• The Cyber Threat Intelligence League
    Claudio RestaJanuary 18, 2024

    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

    $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
    Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.

    There is a vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors:



    US military contractor Pablo Breuer (left), UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne “SJ” Terp (center), and Chris Krebs, former director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA)

    – Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and organizations non-profit – seeks to control and criminalize “wrong thinking”.
    – The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media.
    They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, and the discrediting of dissidents “as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship in their comparisons.”
    – Documents show that the weaponization of the financial sector originated with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL), which specifically sought to get banks to “cut off financial services to individuals organizing gatherings or events.”
    – CTIL files also show that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector. According to the informant, “the ethic was that if we get away with it, it’s legal.”

    Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and non-profit organizations – regulates and criminalizes “wrong thinking”.


    as Ursula Van der Leyen, the president of European Commission since 2019,

    stated at the WEF in Davos on January 17th, 2023 similar censorship are the most urgent and necessary policies (!) and will be implemented everywhere

    They describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, which officially began as a volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans, but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    The CTI League documents provide missing answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Together, they offer a complete picture of the rise of the “anti-disinformation” industry, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex.”

    The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media.

    They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, the discrediting of dissidents, and the deliberate weaponization of the financial industry against them .

    According to the whistleblower, the CTIL was also involved in the creation of a counter-disinformation project to “avoid a repeat of 2016”, a reference to Brexit and Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the elections, two situations in which the democratic processes have actually won.

    As Jimmy Dore noted, it wasn’t about preventing the circulation of false information.

    It was about ensuring that no political outsider could ever enter the Oval Office again.

    The instruction to prevent a repeat of 2016 was a direct call to undermine, if not eliminate, the process of free and fair elections.

    Importantly, the documents admit that censorship efforts against Americans must be carried out by private sector partners, because the government does not have “legal authority” to do so.

    The new series of documents and videos reveals that 2019 was a pivotal year for the censorship industrial complex. According to Public, it was then that “US and British military and intelligence contractors, led by a former British defense researcher, Sara-Jayne ‘SJ’ Terp, developed the blanket censorship framework.”



    These contractors became co-leaders of CTIL, whose original founders were a former Israeli intelligence official, Ohad Zaidenberg, the person responsible of Microsoft security Nate Warfield, Chris Mills, another Microsoft security official, and Marc Rogers, the head of security operations at the hacker convention DEF CON.

    According to media reports , these highly trained and in-demand professionals have made the altruistic decision to offer their services to help billion-dollar hospitals with their cybersecurity, for free and with no strings attached. It wasn’t a believable cover story then, and it certainly hasn’t gotten any better.

    Within a month of CTIL’s founding in March 2020, this supposedly entirely volunteer group had grown to 1,400 “invitation-only” members in 76 countries and entered into an official partnership with Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security. As reported by Public:

    Parallel censorship agencies

    In spring 2020, CISA also created the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) – a consortium composed of the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic’s Digital Forensic Research Lab Council and from Graphika (a social media analytics company) – and outsourced what would otherwise have been illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

    During the 2020 election cycle, EIP and CISA worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-supported Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) to influence and monitor political discussions online. EIP coordinated the removal of unwanted content using a real-time chat application shared by DHS, EIP, and social media companies.

    At the same time, CTIL monitored and reported anti-blockade views on social media. A “law enforcement” channel was created specifically to spy on and monitor social media users posting anti-lockdown hashtags. CTIL even kept a printout detailing their Twitter biographies.

    According to Public, the CTIL has also “engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote ‘counter-messaging,’ co-opting hashtags, diluting unfavorable messaging, creating sock puppet accounts, and infiltrating private groups by invitation.” In February 2021, the EIP was renamed the Virality Project, at which point its censorship focus shifted from elections to COVID-related issues.

    Government infiltration and takeover

    Although CTIL member Bonnie Smalley responded to a Public question by saying that CTIL has “nothing to do with the government,” the evidence shows otherwise. At least a dozen government employees working with DHS, the FBI, and CISA were also active members of CTIL.

    According to the whistleblower, CTIL’s goal “was to become part of the federal government.” Terp’s plan called for the creation of “MisinfoSec communities” that would include the federal sector, and documents show that this goal was achieved. In April 2020, Chris Krebs, then director of CISA, also publicly announced the agency’s partnership with CTIL.

    The audience continues:“The documents also show that Terp and his colleagues, through a group called the MisinfoSec Working Group, which included Renee DiResta, head of research at the Stanford Internet Observatory, created a censorship, influence and counter-disinformation strategy called

    Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques (AMITT).

    SJ on X: "AMITT (Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques) includes the left-of-boom misinformation activities that are often missed by other analyses, where ”left of boom” covers activity before an incident

    They wrote AMITT by adapting a cybersecurity framework developed by MITER… Terp then used AMITT to develop the DISARM framework, which the World Health Organization then used to “counter anti-vaccination campaigns across Europe.”

    A key component of Terp’s work through CTIL, MisinfoSec and AMITT has been to bring the concept of “cognitive security” to the fields of cybersecurity and information security…

    The ambitions of the 2020 pioneers of the censorship industrial complex went far beyond simply requiring Twitter to place a warning label on tweets or blacklist individuals.

    The AMITT framework calls for discrediting people as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship of them. Invite influencers to train to spread messages. And he invites us to try to convince banks to cut financial services to individuals who organize demonstrations or events.”

    The arming of the financial sector was born with the CTIL

    Now we know where this financial sector weapon comes from. It originated with the CTIL, which hspecifically sought to induce banks to “cut financial services to individuals who organize rallies or events”.

    Clearly, as my case and that of many others demonstrates, even banks and online payment processors have been tricked into cutting off services to people who simply expressed opposing views. It’s not just demonstration organizers who are being targeted.

    Under the cover of altruism

    Although CTIL officials have repeatedly stressed that the organization was founded on purely altruistic principles, the clear goal of its leaders was to “build support for censorship among national security and cybersecurity institutions,” writes Public, and they built that support by promoting Terp’s idea of “cognitive safety.”

    The choice of the term “cognitive safety” takes on a rather sinister flavor in light of Dr. Michael Nehls’ findings that over the past four years there has been what appears to be an intentional effort to destroy autobiographical memory function in the public’s brain , thus facilitating mass indoctrination and inhibiting personal will and critical thinking.vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors

    The Indoctrinated Brain - By Michael Nehls (hardcover) : Target

    He presents his thesis in the book “The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom”, published in mid-December 2023.

    The whistleblower material clearly reveals that sophisticated military tactics have been turned against the American public, powerful psychological tools – the same tools that, according to Nehls, can literally alter the biological functions of the brain.

    Public cites a MisinfoSec report in which “the authors called for placing censorship efforts within ‘cybersecurity,’ while acknowledging that ‘disinformation security’ is entirely different from cybersecurity. They wrote that the third pillar of the “information environment”, after physical and cyber security, should be the “cognitive dimension”.

