is to neutralize threats to continued rule and to strengthen the government’s supporters.

What fiat money does to this desire is give those in power many more options. Under sound money, budgets had to be balanced, meaning that for every program that spent money, there had to be some revenue generator, such as taxes, to compensate. Generally, taxes are unpopular and too many taxes will cause a populace to revolt, which risks losing power. Fiat money is thus a godsend to those in power as it avoids making taxes explicit.

With this power of money printing, those in power can benefit themselves in various ways, which we turn to now.

ENTITLEMENTS

Governments can provide benefits to various constituents to get their support. This can include everything from healthcare to food to pensions. Indeed, since the advent of fiat money, these entitlements have become common all over the world. They are generally sold to the public as a form of compassion and they’re very popular due to the perception that they’re “free.” The hidden taxation of inflation is rarely even acknowledged, let alone blamed.

The problem with welfare is that it becomes a cost center that grows uncontrollably. In the past, welfare recipients could only get what the government could afford within a budget. It had to be restrained and traded off against lots of other budget items. With fiat money, however, the welfare benefits never really stop growing. Fiat money funds entitlements, which enter the economy and causes the prices of everything else to rise. Soon, the benefits have to compensate for the loss in purchasing power which adds even more fiat money into the economy which causes the prices to go higher and so on.

Social security, for example, started as a tiny program relatively in the U.S. budget. It’s currently 21% of the budget and has grown enormously as more and more generous benefits have been granted. Similar programs like Medicare continue to grow. Food stamps covered three million people in 1969 and covered 15 million by 1974 and some 42 million today. We’re well past the point where self-interested voting will guarantee escalation of money printing.

The problem is that there’s no political will to stop entitlement programs because they induce dependency. Dependent people are loyal and will keep the government in power.

Thus, the only ways in which these programs expire is either through hyperinflation or through externally-imposed budget constraints. The latter is imposed by quasi-international organizations like the IMF, BIS and the World Bank. And indeed, that’s the topic of the next essay, but in the event of hyperinflation, everything is thrown into chaos. This is an all too common economic result for many countries around the world, particularly those that don’t have great relationships with the U.S.

POLICE STATE

Another usage of fiat money for political power is in the enhancement of the police state. Staying in power requires a lot of vigilance and watching for would-be revolutionaries is part of every government’s agenda. Fiat money has several mechanisms for doing this.

First, as fiat money is increasingly digital, governments can restrict its movement for those that are in opposition. Taking away bank accounts is a relatively cheap way for governments to defund their opposition. Many human rights activists around the world have felt the choking hand of government constriction over their money.

Second, fiat money can fund direct surveillance. Governments have many programs for tracking individuals and from their points of view, surveillance is a small price to pay to prevent being overthrown. Surveillance is very difficult and costly, requiring a lot of technology and personnel, but since it’s such a critical part of staying in power, governments will pay for it, inflating their own currencies to do so.

Third, fiat money can fund more police and military. These are some of the most expensive budget items yet those in power will deficit spend to build these up. The reason is because they’re insurance against any sort of coup. The ability to deficit spend means those in power can make an unnaturally large police and military to impose their rule. It’s a terrible use of resources, especially in poorer places, but that’s the power that fiat money gives, the ability to spend the resources of an entire country in whatever way the leaders want.

The military can also be used for conquest outside the country’s borders and that’s what we turn to now.

WAR

Thus far, we’ve discussed the various ways in which governments can use fiat money to defend internal threats against their rule. The other major threat to staying in power are external threats, which take the form of other governments wanting to topple your country.

Defending against external threats means building up the military, especially through highly-destructive weapons like nuclear warheads. Thus, many countries use fiat money to build up their militaries.

While the military build up prevents smaller skirmishes, when war breaks out, there’s a quick degeneration into total war. Under fiat money, war can be escalated easily through money printing. This is because the normal backstop of financial bankruptcy no longer exists. Because fiat money removes normal financial considerations, wars generally bring entire countries’ economies into the war effort. Thus, wars are often waged until one side is completely destroyed.

