There’s currently a push in the halls of Washington D.C., to establish a new branch of the military by 2019, one whose focus would be operations among the stars. Proposed legislation by House representatives would create a “Space Corps” that would serve “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force.” It would be the first branch added to the military since 1947 when the Air Force was officially established. On Tuesday, the top two lawmakers of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Representatives Mike Rogers and Jim Cooper, added the legislation to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The subcommittee oversees military space operations and works within the umbrella of the House Armed Services Committee.
Under the proposed legislation, the Space Corps would serve under the direction of the Air Force much like the Marine Corps serves under the direction of the Navy. But the military branch would have its own chief, equal in rank to that of Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Additionally, the Space Corps head would have a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Air Force itself, however, seems somewhat cool to the congressmen’s idea. At a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the NDAA on Thursday, Air Force spokesman Colonel Patrick Ryder said the United States military should be focusing on coordination:
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson echoed a similar sentiment while speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill on Wednesday:
The entire House Armed Services Committee will have to approve the subcommittee’s additions to the NDAA before they can go any further. If that happens, the debate will move to the House floor, where the NDAA is expected to be voted on sometime after the Fourth of July. Whether or not the legislation makes the cut, however, it should be noted that the idea of militarizing space is nothing new for the United States. As Anti-Media has reported, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work stated at a conference back in 2015 that space must “be considered a contested operational domain in ways that we haven’t had to think about in the past.” from http://capitalisthq.com/preparing-for-war-us-house-wants-to-create-first-new-military-branch-since-1947/
0 Comments
by Matthew Boyle24 Jun 2017Washington, D.C. 0 The network President Donald Trump has identified as a “very fake news” outlet is under fire from all sides as it was forced to retract a blatantly inaccurate hit piece on President Trump and his associates in the wake of a Breitbart News investigation this weekend.CNN is getting ripped from all over the right:
Even President Donald Trump’s son Donald Trump, Jr., is out mocking CNN right now for its failure:
But it’s not just conservatives ripping CNN. BuzzFeed joined in too!
According to the lefties as BuzzFeed, CNN’s president Jeff Zucker himself is now personally involved in trying to handle the cover-up:
The network made Brian Stelter, the ever-reliable defender of very fake news and host of Reliable Sources, go Tweet about in shame:
But even Stelter was admitting by later in the evening he was pushing more fake news as CNN’s woes grow bigger:
And Stelter is facing mounting criticism for his refusal to report on the scandal engulfing CNN:
It’s unclear at this time if anyone, especially the reporter responsible for printing the very fake news that Breitbart News exposed as false, forcing CNN’s retraction, has been held accountable for his mistakes though. But the reporter, Thomas Frank, Tweeted out the editor’s apology and retraction notice:
CNN remains under fire — but here is the original text of the very fake news article:
One of the targets of the hit piece, Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, is taking the high road, however:
CNN still has not provided a real explanation as to its misconduct and affronts against journalism:
from http://capitalisthq.com/cnn-under-fire-very-fake-news-network-hit-from-all-sides-as-breitbart-investigation-forces-rare-retraction/ A year on from the UK's Brexit referendum, Prime Minister Theresa May is set to visit Brussels today and outline her government's negotiating position on the future rights of EU citizens living in the UK. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, a recently released Chatham House-Kantar survey found that freedom to live and work across the EU is considered one of the EU's top three triumphs by its citizens. You will find more statistics at Statista When polled about the EU's greatest achievements to date, 29 percent of people in the UK said there were none, along with 17 percent in nine other countries. Peace on the European continent was considered the EU's greatest achievement by 14 percent of people on the continent and 17 percent in the UK. from http://capitalisthq.com/the-eus-greatest-achievements-according-to-europeans/ Comedian and writer for the “Bill Nye Saves the World” Netflix series, tweeted a disturbing and divisive tweet in the wake of the congressional baseball game shooting. Marcella Arguello writes for Bill Nye’s Netflix show; “Bill Nye Saves the World”, which is a hotbed of liberal propaganda and social justice rhetoric. She tweeted this anti-conservative tweet, calling for violence against “old ass conservative white men” as if it would spark a discussion on gun control. This sort of call to violence against conservatives has become all too common recently (Johnny Depp calls for the assassination of Trump). Ms. Arguello later deleted her obnoxious tweet. She had this to say about the criticism she received:
She also retweeted fellow comedian Chelsea Peretti as a lackluster excuse for her racist and violent “joke”.