    Indeed, your mind – your cognition, your very ability to think independently – is the battlefield of today’s war, as Nehls proposes in his book. The scary part is that the tools used have the power to reprogram who we are.

    We are indeed “hackable animals,” as proposed by Yuval Noah Harari, and the censorship industrial complex has already hacked the brain structure of billions of people over the past four years. Gutentag also talks about it in an article dated December 3, 2023:”What was once considered a “conspiracy theory”, according to which military and intelligence forces manipulated public opinion through inorganic interventions, has now been confirmed .

    Our study of the censorship industrial complex has exposed a far-reaching plan to subvert the democratic process and engage in activities that have a basis in military techniques and that amount to attempts at thought or mind control.”

    ”It’s legal if we can get away with it”

    The CTIL files also demonstrate that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector.

    According to the informant:“The ethos was if we get away with it, it’s legal, and there were no First Amendment problems because we have a ‘public-private partnership’ – that’s the word they used to mask these problems. Private individuals can do things that public officials cannot do, and public officials can provide leadership and coordination.”

    Good news, bad news

    ”The good news is that more and more information is coming out about the U.S. government’s illegal outsourcing of censorship, and with it, legal challenges that pose roadblocks to this circumvention of the Constitution.

    The three activists also achieved other victories. In August 2022, DHS was forced to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board due to public backlash. CISA also deleted information about its national censorship work from its website and dismantled its Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation (MDM) subcommittee.

    The federal government’s Select Subcommittee on Armaments is also continuing its search for the truth and will (hopefully) use all the power at its disposal to put an end to the abuses. Its latest report, “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech” was released on November 6, 2023.

    Unfortunately, there is a global effort underway not only to normalize, but also to legalize this type of censorship by third parties.

    In short, they are trying to restructure the censorship industry “away from a top-down government-led model” to a “competitive brokerage model” in which “content management” (read censorship) is simply outsourced to third-party organizations.

    In this way, a “legal” market for disinformation compliance is created, while the government can claim to have nothing to do with controlling the information. In essence, we are witnessing the emergence of organized corporate censorship.

    There is no clear solution to this threat other than to continue to oppose all efforts to legalize, standardize and normalize censorship. Vocally oppose, refuse to use intermediaries like NewsGuard, and boycott any company or organization that uses intermediaries or engages in censorship of any kind.”

    Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too.

    Grew up in a family of scientists where many sciences were represented by philosophy to psychoanalysis, from economics to history, from mathematics to physics, and where these sciences were subject to public display by their subject experts family members, and all those who they were part of could participate in a public family dialogue/debate on these subjects if they so wished. Read Full Bio

    Latest Articles (2023-Present)
    Archived Articles (2019-2022)


    ATTENTION READERS

    We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
    In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