We saw this in action in both world wars where both sides went to total war, putting all resources of an economy toward the war effort and destroying a significant portion of civilization.

RENT-SEEKING JOBS

The final use of fiat money for staying in power is bribery. We usually think of bribery going the other way, where people in industry bribe officials in government for special favors. And indeed, that still happens, but what governments do is in many ways worse. They use fiat money to buy votes. In a sense, entitlements are a form of that, but more effective is bringing more people into government itself.

Especially in countries with chronic unemployment, giving favored constituencies jobs is a much more effective way of ensuring loyalty. Combined with a moral imperative to take on more responsibility, governments can grow very large just in personnel. For example, about one third of Lebanon’s active population is employed in civil service. Is it any wonder they are suffering from hyperinflation?

Most of these people are rewarded more for their loyalty than for any functions they perform for the government, so they can rightfully be described as rent seekers.

ENORMOUS GOVERNMENT

In part two of this series, I showed how fiat money fuels the growth of large companies. The same dynamic supercharges the growth of the government, except instead of commercial banks that give the government large loans, it’s the central bank. The dynamic is all the more potent as government is a natural monopoly and there’s no pesky need to make a profit.

The government grows like cancer well beyond levels necessary to fulfill the functions that it’s assigned itself. The access to money for a government is even greater than for corporations and thus, governments grow by leaps and bounds through a few different mechanisms. Fiat money is the fertilizer on a fresh field getting invaded by the weeds of government.

The first and most obvious way governments grow is through taking on more responsibility. As we’ll see, there’s a moral imperative for governments to provide solutions to any and all problems. Hence, the responsibilities it assigns itself grows ever larger. A taken responsibility, like creating enough energy for the country, becomes its own regulatory complex. Anything perceived to be too risky for the market, or uneconomical, are natural places where the government steps in. Thus, we get stuff like national flood insurance and rural electrification. Even if the government does a good job, these programs likely lose a lot of money, because if they made money, private industry would be all over them. The more likely scenario is that the government not only loses lots of money, but also does a poor job.

A second way governments grow is through nationalization. Subsidizing large zombie companies is a normal part of a fiat economy, but at a certain point, their finances get so deep in the red that they can’t get loans from commercial banks. At this point when serious money is required, governments often step in to provide bailouts. A government bailout necessarily means more say by the government, eventually to the point where the company will now belong to the government. Nationalization is the natural end of fiat companies. Bailouts are not the only path to nationalization, however. If an industry is perceived to be unfair in some way or if there’s a sufficient war emergency, that industry may just be taken over by force.

A third way governments grow is through bureaucratic bloat. Especially in poorer countries where there isn’t much industry, creating jobs tends to be a responsibility that the government takes on. As there are often not enough responsibilities, these become make-work jobs, which are naturally rent seeking. This is the administrative equivalent of digging ditches and filling them back in. It is to this final method of growth that we now turn.

GOVERNMENTS, LIKE COMPANIES BUT WORSE

Government jobs are supposed to serve the country, by performing functions like adjudication, defense and infrastructure. These require some organization and, given that it’s the government paying these people, such jobs are sought after. The reason is that generally, government jobs are very hard to get fired from. As I mentioned in the last essay, organizations past Dunbar’s number have major disadvantages and governments, being even bigger than companies, have great disadvantages in this regard.

In particular, it’s very difficult for those in charge to know what the workers are doing and rent seeking in such organizations tends to proliferate. Further, there’s little incentive for managers to even care about employee performance as there is no direct feedback from the market. The goods and services provided by the government aren’t market driven and require election waves or regime changes for even a small amount of change. Hence, the only way that such rent seekers lose their jobs is through some form of political upheaval.

The job security inherent in government work makes them very attractive, even if they don’t pay as much as industry. As mentioned in the last essay, companies provide a lot of benefits besides salary and this is generally true of government as well. Health insurance, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. are all available to government workers. Add job security, even for some of the worst performers, and we get a clamor for these jobs, especially in places where unemployment is high.