Ms. Arguello’s tweet is yet another instance of the Left’s call to violence against the Right as well as the President. from http://capitalisthq.com/bill-nye-show-writer-posts-violent-tweet-against-old-a-conservative-white-men/ Authored by Paul Craig Roberts, On June 21 the editorial board of the Washington Post, long a propaganda instrument believed to be in cahoots with the CIA and the deep state, called for more sanctions and more pressure on Russia. One second’s thought is sufficient to realize how bad this advice is. The orchestrated demonization of Russia and its president began in the late summer of 2013 when the British Parliament and Russian diplomacy blocked the neoconned Obama regime’s planned invasion of Syria. An example had to be made of Russia before other countries began standing up to Washington. While the Russians were focused on the Sochi Olympic Games, Washington staged a coup in Ukraine, replacing the elected democratic government with a gang of Banderite neo-nazi thugs whose forebears fought for Hitler in World War II. Washington claimed it had brought democracy to Ukraine by putting neo-nazi thugs in control of the government. Washington’s thugs immediately began violent attacks on the Russian population in Ukraine. Soviet war memorials were destroyed. The Russian language was declared banned from official use. Instantly, separatist movements began in the Russian parts of Ukraine that had been administratively attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders. Crimea, a Russian province since the 1700s, voted overwhelmingly to seperate from Ukraine and requested to be reunited with Russia. The same occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. These independent actions were misrepresented by Washington and the presstitutes who whore for Washington as a “Russian invasion.” Despite all facts to the contrary, this misrepresentation continues today. In US foreign policy, facts are not part of the analysis. The most important fact that is overlooked by the Washington Post and the Russophobic members of the US government is that it is an act of insanity to call for more punishment and more pressure on a country with a powerful military and strategic nuclear capability whose military high command and government have already concluded that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack. Are the Washington Post editors trying to bring on nuclear armageddon? If there was any intelligence present in the Washington Post, the newspaper would be urging that President Trump immediately call President Putin with reassurances and arrange the necessary meetings to defuse the situation. Instead the utterly stupid editors urge actions that can only raise the level of tension. It should be obvious even to the Washington Post morons that Russia is not going to sit there, shaking in its boots, and wait for Washington’s attack. Putin has issued many warnings about the West’s rising threat to Russian security. He has said that Russia “will never again fight a war on its own territory.” He has said that the lesson he has learned is that “if a fight is unavoidable, strike first.” He has also said that the fact that no one hears his warnings makes the situation even more dangerous. What explains the deafness of the West? The answer is arrogance and hubris.