    About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
    Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/the-cyber-threat-intelligence-league/
    The Cyber Threat Intelligence League Claudio RestaJanuary 18, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. There is a vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors: US military contractor Pablo Breuer (left), UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne “SJ” Terp (center), and Chris Krebs, former director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA) – Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and organizations non-profit – seeks to control and criminalize “wrong thinking”. – The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media. They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, and the discrediting of dissidents “as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship in their comparisons.” – Documents show that the weaponization of the financial sector originated with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL), which specifically sought to get banks to “cut off financial services to individuals organizing gatherings or events.” – CTIL files also show that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector. According to the informant, “the ethic was that if we get away with it, it’s legal.” Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and non-profit organizations – regulates and criminalizes “wrong thinking”. as Ursula Van der Leyen, the president of European Commission since 2019, stated at the WEF in Davos on January 17th, 2023 similar censorship are the most urgent and necessary policies (!) and will be implemented everywhere They describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, which officially began as a volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans, but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CTI League documents provide missing answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Together, they offer a complete picture of the rise of the “anti-disinformation” industry, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex.” The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media. They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, the discrediting of dissidents, and the deliberate weaponization of the financial industry against them . According to the whistleblower, the CTIL was also involved in the creation of a counter-disinformation project to “avoid a repeat of 2016”, a reference to Brexit and Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the elections, two situations in which the democratic processes have actually won. As Jimmy Dore noted, it wasn’t about preventing the circulation of false information. It was about ensuring that no political outsider could ever enter the Oval Office again. The instruction to prevent a repeat of 2016 was a direct call to undermine, if not eliminate, the process of free and fair elections. Importantly, the documents admit that censorship efforts against Americans must be carried out by private sector partners, because the government does not have “legal authority” to do so. The new series of documents and videos reveals that 2019 was a pivotal year for the censorship industrial complex. According to Public, it was then that “US and British military and intelligence contractors, led by a former British defense researcher, Sara-Jayne ‘SJ’ Terp, developed the blanket censorship framework.” These contractors became co-leaders of CTIL, whose original founders were a former Israeli intelligence official, Ohad Zaidenberg, the person responsible of Microsoft security Nate Warfield, Chris Mills, another Microsoft security official, and Marc Rogers, the head of security operations at the hacker convention DEF CON. According to media reports , these highly trained and in-demand professionals have made the altruistic decision to offer their services to help billion-dollar hospitals with their cybersecurity, for free and with no strings attached. It wasn’t a believable cover story then, and it certainly hasn’t gotten any better. Within a month of CTIL’s founding in March 2020, this supposedly entirely volunteer group had grown to 1,400 “invitation-only” members in 76 countries and entered into an official partnership with Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security. As reported by Public: Parallel censorship agencies In spring 2020, CISA also created the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) – a consortium composed of the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic’s Digital Forensic Research Lab Council and from Graphika (a social media analytics company) – and outsourced what would otherwise have been illegal and unconstitutional censorship. During the 2020 election cycle, EIP and CISA worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-supported Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) to influence and monitor political discussions online. EIP coordinated the removal of unwanted content using a real-time chat application shared by DHS, EIP, and social media companies. At the same time, CTIL monitored and reported anti-blockade views on social media. A “law enforcement” channel was created specifically to spy on and monitor social media users posting anti-lockdown hashtags. CTIL even kept a printout detailing their Twitter biographies. According to Public, the CTIL has also “engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote ‘counter-messaging,’ co-opting hashtags, diluting unfavorable messaging, creating sock puppet accounts, and infiltrating private groups by invitation.” In February 2021, the EIP was renamed the Virality Project, at which point its censorship focus shifted from elections to COVID-related issues. Government infiltration and takeover Although CTIL member Bonnie Smalley responded to a Public question by saying that CTIL has “nothing to do with the government,” the evidence shows otherwise. At least a dozen government employees working with DHS, the FBI, and CISA were also active members of CTIL. According to the whistleblower, CTIL’s goal “was to become part of the federal government.” Terp’s plan called for the creation of “MisinfoSec communities” that would include the federal sector, and documents show that this goal was achieved. In April 2020, Chris Krebs, then director of CISA, also publicly announced the agency’s partnership with CTIL. The audience continues:“The documents also show that Terp and his colleagues, through a group called the MisinfoSec Working Group, which included [Renee] DiResta, head of research at the Stanford Internet Observatory, created a censorship, influence and counter-disinformation strategy called Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques (AMITT). SJ on X: "AMITT (Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques) includes the left-of-boom misinformation activities that are often missed by other analyses, where ”left of boom” covers activity before an incident They wrote AMITT by adapting a cybersecurity framework developed by MITER… Terp then used AMITT to develop the DISARM framework, which the World Health Organization then used to “counter anti-vaccination campaigns across Europe.” A key component of Terp’s work through CTIL, MisinfoSec and AMITT has been to bring the concept of “cognitive security” to the fields of cybersecurity and information security… The ambitions of the 2020 pioneers of the censorship industrial complex went far beyond simply requiring Twitter to place a warning label on tweets or blacklist individuals. The AMITT framework calls for discrediting people as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship of them. Invite influencers to train to spread messages. And he invites us to try to convince banks to cut financial services to individuals who organize demonstrations or events.” The arming of the financial sector was born with the CTIL Now we know where this financial sector weapon comes from. It originated with the CTIL, which hspecifically sought to induce banks to “cut financial services to individuals who organize rallies or events”. Clearly, as my case and that of many others demonstrates, even banks and online payment processors have been tricked into cutting off services to people who simply expressed opposing views. It’s not just demonstration organizers who are being targeted. Under the cover of altruism Although CTIL officials have repeatedly stressed that the organization was founded on purely altruistic principles, the clear goal of its leaders was to “build support for censorship among national security and cybersecurity institutions,” writes Public, and they built that support by promoting Terp’s idea of “cognitive safety.” The choice of the term “cognitive safety” takes on a rather sinister flavor in light of Dr. Michael Nehls’ findings that over the past four years there has been what appears to be an intentional effort to destroy autobiographical memory function in the public’s brain , thus facilitating mass indoctrination and inhibiting personal will and critical thinking.vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors The Indoctrinated Brain - By Michael Nehls (hardcover) : Target He presents his thesis in the book “The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom”, published in mid-December 2023. The whistleblower material clearly reveals that sophisticated military tactics have been turned against the American public, powerful psychological tools – the same tools that, according to Nehls, can literally alter the biological functions of the brain. Public cites a MisinfoSec report in which “the authors called for placing censorship efforts within ‘cybersecurity,’ while acknowledging that ‘disinformation security’ is entirely different from cybersecurity. They wrote that the third pillar of the “information environment”, after physical and cyber security, should be the “cognitive dimension”. Indeed, your mind – your cognition, your very ability to think independently – is the battlefield of today’s war, as Nehls proposes in his book. The scary part is that the tools used have the power to reprogram who we are. We are indeed “hackable animals,” as proposed by Yuval Noah Harari, and the censorship industrial complex has already hacked the brain structure of billions of people over the past four years. Gutentag also talks about it in an article dated December 3, 2023:”What was once considered a “conspiracy theory”, according to which military and intelligence forces manipulated public opinion through inorganic interventions, has now been confirmed . Our study of the censorship industrial complex has exposed a far-reaching plan to subvert the democratic process and engage in activities that have a basis in military techniques and that amount to attempts at thought or mind control.” ”It’s legal if we can get away with it” The CTIL files also demonstrate that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector. According to the informant:“The ethos was if we get away with it, it’s legal, and there were no First Amendment problems because we have a ‘public-private partnership’ – that’s the word they used to mask these problems. Private individuals can do things that public officials cannot do, and public officials can provide leadership and coordination.” Good news, bad news ”The good news is that more and more information is coming out about the U.S. government’s illegal outsourcing of censorship, and with it, legal challenges that pose roadblocks to this circumvention of the Constitution. The three activists also achieved other victories. In August 2022, DHS was forced to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board due to public backlash. CISA also deleted information about its national censorship work from its website and dismantled its Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation (MDM) subcommittee. The federal government’s Select Subcommittee on Armaments is also continuing its search for the truth and will (hopefully) use all the power at its disposal to put an end to the abuses. Its latest report, “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech” was released on November 6, 2023. Unfortunately, there is a global effort underway not only to normalize, but also to legalize this type of censorship by third parties. In short, they are trying to restructure the censorship industry “away from a top-down government-led model” to a “competitive brokerage model” in which “content management” (read censorship) is simply outsourced to third-party organizations. In this way, a “legal” market for disinformation compliance is created, while the government can claim to have nothing to do with controlling the information. In essence, we are witnessing the emergence of organized corporate censorship. There is no clear solution to this threat other than to continue to oppose all efforts to legalize, standardize and normalize censorship. Vocally oppose, refuse to use intermediaries like NewsGuard, and boycott any company or organization that uses intermediaries or engages in censorship of any kind.” Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too. Grew up in a family of scientists where many sciences were represented by philosophy to psychoanalysis, from economics to history, from mathematics to physics, and where these sciences were subject to public display by their subject experts family members, and all those who they were part of could participate in a public family dialogue/debate on these subjects if they so wished. Read Full Bio Latest Articles (2023-Present) Archived Articles (2019-2022) ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/the-cyber-threat-intelligence-league/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    The Cyber Threat Intelligence League
    There is a vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors: US military contractor Pablo Breuer (left), UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne “SJ” Terp (center), and Chris Krebs, former director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA) – Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag...
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 12467 Views
  • Programming Bitcoin, or any other digital currency, involves interacting with software and services that help you access the blockchain network and manipulate transactions and data related to the currency. Here are the general steps that can be followed for Bitcoin programming:

    Study Bitcoin and learn the basics: Before you start programming Bitcoin, you must familiarize yourself with the concepts of blockchain and how Bitcoin works in general. You can start by reading the official Bitcoin technical documentation and online sources to understand the basics.

    Using an Application Programming Interface (API): Many trading platforms and wallet services provide application programming interfaces (API) that allow developers to interact with Bitcoin and conduct transactions. You can use these interfaces to create applications that handle Bitcoin, such as creating a digital wallet or executing transactions.

    Using software libraries: There are many software libraries available that facilitate the development of Bitcoin applications. Such as Bitcoin Core, BitcoinJS, etc. You can use these libraries to interact with the network and perform various functions such as generating public and private keys, signing transactions, and reading blockchain data.

    Smart Contract Application Development: If you want to handle smart contracts in Bitcoin, you can use platforms like Ethereum that support smart contract execution. You can learn programming languages used in smart contract development such as Solidity and create applications based on smart contracts in the Ethereum environment.

    Testing and debugging: After developing your app, you should fully test it and make sure it works properly. Test and fix all possible issues before releasing the application on the Bitcoin mainnet.

    Connecting with the community: Bitcoin is an open source project, and therefore there is a large community of developers and those interested in it. Connect with this community and benefit from shared experiences and knowledge. You can participate in forums and social channels dedicated to Bitcoin, ask your questions and exchange ideas.