This, combined with a government’s desire to stay in power, generally means a gigantic bureaucratic bloat. Because fiat money obviates the need for any sort of fiscal discipline, jobs are handed out to politically-connected people. These might be political supporters, relatives or perhaps even former political opponents. Political problems are often easily solved by bribes, and these bribes can take the form of government jobs and, of course, bribes are funded by fiat money. The only limitation on the growth of government is hyperinflation, which is essentially the death of an economy. The cancer can only grow as long as the host is alive.

NOT PRICE SENSITIVE

The cancer of government waste spreads to companies through the procurement of goods and services. Not all government functions are performed by the government directly. For example, they don’t generally produce their own computers or cell phones, so contracts to buy these are again extremely lucrative opportunities for corruption.

The reason for external procurement is obvious: Government-created goods and services tend to be much poorer quality than their private industry equivalents. Just go to your local motor vehicle bureaucrat to see how poor government services can be. Thus, governments will contract out for a lot of goods and services they don’t offer on their own. These contracts are extremely valuable and there are many rent-seeking companies that sell exclusively to government.

Many are defense contractors, but they can be everything from event planners, hardware vendors, food services and pretty much anything you can think of. The key here is that governments can deficit spend and aren’t particularly worried about price. Laws and regulations may be written to try to get the government to care about price, but in practice, the budgets tend to be massively bloated.

This was the case in one of the biggest IT disasters we’ve seen from the government, healthcare.gov. The website was one of the many parts of the legislation colloquially called “Obamacare.” To get people to sign up, The government spent over $1.7 billion to build this website.

If this sounds like a lot of money, it is, and we’ll get to just how bloated a bit later, but massive bloat is not unusual for government spending. The healthcare.gov website was contracted to a firm in September 2011. After launch, America found out that the website couldn’t handle even 50 concurrent users and that the site was completely unusable.

The Obama White House got into a panic and put people on the case to fix the problem. After finding out that the system was built extremely poorly and that they needed people from the outside to fix it, they hired some software engineers from Silicon Valley. They managed to get the website up and running, but it was a Herculean task, requiring months of startup-level hours from some of the most talented programmers in the country to fix. A normal website like that takes anywhere from $3 to $10 million and private industry builds them on timelines much shorter than the 24 months government contractors were given.

That’s how inefficient government is and how little they care about cost. The power of money printing has given them so much leeway that they spent 10-times the time and 100-times the budget of people who were actually competent. This was a high-profile failure, so it’s easy to dismiss it as a one-off, but even if other parts of government are five times more efficient than the healthcare fiasco, there are a great amount of resources that are at minimum being mismanaged and wasted by the government.

Think about how these resources would be used by the free market! Think about how much prosperity such resources could be used for. Instead, they’re being wasted on bureaucracy, rent seeking, cronyism, corruption and embezzlement.

MORAL OBLIGATIONS OF FIAT MONEY

The ability to print money also has another effect on government: It increases the purview of government to be anything and everything. This is because it has the power of the money printer and can claim to use that to solve any problem. Indeed, this is what politicians promise.

Morally, the logic is understandable. If you have the power to print money, that power should be used to relieve any and all suffering. Hence, there’s a moral obligation to go solve any perceived problems and injustices.

If someone is suffering, the government has an obligation now to step in. If someone is poor or disabled or sick or oppressed, the government has an obligation to fix it. There’s no real limit to the government anymore because the government operates in a Keynesian fantasy. Governments think there are no tradeoffs to creating new money. Instead of measuring the good of one program versus another, which is what you’re forced to do with a normal budget, there’s just more money that can be printed to solve the problem through deficit spending.

Thus, there are no personal problems anymore. All problems belong to the government. More people will eschew personal responsibility because the government has the power of money printing and that power gives them the power and responsibility to give the people a good life.