So, where is President Trump? Why is the President of the United States unable to rise to the challenge? Why isn’t he the man Ronald Reagan was? Is it, as David Stockman says, that Trump is incapable of anything except tweeting? Why hasn’t President Trump long ago ordered all intercepts of Russian chatter gathered, declassified, and made public? Why hasn’t Trump launched a criminal prosecution against John Brennan, Susan Rice, Comey, and the rest of the hit squad that is trying to destroy him? Why has Trump disarmed himself with an administration chosen by Russiaphobes and Israel? As David Stockman writes, Trump “is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/mainstream media prosecution” and “has no chance of survival short of an aggressive offensive” against those working to destroy him. But there is no Trump offensive, “because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.” Our president twitters while he and Earth itself are pushed toward destruction. from http://capitalisthq.com/paul-craig-roberts-warns-the-world-is-going-down-with-trump/ Peddling fake news does not, in fact, equate to a long-term successful business strategy, reporters for The New York Times are learning the hard way.The Gray Lady, which many in the media class consider the pinnacle of the information business, is struggling so much financially that reporters are expected to be laid off from the publication, along with many editors, the New York Post reports. “Reporters at the New York Times could soon be ‘vulnerable’ to the ax,” the Post’s Keith Kelly wrote. “If the ongoing round of voluntary buyouts being offered to editing staff does not get enough takers, the Gray Lady could begin another round, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet recently warned his top department editors.” Kelly reported that as part of an ongoing restructuring at the Times—which has been happening since early 2017—a whopping 109 copy editors have already been terminated while only 50 new jobs are likely to be created as the paper shifts its focus to digital. Kelly wrote:
Kelly quotes a memo from New York Times metro editor Wendell Jamieson who said that the buyouts that are eliminating editor jobs at the Times are now also targeting reporter jobs there. “I just attended a department head meeting with Dean and the rest of the staff,” Jamieson said in the June 15 memo to his staff. “While much of the buyout discussions have focused on editors, the buyouts are also available to reporters. Dean made it clear that, should the Times find itself in a layoff situation, reporters will also be vulnerable.” “This proves what we have suspected all along,” NewsGuild president Grant Glickson said, according to the Post. “The Times ‘restructuring’ of the newsroom is really about the bottom line and not about making the editing process more efficient, as they claim.” NewsGuild is the union that represents New York Times editorial staff. Glickson also said that the Times had not until now indicated that forced layoffs would happen if it did not reach its targeted buyout goals. Now, the entire Times newsroom is at risk of losing their jobs. “Up until now, the company had not indicated that layoffs would happen if targeted numbers weren’t achieved,” Glickson said. The layoff process, per Kelly’s New York Post report, is “speeding along” over the labor union’s “objections.” Kelly wrote:
The Times has been struggling financially for some time. A piece last year in Vanity Fair magazine from Sarah Ellison was headlined: “Can Anyone Save The New York Times From Itself?” The piece details “financial woes” the Times faces, and “tectonic tremors” jolting the newsroom—and questions whether Dean Baquet, the executive editor, can really do any good there. Fortune Magazine, a few months earlier, ran a piece calling the looming Times budget slashing “managing the decline of print.” If the Times does dwindle in size—and thereby influence—ceding territory to newer upstart competitors, it could bring about a seismic shift in the media industry as to which outlets have power and which do not. Walking into the current administration, the legacy establishment media likw the Times and its broadcast allies like CNN have wielded the most control over the media. But CNN finds itself under significant scrutiny, as it was forced as a result of a Breitbart News investigation just this week to retract an embarrassingly inaccurate hit piece on the president and his associates. This is just the latest example of CNN under fire in the new world of media—while the Times keeps draining away in the long term. Part of the reason why the media target the president so much and so viciously is because he represents a threat to their continued business models—thus their cushy, elitist lifestyles could come to an end if such a change in the landscape occurred. President Trump is a threat to them, in large part, because he calls them out directly. The President has repeatedly called the Gray Lady “the failing New York Times.” In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in the Oval Office in February, President Trump lambasted the Times for its “intent,” which he said is “evil.” “If you read the New York Times, if you read the New York Times, it’s—the intent is so evil and so bad,” President Trump said in the Oval Office interview. “The stories are wrong in many cases, but it’s the overall intent. Look at that paper over the last two years. In fact, they had to write a letter of essentially apology to