    Remember, Bitcoin programming requires a deep understanding of the technology and security. You may also need to study more about cybersecurity and potential hacking risks when dealing with cryptocurrencies
    Programming Bitcoin, or any other digital currency, involves interacting with software and services that help you access the blockchain network and manipulate transactions and data related to the currency. Here are the general steps that can be followed for Bitcoin programming: Study Bitcoin and learn the basics: Before you start programming Bitcoin, you must familiarize yourself with the concepts of blockchain and how Bitcoin works in general. You can start by reading the official Bitcoin technical documentation and online sources to understand the basics. Using an Application Programming Interface (API): Many trading platforms and wallet services provide application programming interfaces (API) that allow developers to interact with Bitcoin and conduct transactions. You can use these interfaces to create applications that handle Bitcoin, such as creating a digital wallet or executing transactions. Using software libraries: There are many software libraries available that facilitate the development of Bitcoin applications. Such as Bitcoin Core, BitcoinJS, etc. You can use these libraries to interact with the network and perform various functions such as generating public and private keys, signing transactions, and reading blockchain data. Smart Contract Application Development: If you want to handle smart contracts in Bitcoin, you can use platforms like Ethereum that support smart contract execution. You can learn programming languages used in smart contract development such as Solidity and create applications based on smart contracts in the Ethereum environment. Testing and debugging: After developing your app, you should fully test it and make sure it works properly. Test and fix all possible issues before releasing the application on the Bitcoin mainnet. Connecting with the community: Bitcoin is an open source project, and therefore there is a large community of developers and those interested in it. Connect with this community and benefit from shared experiences and knowledge. You can participate in forums and social channels dedicated to Bitcoin, ask your questions and exchange ideas. Remember, Bitcoin programming requires a deep understanding of the technology and security. You may also need to study more about cybersecurity and potential hacking risks when dealing with cryptocurrencies
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7535 Views
  • #Kevin_Mitnick
    Kevin Mitnick is a former computer hacker turned cybersecurity consultant and author. Born on August 6, 1963, Mitnick gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s for his hacking activities. He was involved in a series of high-profile cyber intrusions into various computer systems, including those of major corporations and government agencies.

    Mitnick's hacking exploits included gaining unauthorized access to computer networks, stealing proprietary software, and intercepting sensitive communications. His actions led to him being pursued by law enforcement, including the FBI. In 1995, he was arrested and charged with multiple counts of computer and wire fraud.

    After serving five years in prison, including eight months in solitary confinement, Mitnick was released in 2000. Following his release, he shifted his focus to a legal career in the field of computer security. He became a respected cybersecurity consultant, helping companies identify and address vulnerabilities in their systems.

    Mitnick has also authored several books, sharing his experiences and insights into computer security. Some of his notable books include "The Art of Deception" and "The Art of Intrusion," which explore social engineering and various hacking techniques.

    As of my knowledge cutoff in January 2022, Mitnick continues to be active in the cybersecurity industry, providing training and consulting services to organizations worldwide. Please note that developments in his life or career beyond that date are not known to me.
    #Kevin_Mitnick Kevin Mitnick is a former computer hacker turned cybersecurity consultant and author. Born on August 6, 1963, Mitnick gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s for his hacking activities. He was involved in a series of high-profile cyber intrusions into various computer systems, including those of major corporations and government agencies. Mitnick's hacking exploits included gaining unauthorized access to computer networks, stealing proprietary software, and intercepting sensitive communications. His actions led to him being pursued by law enforcement, including the FBI. In 1995, he was arrested and charged with multiple counts of computer and wire fraud. After serving five years in prison, including eight months in solitary confinement, Mitnick was released in 2000. Following his release, he shifted his focus to a legal career in the field of computer security. He became a respected cybersecurity consultant, helping companies identify and address vulnerabilities in their systems. Mitnick has also authored several books, sharing his experiences and insights into computer security. Some of his notable books include "The Art of Deception" and "The Art of Intrusion," which explore social engineering and various hacking techniques. As of my knowledge cutoff in January 2022, Mitnick continues to be active in the cybersecurity industry, providing training and consulting services to organizations worldwide. Please note that developments in his life or career beyond that date are not known to me.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6450 Views
  • This article focuses on the imminent dangers of cyber warfare, which have already been announced by the WEF. A “Cyber Terrorist Attack” conducive to unprecedented disruptions? Is this something that we should take seriously? #cybersecurity
    This article focuses on the imminent dangers of cyber warfare, which have already been announced by the WEF. A “Cyber Terrorist Attack” conducive to unprecedented disruptions? Is this something that we should take seriously? #cybersecurity
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario: Another Crisis “Much Worse Than COVID”, Paralysis of Power Supply, Communications, Transportation - Activist Post
    WEF: "There will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID."
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1039 Views
  • U.S. and Russia ‘can’t stop’ Turkey’s new Syria incursion
    By ALEXANDER WARD, MATT BERG and LAWRENCE UKENYE
    11/22/2022 03:59 PM EST
    Syrian Kurds attend a funeral of people killed in Turkish airstrikes.
    Syrian Kurds attend a funeral of people killed in Turkish airstrikes in the village of Al Malikiyah, northern Syria, Monday, Nov. 21, 2022. | Baderkhan Ahmad/AP Photo
    Subscribe here | Email Alex | Email Matt

    With help from Phelim Kine and Lara Seligman

    PROGRAMMING NOTE: We’ll be off for Thanksgiving this Thursday and Friday but back to our normal schedule on Monday, Nov. 28.

    Turkey is threatening to kill more U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria — and the United States and Russia might not try very hard to stop it.

    Turkish President RECEP TAYYIP ERDOÄžAN vowed to soon launch a ground attack on U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria, claiming they were responsible for a deadly terrorist attack last week.

    “We have been bearing down on terrorists for a few days with our planes, cannons and guns,” ErdoÄŸan said Tuesday, alluding to Turkey’s recent lethal aerial bombardments in Syria. “God willing, we will root out all of them as soon as possible, together with our tanks, our soldiers.”

    It’s unclear if it was Kurdish separatists who killed six people in the heart of Istanbul on Nov. 13. The Kurds deny the allegation, after all. But experts say it has presented ErdoÄŸan with a pretext to delve deeper into northern Syria, a push he’s long wanted to do.

    “Turkey is quite serious about the current Syria offensive,” the Middle East Institute’s and St. Lawrence University’s HOWARD EISSENSTAT told NatSec Daily. “This fits with both long-standing Turkish assumptions about its security interests and ErdoÄŸan’s need to look strong in advance of elections scheduled for June. Under the current circumstances, Russia or the U.S. might be able to impose limits on Turkish actions, but they can’t stop them entirely.”

    Both have reasons to be worried about Turkey launching a ground attack.

    Russia backs Syrian President BASHAR AL-ASSAD while Turkey supports rebels seeking to topple him. “We understand and respect Turkey’s concerns about ensuring its own security,” Kremlin spokesperson DMITRY PESKOV told reporters. “At the same time, we call on all parties to refrain from steps that could lead to the destabilization of the overall situation.”