Of course, this is a lie as there are tradeoffs. The value from printed money comes from savers and all of these government programs come at a cost of things that would empower individuals instead.

A TREND TOWARD STANDARDIZATION

Solving problems for people at a national scale tends toward one-size-fits-all solutions. The scale that companies have to operate at is large, but for a government, the scale is even larger. Combined with the monopoly and the long feedback loops from the market for government services, personalization of any kind gets thrown to the wayside.

Big companies also operate this way, which is why the modern world feels so impersonal. We’re being treated by companies and governments as interchangeable parts. The education system is a case in point.

For government and companies to run reasonably, each person has to be a cog in the wheel that can be replaced. An irreplaceable part doesn’t scale. Thus, corporate and government roles are very standardized and the education system facilitates this by churning out cog pieces. If you’re an accountant, you can fit into many different companies. An engineer, the same thing. Indeed, many of these roles are protected by government regulation.

Further, the process of being formed into these cog parts has implicitly given governments unprecedented authority. The government determines who can do what through licensing, from cutting hair to selling real estate. The government controls the supply of various professions and we get artificial restrictions on some of the most desirable jobs.

Because we have been made to be cogs in a system, there’s also a strong government tendency to standardize in other ways.

TENDENCY TOWARD TYRANNY

Given all the money available, and the moral responsibility they’ve taken on, most government leaders start working toward their version of utopia. Once they’ve been given a moral imperative of fixing all problems, it’s a short step to directing all of this effort toward some sort of perceived ideal.

Here’s the problem: The ideal requires significant social engineering to make it work. And that social engineering quickly leads to totalitarianism. Nazi Germany and the USSR were two examples of countries that tried to usher in a utopia through totalitarianism. The massive human suffering that resulted was funded by fiat money.

Of course, not every government will end up killing millions, but governments will want to control the behaviors of their people to aid in the bringing about of their utopia. The usual strategy to socially engineer a society toward a particular vision is to convince people of the righteousness of these outcomes. Propaganda is an outgrowth of this desire to control and the means, of course, are fiat money. Propaganda is the one thing governments tend to be good at because that’s how those in power got into power in the first place.

In addition, fiat money gives governments the ability to control behavior without obviously totalitarian laws. By paying for the outcomes they want, they can socially engineer their nations toward the outcome the authorities want through economic incentives.

For example, healthcare can be a direct benefit, which would mean conscripting a lot of doctors and medical equipment and facilities. This tends to not work very well, as government management tends to run such systems badly. But by providing fiat money, the tyranny is more obscured.

Government dependency increases and we head toward a totalitarian state through the back door.

BITCOIN FIXES THIS

Bitcoin fixes these incentives because the government no longer has the incredible power of money printing. Deficit spending becomes more expensive and thus less used. The apparatus of government will become much smaller simply because they’ll be constrained by individuals sovereign over their own wealth. No longer will there be the option of stealth theft via inflation. The Infinity Gauntlet will be destroyed.

The apparatus of government, including entitlements, bureaucracy and the military industrial complex will be sharply curtailed. The unpopularity of explicit taxation will shrink the public sector and the rent-seeking jobs that come with it. Tyranny will be limited because governments won’t be able to induce dependence with endless money printing.

As such, everything will get less political as politics won’t be in everything. The moral imperative of government will no longer be to solve everyone’s problems because their limitations will be obvious. This will reduce the role of government, especially in the sphere of moral demands. Instead of some authoritarian ideal, we’ll get to live our own dreams and set our own goals.

Bitcoin is freedom from tyranny.

A new study commissioned by the World Action on Salt, Sugar & Health (WASSH) revealed a startling fact: “Four of the world’s biggest food manufacturers are over-reliant on the sales of unhealthy food despite each claiming to be active in improving the healthfulness of their products.”