their subscribers because they got the election so wrong.” He also said about the Times that “they write lies.” As for CNN, President Trump correctly identified them as a “very fake news” network. from http://capitalisthq.com/losing-the-failing-new-york-times-set-to-lay-off-more-staff-including-reporters/ Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com, Dear Mr. Dudley, Your recent remarks in the wake of last week’s FOMC statement were notably unhelpful. In particular, your excuses for further rate hikes to prevent crashing unemployment and rising inflation stunk of rotten eggs. Crashing UnemploymentQuite frankly, crashing unemployment is a construct that’s new to popular economic discourse, and a suspect one at that. Years ago, prior to the nirvana of globalization, the potential for wage inflation stemming from full employment was the going concern. Now that the official unemployment rate’s just 4.3 percent, and wages are still down in the dumps, it appears the Fed has fabricated a new bugaboo to rally around. What to make of it? For starters, the Fed’s unconventional monetary policy has successfully pushed the financial order completely out of the economy’s orbit. The once impossible is now commonplace. For example, the absurdity of negative interest rates was unfathomable until very recently. But that was before years of central bank asset purchases made this a reality. Perhaps, the imminent danger of crashing unemployment will give way to the impossibility of negative unemployment. Crazy things can happen, you know, especially considering the design limitations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ birth-death model. Secondly, muddying up the Fed’s message with inane nonsense like crashing unemployment severely diminishes the Fed’s goal of providing transparent communication. In short, Fed communication has regressed from backassward to assbackward. During the halcyon days of Alan Greenspan’s Goldilocks economy, for instance, the Fed regularly used jawboning as a tactic to manage inflation expectations. Through smiling teeth Greenspan would talk out of the side of his neck. He’d jawbone down inflation expectations while cutting rates. Certainly, a lot has changed over the years. So, too, the Fed seems to have reversed its jawboning tactic. By all accounts, including your Monday remarks, the Fed is now jawboning up inflation expectations while raising rates. Congratulations and Thank You!History will prove this policy tactic to be a complete fiasco. But at least the Fed is consistent in one respect. The Fed has a consistent record of getting everything dead wrong. If you recall, on January 10, 2008, a full month after the onset of the Great Recession, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke stated that “The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession.” Granted, a recession is generally identified by two successive quarters of declining GDP; so, you don’t technically know you’re in a recession until after it is underway. But, come on, what good is a forecast if it can’t discern a recession when you’re in the midst of one? Bernanke’s quote ranks up there in sheer idiocy with Irving Fisher’s public declaration in October 1929, on the eve of the 1929 stock market crash and onset of the Great Depression, that “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” By the month’s end the stock market had crashed and crashed again, never to return to its prior highs in Fisher’s lifetime. To be fair, Fisher wasn’t a Fed man. However, he was a dyed-in-the-wool central planner cut from the same cloth. Moreover, it is bloopers like these from the supposed experts like Bernanke and Fisher that make life so amiably pleasurable. Do you agree? Hence, Mr. Dudley, words of congratulations are in order! Because on Monday you added what’ll most definitely be a sidesplitting quote to the annals of economic banter:
Thank you, sir, for your shrewd insights. They’ll offer up countless laughs through the many dreary years ahead. Too Little, Too LateWhen it comes down to it, your excuses for raising rates are not about some unfounded fear of a crashing unemployment rate. Nor are they about controlling price inflation. These are mere cover for past mistakes. The esteemed James Rickards, in an article titled The Fed’s Road Ahead, recently boiled present Fed policy down to its very core:
Unfortunately, Mr. Dudley, the Fed miscalculated. Efforts to now raise rates will be too little, too late. To be clear, there ain’t a snowball’s chance in hell the Fed will get the federal funds rate up to 3 percent before the next recession. You likely won’t even get it up to 2 percent. Nonetheless, you should stay the course. If you’re gonna raise rates, then raise rates. Don’t cut them. Raise them. Then raise them some more. Crash stocks. Crash bonds. Crash real estate. Crush asset prices. Purge the debt and speculative excesses from financial markets. Let marginal businesses go broke. Let too big to fail banks, fail. You can even consult with Dick “The Gorilla” Fuld, if needed. Then let nature do its work. In essence, bring the paper money experiment to a close and shutter the doors of the Federal Reserve. No doubt, the economy and millions of people will suffer a painful multi-decade restructuring. But what choice is there, really? Let’s face it. The Fed can’t hold the financial order together much longer anyway. Why pretend you can with utter nonsense like crashing unemployment? It’s insulting. Your credibility’s shot. Better to get on with it now, before it’s forced upon you. P.S. What’s up with Neel Kashkari? The man has gone rogue. from http://capitalisthq.com/an-open-letter-to-the-feds-william-dudley/ Another big win could be heading President Trump’s way in the form of a second Supreme Court justice.Rumors started circulating with Jack Posobiec breaking some of this speculation early. Today, however, the speculation heated up as MSM outlets caught up with Posobiec’s scoop. Posobiec broke this story in a “scoop” tweet on June 16:
Now, the AP and CNN both report on Saturday that Justice Anthony Kennedy may be announcing his retirement as early as this term. Justice Kennedy is one of the more conservative justices on the bench, but he is also known for breaking ties on key decisions and even votes liberally on occasion. For example, Justice Kennedy toed the liberal line when he supported the court’s 2015 decision for Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively permitted same-sex marriage nationwide. from http://capitalisthq.com/breaking-justice-anthony-kennedy-may-soon-announce-retirement-from-scotus-video/ Concentrated Investing: Strategies of the World’s Greatest Concentrated Investors. 2016. Allen C. Benello, Michael van Biema, and Tobias E. Carlisle. Reviewed by Todd Wenning, CFA Amid the rising popularity of low-cost, passively managed investment products, active managers feel pressured to prove their worth to investors. Naturally, the most powerful demonstration comes from achieving consistent, material outperformance on an after-fee basis. Doing so is easier said than done, of course, and studies have shown that most of the current generation of actively managed equity funds have struggled to outperform their benchmarks. For some active equity managers, the answer may be as simple as owning fewer stocks and knowing those investments extremely well. The portfolio data presented in Concentrated Investing by investors Allen Benello, Michael van Biema, and Tobias Carlisle, for instance, show an inverse relationship between the number of portfolio holdings and the odds of market outperformance. To illustrate this concept, the authors backtested randomly selected portfolios of various sizes consisting of S&P 500 Index companies and compared their returns with those of an equal-weighted S&P 500 portfolio. The results are noteworthy. From 1999 to 2014, a 10-stock portfolio had a 35% chance of beating the market by 1% or more on an annualized basis. In comparison, a 250-stock portfolio had just a 0.2% chance of outperformance. Moreover, the 250-stock portfolio never outperformed the benchmark by 2% or more on an annualized basis, but the 10-stock portfolio had a 22% chance of doing so. Although 35% and 22% chances of success are not overwhelmingly high, it stands to reason that a particularly skilled investor should have a fair shot at outperforming the market in the long run by holding just a handful of stocks. To better understand how investors might achieve this end, the authors profile a number of highly successful concentrated investors, including John Maynard Keynes, Lou Simpson, Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, and Glenn Greenberg. Commendably, these profiles include informative interviews with Simpson, Greenberg, and Munger, among others, adding unique insights to the broader discussion. In addition, the book is well researched, with nearly 750 references. Readers will want to keep a pen ready for note-taking, as the book contains many insights that will challenge and improve their investing process. A key section examines position sizing using the Kelly criterion, a formula developed by physicist John Kelly to determine optimal bet sizes given specified odds. Originally applied to card games, the Kelly criterion helps gamblers decide how much of their bankroll to bet in a given scenario so as to maximize their winnings. Concentrated investors have also applied the Kelly criterion to determine how much of their portfolio to put behind a given investment. Kelly’s underlying principles make logical sense in asset allocation — invest more in the ideas with the highest expected value. Strictly adhering to this method, however, produces non-optimal results in the financial world, which lacks the fixed set of probabilities found in a card game. To illustrate, if an investor thinks she has a 70% chance of being right when she really has only a 40% chance of winning, following Kelly’s formula will lead to a much bigger bet than is warranted, exposing her to the possibility of large losses. Some investors have devised modifications to the Kelly rule to reduce the risk of betting too much on a single idea, such as committing half or some other fraction of what the formula recommends. In short, although the Kelly criterion could be considered a fair baseline from which to determine position sizing, it hardly provides a definitive answer. The authors aptly note two broad takeaways from their concentrated investor profiles. First, these investors had permanent sources of capital, such as insurance float or university endowments. They were thus less susceptible than most investors to detrimental behavior that tends to intensify when markets become volatile. Because open-ended mutual fund shareholders often add capital following strong performance and withdraw it during downturns, an open-ended mutual fund manager would find it extremely difficult to match the performance of a concentrated investor who has the benefit