    About 900 U.S. troops, meanwhile, are in Syria to keep ISIS at bay alongside Syrian Democratic Forces and fear heavy fighting could disrupt their plans.

    Turkey has a legitimate right to defend itself and its citizens, National Security Council spokesperson JOHN KIRBY told NatSec Daily during a Tuesday news conference, but added cross-border operations “might force a reaction by some of our SDF partners that would limit and constrain their ability to fight against ISIS…and we want to be able to keep the pressure on ISIS.”

    “We continue to urge for deescalation on all sides and in our conversations,” Pentagon deputy press secretary SABRINA SINGH later told reporters.

    But those statements don’t fully reflect the state of play, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s SONER CAGAPTAY told NatSec Daily, because “Ankara has just about aligned all-stars for an incursion.”

    The U.S. may not resist too strongly since it wants Turkey, a NATO ally, to accept Sweden and Finland’s accession to the alliance. Cagaptay said a Monday State Department statement that barely lambasted Turkey over the violence in Syria was evidence of Washington’s light approach. “I can’t recall any statement that nicely worded about Turkey’s incursion into Syria in a long time,” he said.

    And Russia is providing millions for Turkey’s economy and energy sector, propping up ErdoÄŸan ahead of next year’s vote. In exchange, experts say ErdoÄŸan may finally accept Assad as Syria’s legitimate ruler, effectively bringing an end to what remains of the war in Syria.

    If that’s the case, it seems the U.S. and Russia may stand aside as Turkey kills more Kurds — and American allies — in Syria.

    The Inbox

    U.S. LEADERS IN ASIA: Vice President KAMALA HARRIS warned of U.S. intervention if China takes aim at the Philippines, our own PHELIM KINE reports.

    In a visit to the Philippines, Harris pushed back against Beijing’s expansive territorial claims in the region, pledging $7.5 million for the Philippine Coast Guard. On Monday, Harris also warned of a U.S. response if there is “an armed attack” on Filipino ships or aircraft in the South China Sea, invoking a treaty between the allies.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson ZHAO LIJIAN clapped back on Tuesday, warning that U.S.-Philippines cooperation “should not target or hurt other countries’ interests.”

    Meanwhile, Defense Secretary LLOYD AUSTIN met with his Chinese counterpart in Cambodia on Tuesday, discussing strained bilateral relations and regional and global security issues, the Associated Press’ HENG SINITH reports.

    The two met on the sidelines of a regional meeting, marking the second time in six months Austin and Gen. WEI FENGHE met face-to-face. It comes just over a week after President JOE BIDEN met with Chinese leader XI JINPING in Indonesia, a gathering widely seen as an effort to ease tensions between the two world powers.

    On the issue of Taiwan, Austin assured Wei of Biden’s commitment to the “one China” policy, but called on China to refrain from taking destabilizing actions toward the island nation, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. PAT RYDER said.

    EUROPE’S NEW MIGRANT INFLUX: Europe is struggling even more to properly welcome thousands of people seeking asylum from war and famine.

    Specifically, the EU plus Norway and Switzerland recorded about 564,000 applications in August this year — an increase of 62 percent from the same period last year, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum.

    That increase doesn’t include the millions of Ukrainian refugees moving westward since Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24. “Tents and sleeping bags have become a common sight along the canal in central Brussels, as well as in underpasses and railway stations, as some asylum seekers are forced to wait months for shelter after lodging applications,” per The Financial Times’ SAM FLEMING and GUY CHAZAN, underscoring just how overwhelmed the reception system is right now.

    NAVY BLAMES IRAN FOR DRONE ATTACK: The U.S. Navy confirmed Iran’s involvement in a Nov. 15 drone attack on a commercial tanker, identifying the drone as a Shahed-136 — the same type Iran has supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine.

    The attack fits “a historical pattern of Iran’s increasing use of a lethal capability directly or through its proxies across the Middle East,” reads a statement by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.

    “The Iranian attack on a commercial tanker transiting international waters was deliberate, flagrant and dangerous, endangering the lives of the ship’s crew and destabilizing maritime security in the Middle East,” said Vice Adm. BRAD COOPER, the command’s chief.

    U.S. officials had already said they suspected Iran was behind the strike.

    IT’S TUESDAY: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily. This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at award@politico.com and mberg@politico.com, and follow us on Twitter at @alexbward and @mattberg33.

    While you’re at it, follow the rest of POLITICO’s national security team: @nahaltoosi, @woodruffbets, @politicoryan, @PhelimKine, @BryanDBender, @laraseligman, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @leehudson, @AndrewDesiderio, @magmill95, @ericgeller, @johnnysaks130, @ErinBanco and @Lawrence_Ukenye.

    Flashpoints

    ARCTIC POWER: Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN touted Moscow’s growing footprint in the Arctic at a Tuesday flag-raising ceremony that commemorated two new nuclear-powered icebreakers that will allow the country to have year-round access to western parts of the Arctic, Reuters reports.

    The icebreakers “are part of our large-scale, systematic work to re-equip and replenish the domestic icebreaker fleet, to strengthen Russia’s status as a great Arctic power,” Putin said.

    The Arctic has become more significant due to climate change as melting ice has prompted countries like Russia, the U.S. and China to try to increase their influence in the region, which could also affect trade and shipping lane access.

    Keystrokes

    KISS IT GOODBYE, FOR NOW: The idea of creating a new platform where the government and the private sector can rapidly share data on cyber threats has hit a Fort Meade-sized speed bump: the National Security Agency, our friends over at Morning Cybersecurity (for Pros!) report.

    Until recently, the joint collaborative environment looked like a solid bet to make it into the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, featuring in both the House and Senate markups of the must-pass defense bill.

    But the NSA began voicing objections to the JCE in the last few weeks, tilting the scales against the provision on the Hill, two Hill staffers granted anonymity to speak freely about the proposal told MC.

    The NSA’s “biggest concern” about the legislation is that it “would overly constrain” the NSA and CISA’s ongoing threat-sharing efforts, ROB JOYCE, the director of NSA’s cybersecurity directorate, told MC.

    The Complex

    ON THE WAY: The Army is on track to award the multibillion-dollar contract for the UH-60 Black Hawk replacement by the end of the year, our friends over at Morning Defense (for Pros!) report.

    Competing for the deal are Bell, with its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, and a Sikorsky-Bell team, with the SB-1 Defiant coaxial helicopter for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, Army acquisition chief DOUG BUSH told reporters Monday. Bell estimates the program is worth more than $100 billion because of foreign military sales opportunities.

    Black Hawks won’t be phased out of the Army overnight. The service intends to buy them through fiscal 2028 and does not anticipate the replacement to come online until 2035.

    On the Hill

    NOT WINGING IT: Republicans have an answer for anyone asking about the effect the party’s populist wing might have on foreign policy: Sorry, what?