WASSH assessed 2,346 products sold by global food and drink companies Danone, Kellogg’s, Kraft Heinz, Nestlé, and Unilever in their three largest markets — Australia, France, and Mexico. It ranked the products based on commonly used standards such as Health Star Rating, Nutri-Score, and Warning Labels. With the exception of Danone, all other companies had a higher percentage of sales from unhealthy food.

“Danone was the only manufacturer with a greater share of healthier products available in each of the three countries. The remaining four manufacturers performed poorly across all three markets, with more than half of their surveyed food and drink portfolio below a standard definition of ‘healthy,'” WASSH wrote. 

Kraft Heinz, Kellogg, Unilever, and Nestle sold the bulk of junk food and drinks. 

“Improving the nutritional content of food and drink by reformulating recipes with less salt, sugar and saturated fat is by far the most important strategy that any company should make to improve public health,” Mhairi Brown, policy and public affairs lead with WASSH, said in a statement. 

Kraft Heinz, Kellogg, Unilever, and Nestle are promoting diets high in fat and sugar, which could potentially increase the risk of obesity and chronic illnesses such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and certain cancers if consumed regularly. In addition, the consumption of junk food may cause adverse changes in the brain and result in cognitive impairment.

And riddle us this… Why are the largest food companies in the world also pushing a ‘woke’ agenda? 

Kellogg’s has promoted what appears to be unhealthy ‘woke’ cereal. 

There’s a war on your diet and a war on your body. This seems very unhealthy for the soul, body, and mind. 

… and if current unhealthy diet trends persist, more than half of the world could be overweight by 2035.

Authored by Efthymis Oraiopoulos via The Epoch Times,

Maritime police in northwest France found nearly a ton of cocaine washed up on a beach on the English Channel on Feb. 26.

The drugs were found near the town of Reville on the Cotentin Peninsula, according to France’s maritime authority for the English Channel and North Sea.

The cocaine, weighing about 1,875 pounds (850 kilograms) in total, was found in two large packages linked by a rope, the authorities said on Feb. 28.

Police are trying to determine whether the drugs fell from a ship or were intentionally floated to the shore for traffickers to pick up.

Another report by AFP citing unnamed sources said more drugs were found washed up on the northern French coast on March 1.

Drug Smuggling Surge

There has been a surge in cocaine and crack smuggling into Europe, accompanied by unprecedented drug violence in some areas.

The North Sea port cities of Antwerp in Belgium and Rotterdam in the Netherlands have become the main gateway for Latin American cocaine cartels into Europe.

On Feb. 14, two Dutchmen, aged 27 and 46, were arrested by Belgian police, and almost 8,818 pounds (4,000 kilograms) of cocaine were seized.

Police found an address in a navigation app used by the two men. That address led police to a hangar with a container filled with 68 bags of cocaine.

Police also arrested seven other men found in the hangar.

Cocaine was found in over 1,700 tins of wall filler, after German authorities seized more than 16 tons of cocaine in the northern port city of Hamburg, Germany, on Feb. 24, 2020, in Europe’s largest cocaine haul to date. (Cathrin Mueller/Reuters)

Narcotics production is growing in Europe, according to an estimate published in January by the EU drugs agency, which warned of a proliferation of new psychoactive substances being sold and consumed on the continent.

The EU drugs agency said that new evidence was emerging of rising drug production in Europe, confirming its earlier warning about the continent turning into a global hub for narcotics and no longer just a consumption market.

“Synthetic drug production continues to increase in Europe,” the report warned, noting that illegal laboratories in Europe churn out huge amounts of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and other synthetic drugs for local consumption and export outside Europe.

Drugs and the chemicals needed to produce them are still largely imported into Europe from other parts of the world, including South America and Asia.

More than 350 labs for synthetic drugs were detected and dismantled in 2020 in Europe, the latest year for which data is available, the EU agency said.

Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times,

Supervised drug consumption sites may be coming to San Francisco despite California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of legislation with a similar plan by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) last year and widespread opposition to the idea.