of an ideal structure. The profiled investors generally could keep their capital compounding in a variety of market scenarios — a valuable edge, given that their performance records reveal that many had at least one particularly bad run of underperformance, sometimes for a year or more. By contrast, most firms would find it massively challenging to keep even the most loyal clients happy after a year or two of disastrous results. Second, the profiled investors had the right temperament for holding concentrated portfolios. That is, they could remain confident in their investment theses despite holding unpopular stocks. At a lunch with Warren Buffett in 1997, for example, Glenn Greenberg (then of Chieftain Capital Management) asked Buffett’s opinion on the cable television stocks that Greenberg held in his portfolio. To his surprise, Buffett disagreed with him about the economics of the cable business, expressing concerns about the industry’s ability to generate free cash flow. Not many investors could have kept the faith on a stock idea that “the Oracle of Omaha” shot down, but Greenberg did exactly that — and he proved to be right. Humans are hard-wired to follow the crowd, so true contrarian thinkers are rare. Importantly, the few standouts within that already select group are not simply being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Rather, they have sincere, nonconsensus convictions and are willing to stand behind them in the face of setbacks and criticism. An understated third factor to consider when evaluating concentrated investors is the role of luck. Hindsight makes it easy to tell whether an investor’s track record is the stuff of legend. Financial history, however, is replete with stories of once-legendary investors who fell from grace by betting big and losing. Including a profile or two of concentrated investors who failed would have provided a more comprehensive picture of concentrated investing’s possibilities and pitfalls. To their credit, the authors note that the prerequisites of the right structure and the proper investment temperament mean that concentrated investing is not for everyone. “It requires a lot of hard work and a significant amount of knowledge to produce market-beating returns,” they note, adding that “if you do not have this, it is to your benefit to diversify and index.” Multi-author books often lack consistent flow, and Concentrated Investing is not an exception. Some quotes by the profiled investors are repeated, and chapters briefly dart off topic. The overall wealth of knowledge conveyed is impressive, however, making the book a valuable addition to any active investor’s library. In particular, practitioners with clients who are willing to accept more active risk in exchange for higher potential returns will profit by familiarizing themselves with these authors’ concepts. More book reviews are available on the CFA Institute website or in the CFA Institute Financial Analysts Journal®. If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor. All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer. from http://capitalisthq.com/book-review-concentrated-investing/ Since Seattle Placed A Tax On Guns And Ammunition The Citys Violent Crime Rate Has Increased6/24/2017 Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com, In recent years, Seattle has developed a reputation for passing asinine laws. Recently the city tried to increase taxes on diet soda, because the drink is more popular among white people. In the past they’ve allowed 6th graders to receive IUDs without parental consent, and have enlisted garbage men to snoop through residential trash in search of compost that is illegal to throw out. Seattle was also the first American city to pass a $ 15 minimum wage law, which promptly hurt low wage workers. So it’s no surprise that sometimes the city passes laws that backfire in very predictable ways. In 2015 Seattle tried to place a tax on gun and ammunition purchases, in an effort to curb some of the costs the city pays for gun violence. However, these taxes didn’t have the desired effect.
Not only that, but the tax didn’t bring in nearly as much money as city officials initially predicted. The only thing these taxes have accomplished, is the decimation of gun retailers in the city.
So in other words, the city tried to raise money to pay down the costs of gun violence, but their efforts brought in very little money, and might have raised the costs of gun violence. To be fair, there isn’t any proof that this crime wave is directly related the gun and ammunition taxes. But the best case scenario is that these taxes had zero effect on crime rates, hurt jobs, and burdened law abiding gun enthusiasts for no good reason. And this was totally predictable. There was nothing preventing gun owners in Seattle from simply driving outside of the city limits to buy cheaper guns and ammunition. So there are only two reasonable explanations for why these taxes were implemented. Either the political leaders of Seattle are painfully dumb, or they were deliberately trying to wreck the gun industry in their city. from http://capitalisthq.com/since-seattle-placed-a-tax-on-guns-and-ammunition-the-citys-violent-crime-rate-has-increased/ |
ABOUT USUncensored News on Markets, Politics, Trump News - CapitalistHQ.com- Most Influential Financial, Economics & Political Website with Crisp Commentary from Political and Business Insiders, Trump News, Zerohedge and Market Gurus. Archives
December 2017
Categories |