    Lawmakers at the Halifax International Security Forum told our own ANDREW DESIDERIO that “Congress is likely to allocate well more than the $38 billion the Biden administration requested for Ukraine’s military and economic needs as part of a year-end governing funding bill. And that extra infusion is set to advance with the help of senior Republicans, even as influential conservative groups urge a pause.”

    That means Republicans predict enough Democrats and Republicans will support the package, drowning out loud voices on the right who don’t want to give Kyiv another penny.

    “If we were on the other side of this, they’d be pounding the table saying, ‘Send more money to Ukraine,’” Sen. JIM RISCH (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview.

    Lawmakers from both parties believe the package will get through Congress before newly elected representatives and senators arrive in Washington.

    SEND ARMED DRONES TO UKRAINE: Sixteen senators are urging the Biden administration to give Ukraine armed drones to better repel Russia’s invasion, our own LEE HUDSON reports.

    The Biden administration has been hesitant to send the drone to Ukraine due to fears that sensitive technologies aboard the aircraft may end up in Russian hands. An electro-optical/infrared ball on the Gray Eagle provides real-time intelligence, targeting and tracking. The administration was also concerned that the drone and the instruments it carries would pose too many training and logistics challenges for the Ukrainian military.

    But the bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Sens. JONI ERNST (R-Iowa) and JOE MANCHIN (D-W.V.), say the benefits of helping Ukraine take out Russian positions outweigh the risks.

    “The MQ-1C could erode Russia’s long-range fires advantage. Most importantly, armed UAS could find and attack Russian warships in the Black Sea, breaking its coercive blockade and alleviate dual pressures on the Ukrainian economy and global food prices,” they wrote in the letter.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported on the letter.

    Broadsides

    FIRST IN NATSEC DAILY — CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHIPS IN 889: Loyal NatSec Daily readers will remember our report that two senators want to ban the federal government from acquiring products or services from Chinese chipmakers. Simply put, they want to update Section 889 in the federal code to include three Chinese firms and Chinese-made semiconductors.

    Well, the backlash to that bill by Sens. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-N.Y.) and JOHN CORNYN (R-Texas) has begun.

    “Left unaddressed, adding the covered semiconductors to part B of section 889 would harm federal agencies’ ability to procure the essential goods and services they need to promote our nation’s well-being, while putting added financial pressure on businesses that are operating in an inflationary economy,” reads a draft letter obtained by NatSec Daily. It’s signed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Aerospace Industries Association, among other groups.

    The groups are fine with the section’s Part A, which deals with the procurement of items, even though “it presents federal contractors with costly and complex compliance burdens.” Their main gripe is with Part B because it bans interactions with a contractor that “uses” a banned technology. That makes compliance much harder, they argue. “A company with both federal and nonfederal customers would be barred from selling to the government because it ‘uses’ a coffee service that ‘uses’ the covered semiconductors,” the letter reads.

    Some lawmakers in both parties told NatSec Daily they don’t fully support the Schumer-Cornyn bill because of Point B.

    The draft note, dated Nov. 22, is addressed to Sens. JACK REED (D-R.I.) and JIM INHOFE (R-Okla.), the top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Still, much of the non-government national security community is behind the chip ban out of fear China can manipulate the semiconductors for its own purposes. Some of the three companies up for a ban allegedly have ties to China’s military.

    An AIA spokesperson said of the reason for sending the letter: “We have serious concerns about the cumulative effect of well-intentioned, but burdensome regulations that could drive small businesses out of the industrial base.”

    Transitions

    — MICHAEL HOCHMAN is now chief of staff for the White House Office of the National Cyber Director. He previously was deputy chief of staff and deputy general counsel.

    — HADY AMR has been named a special representative for Palestinian affairs, the first time the State Department has had a D.C.-based post focused on that issue. He was previously the deputy assistant secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

    What to Read

    — NATHALIE TOCCI, POLITICO: Europe’s Defense Efforts Remain Underwhelming

    — BEN OLLERENSHAW and JULIAN SPENCER-CHURCHILL, Real Clear Defense: To Deter China, the U.S. Must Have the Political Courage to Retaliate Against Russia

    — ANDREW KREPINEVICH, JR., Foreign Affairs: Is Putin a Rational Actor?

    Wednesday Today

    — The Hudson Institute, 10 a.m.: “Countering Russian Influence in Georgia”

    Have a natsec-centric event coming up? Transitioning to a new defense-adjacent or foreign policy-focused gig? Shoot me an email at award@politico.com to be featured in the next edition of the newsletter.

    Thanks to our editor, Heidi Vogt, who has aligned the stars to gain full control of this newsletter.

    And we thank our producer, Kierra Frazier, who is a star in her own right.