The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted on Feb. 28 to allow nonprofit groups to run supervised injection sites with private funding. Because ordinances require two readings, the supervisors will cast their final vote on March 7.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Hillary Ronen introduced the proposal last month to abolish “a recently identified permitting barrier” to proceed with an overdose prevention plan – while the City awaits federal guidance on whether or not it can legally fund such programs with taxpayer dollars, the mayor said in a statement.

The legislation “opens the door for non-profits to operate drug overdose prevention sites in San Francisco,” according to the press release.

San Francisco city hall in San Francisco, Calif., on Feb. 23, 2023. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

The drug crisis in San Francisco has killed nearly 2,000 people since 2020, and the city’s infamous Tenderloin district is known to be a hotspot for illicit drug deals.

“This legislation is part of our work to bring down the number of fatal overdoses and tackle the challenges driven by fentanyl head on,” Breed said.

“We will continue to work with our non-profits partners who are trying to open overdose prevention sites, fully implement our health strategies to help those struggling with addiction in our streets, and work with law enforcement to close the open-air drug markets.”

Ronen said San Francisco needs overdose prevention sites to save lives and “solutions to open-air drug use and chaotic conditions on the streets.”

‘Negative Impacts’

Jacqui Berlinn, co-founder of Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths, whose son is addicted to fentanyl, said she opposes the creation of so-called safe injection sites.

Berlinn told the Epoch Times via text message on March 2 that the supervisors haven’t done their due diligence to research and visit safe injection sites in New York City and Vancouver to see “the negative impacts” they’ve have had on surrounding communities.

“It’s also important to talk to community members, as well as those with substance use disorders and the people who love them,” she said.

“Governor Newsom understood this when he vetoed Senate Bill 57 last year. The [San Francisco Board of Supervisors] incorrectly believes they know better even after witnessing the abject failure of the Linkage Center in [the Tenderloin district].”

The Tenderloin Center for the homeless in San Francisco. (Courtesy of the City of San Francisco)

The Tenderloin Linkage Center, which provides services to the homeless, last year dropped the word “linkage” from its name after very few people were linked to drug recovery services and other programs connected with the site.

Wiener’s Senate Bill 57 would have permitted the creation of overdose prevention programs, including safe injection sites, where addicts could use illegal drugs at supervised facilities in Oakland and cities in Los Angeles and San Francisco counties.

“The unlimited number of safe injection sites that this bill would authorize—facilities which would authorize well into the later part of this decade—could induce a world of unintended consequences,” Newsom said in his veto message on Aug. 22.

While “it is possible that these sites would help improve the safety and health of our urban areas,” the chance they could fail and make California’s drug problem worse “is not a risk we can take,” Newsom said in his veto message in September.

Homeless people gather near drug dealers in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco, Calif., on Feb. 22, 2023. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

Newsom said at the time he would be open to discussion with local officials to come back to the table with a proposal for a “truly limited pilot program” and “comprehensive plans for siting, operations, community partnerships, and fiscal sustainability that demonstrate how these programs will be run safely and effectively.”

City Takes Matter ‘Into Its Own Hands’

Wiener issued a statement on Aug. 22 saying the veto was “tragic.”

“With two successive Governors vetoing this bill, it’s crystal clear the State isn’t going to step up. San Francisco needs to take matters into its own hands & open up safe consumption sites to save lives,” Wiener wrote on Twitter.

But, Berlinn disagrees.

“The leaders of the city need to prioritize treatment and recovery before implementing sites like these that only perpetuate the open-air drug markets,” she said.

“San Francisco can’t even keep the area in front of methadone clinics clear of drug dealers and users. My own son has to walk through this toxic environment every day that he goes to the clinic for his treatment. He is actively trying to get well and free from his addiction, but the city isn’t able to keep the route to these clinics safe.”

Members of Mothers Against Drug Deaths hold a chain of posters in front of the Tenderloin Linkage Center in San Francisco on Feb. 5, 2022. (Cynthia Cai/The Epoch Times)

Recently, Berlinn helped form a new group called North America Recovers, a nonpartisan coalition of more than 20 American and Canadian community leaders, parents of the homeless, and recovering addicts seeking federal, state, and local actions that “support addiction recovery—not addiction enablement,” including untreated mental illness and homelessness.