    https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/11/22/u-s-and-russia-cant-stop-turkeys-new-syria-incursion-00070431
    U.S. and Russia ‘can’t stop’ Turkey’s new Syria incursion By ALEXANDER WARD, MATT BERG and LAWRENCE UKENYE 11/22/2022 03:59 PM EST Syrian Kurds attend a funeral of people killed in Turkish airstrikes. Syrian Kurds attend a funeral of people killed in Turkish airstrikes in the village of Al Malikiyah, northern Syria, Monday, Nov. 21, 2022. | Baderkhan Ahmad/AP Photo Subscribe here | Email Alex | Email Matt With help from Phelim Kine and Lara Seligman PROGRAMMING NOTE: We’ll be off for Thanksgiving this Thursday and Friday but back to our normal schedule on Monday, Nov. 28. Turkey is threatening to kill more U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria — and the United States and Russia might not try very hard to stop it. Turkish President RECEP TAYYIP ERDOÄžAN vowed to soon launch a ground attack on U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria, claiming they were responsible for a deadly terrorist attack last week. “We have been bearing down on terrorists for a few days with our planes, cannons and guns,” ErdoÄŸan said Tuesday, alluding to Turkey’s recent lethal aerial bombardments in Syria. “God willing, we will root out all of them as soon as possible, together with our tanks, our soldiers.” It’s unclear if it was Kurdish separatists who killed six people in the heart of Istanbul on Nov. 13. The Kurds deny the allegation, after all. But experts say it has presented ErdoÄŸan with a pretext to delve deeper into northern Syria, a push he’s long wanted to do. “Turkey is quite serious about the current Syria offensive,” the Middle East Institute’s and St. Lawrence University’s HOWARD EISSENSTAT told NatSec Daily. “This fits with both long-standing Turkish assumptions about its security interests and ErdoÄŸan’s need to look strong in advance of elections scheduled for June. Under the current circumstances, Russia or the U.S. might be able to impose limits on Turkish actions, but they can’t stop them entirely.” Both have reasons to be worried about Turkey launching a ground attack. Russia backs Syrian President BASHAR AL-ASSAD while Turkey supports rebels seeking to topple him. “We understand and respect Turkey’s concerns about ensuring its own security,” Kremlin spokesperson DMITRY PESKOV told reporters. “At the same time, we call on all parties to refrain from steps that could lead to the destabilization of the overall situation.” About 900 U.S. troops, meanwhile, are in Syria to keep ISIS at bay alongside Syrian Democratic Forces and fear heavy fighting could disrupt their plans. Turkey has a legitimate right to defend itself and its citizens, National Security Council spokesperson JOHN KIRBY told NatSec Daily during a Tuesday news conference, but added cross-border operations “might force a reaction by some of our SDF partners that would limit and constrain their ability to fight against ISIS…and we want to be able to keep the pressure on ISIS.” “We continue to urge for deescalation on all sides and in our conversations,” Pentagon deputy press secretary SABRINA SINGH later told reporters. But those statements don’t fully reflect the state of play, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s SONER CAGAPTAY told NatSec Daily, because “Ankara has just about aligned all-stars for an incursion.” The U.S. may not resist too strongly since it wants Turkey, a NATO ally, to accept Sweden and Finland’s accession to the alliance. Cagaptay said a Monday State Department statement that barely lambasted Turkey over the violence in Syria was evidence of Washington’s light approach. “I can’t recall any statement that nicely worded about Turkey’s incursion into Syria in a long time,” he said. And Russia is providing millions for Turkey’s economy and energy sector, propping up ErdoÄŸan ahead of next year’s vote. In exchange, experts say ErdoÄŸan may finally accept Assad as Syria’s legitimate ruler, effectively bringing an end to what remains of the war in Syria. If that’s the case, it seems the U.S. and Russia may stand aside as Turkey kills more Kurds — and American allies — in Syria. The Inbox U.S. LEADERS IN ASIA: Vice President KAMALA HARRIS warned of U.S. intervention if China takes aim at the Philippines, our own PHELIM KINE reports. In a visit to the Philippines, Harris pushed back against Beijing’s expansive territorial claims in the region, pledging $7.5 million for the Philippine Coast Guard. On Monday, Harris also warned of a U.S. response if there is “an armed attack” on Filipino ships or aircraft in the South China Sea, invoking a treaty between the allies. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson ZHAO LIJIAN clapped back on Tuesday, warning that U.S.-Philippines cooperation “should not target or hurt other countries’ interests.” Meanwhile, Defense Secretary LLOYD AUSTIN met with his Chinese counterpart in Cambodia on Tuesday, discussing strained bilateral relations and regional and global security issues, the Associated Press’ HENG SINITH reports. The two met on the sidelines of a regional meeting, marking the second time in six months Austin and Gen. WEI FENGHE met face-to-face. It comes just over a week after President JOE BIDEN met with Chinese leader XI JINPING in Indonesia, a gathering widely seen as an effort to ease tensions between the two world powers. On the issue of Taiwan, Austin assured Wei of Biden’s commitment to the “one China” policy, but called on China to refrain from taking destabilizing actions toward the island nation, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. PAT RYDER said. EUROPE’S NEW MIGRANT INFLUX: Europe is struggling even more to properly welcome thousands of people seeking asylum from war and famine. Specifically, the EU plus Norway and Switzerland recorded about 564,000 applications in August this year — an increase of 62 percent from the same period last year, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum. That increase doesn’t include the millions of Ukrainian refugees moving westward since Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24. “Tents and sleeping bags have become a common sight along the canal in central Brussels, as well as in underpasses and railway stations, as some asylum seekers are forced to wait months for shelter after lodging applications,” per The Financial Times’ SAM FLEMING and GUY CHAZAN, underscoring just how overwhelmed the reception system is right now. NAVY BLAMES IRAN FOR DRONE ATTACK: The U.S. Navy confirmed Iran’s involvement in a Nov. 15 drone attack on a commercial tanker, identifying the drone as a Shahed-136 — the same type Iran has supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine. The attack fits “a historical pattern of Iran’s increasing use of a lethal capability directly or through its proxies across the Middle East,” reads a statement by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. “The Iranian attack on a commercial tanker transiting international waters was deliberate, flagrant and dangerous, endangering the lives of the ship’s crew and destabilizing maritime security in the Middle East,” said Vice Adm. BRAD COOPER, the command’s chief. U.S. officials had already said they suspected Iran was behind the strike. IT’S TUESDAY: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily. This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at award@politico.com and mberg@politico.com, and follow us on Twitter at @alexbward and @mattberg33. While you’re at it, follow the rest of POLITICO’s national security team: @nahaltoosi, @woodruffbets, @politicoryan, @PhelimKine, @BryanDBender, @laraseligman, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @leehudson, @AndrewDesiderio, @magmill95, @ericgeller, @johnnysaks130, @ErinBanco and @Lawrence_Ukenye. Flashpoints ARCTIC POWER: Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN touted Moscow’s growing footprint in the Arctic at a Tuesday flag-raising ceremony that commemorated two new nuclear-powered icebreakers that will allow the country to have year-round access to western parts of the Arctic, Reuters reports. The icebreakers “are part of our large-scale, systematic work to re-equip and replenish the domestic icebreaker fleet, to strengthen Russia’s status as a great Arctic power,” Putin said. The Arctic has become more significant due to climate change as melting ice has prompted countries like Russia, the U.S. and China to try to increase their influence in the region, which could also affect trade and shipping lane access. Keystrokes KISS IT GOODBYE, FOR NOW: The idea of creating a new platform where the government and the private sector can rapidly share data on cyber threats has hit a Fort Meade-sized speed bump: the National Security Agency, our friends over at Morning Cybersecurity (for Pros!) report. Until recently, the joint collaborative environment looked like a solid bet to make it into the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, featuring in both the House and Senate markups of the must-pass defense bill. But the NSA began voicing objections to the JCE in the last few weeks, tilting the scales against the provision on the Hill, two Hill staffers granted anonymity to speak freely about the proposal told MC. The NSA’s “biggest concern” about the legislation is that it “would overly constrain” the NSA and CISA’s ongoing threat-sharing efforts, ROB JOYCE, the director of NSA’s cybersecurity directorate, told MC. The Complex ON THE WAY: The Army is on track to award the multibillion-dollar contract for the UH-60 Black Hawk replacement by the end of the year, our friends over at Morning Defense (for Pros!) report. Competing for the deal are Bell, with its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, and a Sikorsky-Bell team, with the SB-1 Defiant coaxial helicopter for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, Army acquisition chief DOUG BUSH told reporters Monday. Bell estimates the program is worth more than $100 billion because of foreign military sales opportunities. Black Hawks won’t be phased out of the Army overnight. The service intends to buy them through fiscal 2028 and does not anticipate the replacement to come online until 2035. On the Hill NOT WINGING IT: Republicans have an answer for anyone asking about the effect the party’s populist wing might have on foreign policy: Sorry, what? Lawmakers at the Halifax International Security Forum told our own ANDREW DESIDERIO that “Congress is likely to allocate well more than the $38 billion the Biden administration requested for Ukraine’s military and economic needs as part of a year-end governing funding bill. And that extra infusion is set to advance with the help of senior Republicans, even as influential conservative groups urge a pause.” That means Republicans predict enough Democrats and Republicans will support the package, drowning out loud voices on the right who don’t want to give Kyiv another penny. “If we were on the other side of this, they’d be pounding the table saying, ‘Send more money to Ukraine,’” Sen. JIM RISCH (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. Lawmakers from both parties believe the package will get through Congress before newly elected representatives and senators arrive in Washington. SEND ARMED DRONES TO UKRAINE: Sixteen senators are urging the Biden administration to give Ukraine armed drones to better repel Russia’s invasion, our own LEE HUDSON reports. The Biden administration has been hesitant to send the drone to Ukraine due to fears that sensitive technologies aboard the aircraft may end up in Russian hands. An electro-optical/infrared ball on the Gray Eagle provides real-time intelligence, targeting and tracking. The administration was also concerned that the drone and the instruments it carries would pose too many training and logistics challenges for the Ukrainian military. But the bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Sens. JONI ERNST (R-Iowa) and JOE MANCHIN (D-W.V.), say the benefits of helping Ukraine take out Russian positions outweigh the risks. “The MQ-1C could erode Russia’s long-range fires advantage. Most importantly, armed UAS could find and attack Russian warships in the Black Sea, breaking its coercive blockade and alleviate dual pressures on the Ukrainian economy and global food prices,” they wrote in the letter. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the letter. Broadsides FIRST IN NATSEC DAILY — CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHIPS IN 889: Loyal NatSec Daily readers will remember our report that two senators want to ban the federal government from acquiring products or services from Chinese chipmakers. Simply put, they want to update Section 889 in the federal code to include three Chinese firms and Chinese-made semiconductors. Well, the backlash to that bill by Sens. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-N.Y.) and JOHN CORNYN (R-Texas) has begun. “Left unaddressed, adding the covered semiconductors to part B of section 889 would harm federal agencies’ ability to procure the essential goods and services they need to promote our nation’s well-being, while putting added financial pressure on businesses that are operating in an inflationary economy,” reads a draft letter obtained by NatSec Daily. It’s signed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Aerospace Industries Association, among other groups. The groups are fine with the section’s Part A, which deals with the procurement of items, even though “it presents federal contractors with costly and complex compliance burdens.” Their main gripe is with Part B because it bans interactions with a contractor that “uses” a banned technology. That makes compliance much harder, they argue. “A company with both federal and nonfederal customers would be barred from selling to the government because it ‘uses’ a coffee service that ‘uses’ the covered semiconductors,” the letter reads. Some lawmakers in both parties told NatSec Daily they don’t fully support the Schumer-Cornyn bill because of Point B. The draft note, dated Nov. 22, is addressed to Sens. JACK REED (D-R.I.) and JIM INHOFE (R-Okla.), the top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Still, much of the non-government national security community is behind the chip ban out of fear China can manipulate the semiconductors for its own purposes. Some of the three companies up for a ban allegedly have ties to China’s military. An AIA spokesperson said of the reason for sending the letter: “We have serious concerns about the cumulative effect of well-intentioned, but burdensome regulations that could drive small businesses out of the industrial base.” Transitions — MICHAEL HOCHMAN is now chief of staff for the White House Office of the National Cyber Director. He previously was deputy chief of staff and deputy general counsel. — HADY AMR has been named a special representative for Palestinian affairs, the first time the State Department has had a D.C.-based post focused on that issue. He was previously the deputy assistant secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian affairs. What to Read — NATHALIE TOCCI, POLITICO: Europe’s Defense Efforts Remain Underwhelming — BEN OLLERENSHAW and JULIAN SPENCER-CHURCHILL, Real Clear Defense: To Deter China, the U.S. Must Have the Political Courage to Retaliate Against Russia — ANDREW KREPINEVICH, JR., Foreign Affairs: Is Putin a Rational Actor? Wednesday Today — The Hudson Institute, 10 a.m.: “Countering Russian Influence in Georgia” Have a natsec-centric event coming up? Transitioning to a new defense-adjacent or foreign policy-focused gig? Shoot me an email at award@politico.com to be featured in the next edition of the newsletter. Thanks to our editor, Heidi Vogt, who has aligned the stars to gain full control of this newsletter. And we thank our producer, Kierra Frazier, who is a star in her own right. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/11/22/u-s-and-russia-cant-stop-turkeys-new-syria-incursion-00070431
    WWW.POLITICO.COM
    U.S. and Russia ‘can’t stop’ Turkey’s new Syria incursion
    Turkey is threatening to kill more U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria — and the United States and Russia might not try very hard to stop it.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 21396 Views
  • In the ever-evolving landscape of the modern workplace, remote opportunities have become increasingly prevalent, and one sector that has experienced significant growth is remote live chat jobs. These positions, often in customer service or sales, allow individuals to connect with customers or clients in real-time from the comfort of their own homes. In this review article, we will delve into the world of remote live chat jobs in the USA, exploring the advantages and challenges associated with this burgeoning employment trend.