Federal and state laws currently prohibit supervised injection sites from using government funds to operate. San Francisco’s 2020 ordinance would allow them, but only with state approval which the city has—so far—failed to achieve.

In 2021, New York established a privately funded overdose prevention site which allows addicts to bring illegal drugs such as fentanyl and heroin and use them under the supervision of trained staff. They also provide counseling.

“The opioid epidemic continues to take an immense toll on our City and claim the lives of far too many San Franciscans,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement. “To save lives, I continue to support a non-profit moving forward with New York City’s model of overdose prevention centers. Repealing this ordinance is one step towards that goal.”

Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,

It is tempting, as Naomi Wolf has done recently, to ascribe the breakdown of Western civilization to the debasing of “Judeo-Christian” ethics and the reemergence of malignant supernatural forces. Witnessing the many assaults on the infrastructure and social order of the United States of late, I wouldn’t rule out metaphysical causality either. But to blame the pagan gods, or, in specifically Christian terms, to blame Satan, and not his legions, is to take comfort in an obscured perspective on the current global arrangement. To lay culpability strictly on gaseous, unknowable forces is to let the global elite off the hook.

As I write in The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty, the Western world is in the grips and under the control of “subversive elites.” With inordinate power and influence, these people aren’t naturally superior but have as their object the undermining of Western civilization.

They can be found in such globalist “Round Table” organizations as the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Club of Rome, and the World Economic Forum (WEF); in their main international intergovernmental counterpart, the United Nations (UN); and in the monetary organizations that fund the globalist regime, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. All these organizations have had as their objective the undermining of nation states, the destruction of the free market, and the control of the world economic system by a globalist elite. These objectives are now being conducted under the rubric of “stakeholder capitalism,” with the WEF running interference for and coordinating the “public-private partnerships” that are ushering in stakeholder capitalism, supposedly to combat “climate change.”

In the economic sphere, stakeholder capitalism is a cartel scheme that benefits the compliant and destroys the noncompliant. And the economics of stakeholder capitalism spill into a governance and geopoliti­cal model: states and favored corporations in “pub­lic-private partnerships” in control of governance. The configuration yields a corporate-state hybrid largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments. As Kurt Nimmo writes:

According to the Transnational Institute in the Netherlands, this “initiative” proposes a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance. In other words, by stealth, they are marginalising a recognised model where we vote in governments who then negotiate treaties which are then ratified by our elected representatives with a model where a self-selected group of “stakeholders” make decisions on our behalf. (emphasis added)

The cozy relationship between multinational corporations and governments has even aroused the scorn of a few leftist academics. Some note that the UN-WEF partnership and the governance model of the WEF represent at least the privatization of the UN’s Agenda 2030, with the WEF bringing corporate partners, money, and supposed expertise on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4-IR) to the table. And the WEF’s governance model extends well beyond the UN, affecting the constitution and behavior of governments worldwide. This usurpation has led political scientist Ivan Wecke to call the WEF’s governmental redesign of the world system “a corporate takeover of global governance.”

This is true, but the WEF model also represents the governmentalization of private industry. Un­der Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism and the mul­tistakeholder governance model, governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more im­portantly, corporations are deputized as major addi­tions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and aug­mented by the addition of enormous corporate as­sets. These include funding directed at “sustainable development” to the exclusion of the noncompliant as well as the use of Big Data, artificial intelligence, and 5G to monitor and control citizens.

But first the conditions for global government must be established and these conditions include the breakdown of national sovereignty, the abrogation of natural rights, and the reduction of the standard of living of the vast majority.

“Affluence,” writes Sean Fleming for the WEF, “is the biggest threat to our world. . . . True sustainability will only be achieved through drastic lifestyle changes.”

Thus, these elites are not only subversive but also destructive. It is difficult to conclude that the many recent assaults on the infrastructure of the US are anything but part of a coordinated campaign to destroy productive capacities and terrorize the population. Consider the use of vaccine mandates to choke supply chains, the multiple train derailments and chemical bombs, the undetonated bombs on railroad tracks, the mysterious explosions at metals plants and oil facilities, the “coincidental” fires at food processing facilities and chicken egg farms, the hazardous materials explosions in public transportation facilities, the shutdown of a major baby formula production lab, etc.

Consider these in connection with the operations of cultural, social, and political demoralization—the covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates, the quasi-endorsed Black Lives Matter–Antifa riots, the election legerdemain, the January 6 show trials, the unfettered immigration, the foisting of the transgender movement and critical race theory on elementary school students, the differential treatment of crime along political lines (with the apparent rewarding of criminals carrying out subversive acts and the imprisonment of those who merely protest the regime)—and the effect is a politicized anarcho-tyranny unleashed on the populace. Do not all these phenomena have the common effect of producing social and economic insecurity and learned helplessness, while cowing any political opposition into submission?

Yet it is essentially impossible to prove that a coordinated campaign by subversive elites is afoot. As internal Twitter documents made available to the public in December reveal, one of the most powerful communications and ideological apparatuses on earth had gone to great lengths to snuff out and filter the visibility of any story that might provide a window into the coordination of the new world order.

If, however, as Pareto suggested, a governing elite is inevitable, then, as Jeff Deist has argued, we are certainly under the wrong elites. Whether a circulation of elites can be completed in time to save the world economic system from ruin and the majority from destitution and veritable slavery is a question of no little urgency.

There are many benefits to living in an iconic city like New York or Singapore, but the amenities and exclusivity can come at a high cost.

As Visual Capitalist’s Avery Koop details below, cities become “expensive” due to a variety of factors such as high demand for housing, a concentration of high-paying businesses and industries, and a high standard of living. Additionally, factors such as taxes, transportation costs, and availability of goods and services can also contribute to the overall cost of living in global cities.

The infographic above uses data from EIU to rank the world most and least expensive cities to live in. To make the list, the EIU examines 400+ prices for over 200 products and services in 172 cities, surveying a variety of businesses to track price fluctuations over the last year.

Inflation + Strong Currency = Expensive Cities

If you live in a city where many residents find it challenging to put a roof over their heads, food on their plates, and make ends meet, you live in an expensive city.

But if this inflation is compounded with a strong national currency, you may live in one of the world’s most expensive cities.

Singapore and New York City tied for the first rank amongst the world’s most expensive cities in 2022, pushing Israel’s Tel Aviv from the first place in 2021 to the third place in 2022. Both these cities had high inflation and a strong currency. Surprisingly, this is the Big Apple’s first time atop the ranking.

The city with one of the most expensive real estate markets worldwide, Hong Kong ranked fourth in this list, followed by Los Angeles, which moved up from its ninth rank in 2021.

Poor Economies = Cheaper Cities

Asia continues to dominate the list of the world’s least expensive cities, followed by parts of North Africa and the Middle East. Though affordability sounds good at face value, sitting at the bottom of the ranking isn’t necessarily a coveted position.

While the cost of living in some of the cities in these nations is low, it comes at the price of a weak currency, poor economy, and, in many cases, political and economic turmoil.

The decade-long conflict in Syria weakened the Syrian pound, led to a spiraling inflation and fuel shortages, and further collapsed its economy. It’s no surprise that its capital city of Damascus has maintained its position as the world’s cheapest city.

Tripoli and Tehran, the capitals of Libya and Iran, respectively, follow next on this list, reflecting their weakened economies.

Meanwhile, seven cities in Asia with the common denominator of high-income inequality and low wages dominate the list of the world’s cheapest cities. These include three Indian cities, Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Almaty in Kazakhstan, Pakistan’s most populous city of Karachi, and Sri Lankan capital–Colombo.