    Pros:

    Flexibility and Work-Life Balance:
    One of the most appealing aspects of remote live chat jobs is the flexibility they offer. Employees can often set their own schedules within certain parameters, allowing for a better work-life balance. This is particularly advantageous for individuals who value autonomy and seek to avoid the traditional 9-to-5 grind.

    Reduced Commute Stress:
    Commuting can be a major source of stress for many workers. Remote live chat jobs eliminate this burden entirely, freeing up valuable time and reducing the environmental impact associated with daily travel.

    Geographical Independence:
    With remote live chat jobs, location becomes less of a barrier. Talented individuals from various parts of the country can contribute to a company's success without the need to relocate. This opens up opportunities for a more diverse and inclusive workforce.

    Cost Savings:
    Both employers and employees can enjoy cost savings associated with remote work. Companies can reduce expenses related to office space, while employees save money on commuting, work attire, and meals.

    Increased Job Opportunities:
    The proliferation of remote work has expanded the job market, providing more opportunities for those who may have faced limitations due to geographical constraints or personal circumstances.

    Cons:

    Isolation and Lack of Social Interaction:
    While remote work offers independence, it can also lead to feelings of isolation. The absence of face-to-face interaction may impact team cohesion and employee morale.

    Communication Challenges:
    Effective communication is essential in any workplace. Remote live chat jobs heavily rely on digital communication tools, and misinterpretations or delays in response time can occur, potentially affecting customer satisfaction.

    Potential for Distractions:
    Working from home presents its own set of distractions, ranging from household chores to family interruptions. Maintaining focus and productivity can be a challenge without a structured office environment.

    Technology Hurdles:
    Dependence on technology means that technical issues can disrupt workflow. Internet outages, software glitches, or hardware malfunctions can pose challenges for individuals working in remote live chat positions.

    Security Concerns:
    Handling sensitive customer information requires robust cybersecurity measures. Remote work introduces additional security risks, and companies must invest in secure platforms to protect both customer data and the integrity of their operations.

    In conclusion, remote live chat jobs in the USA offer a myriad of benefits, from flexibility and cost savings to increased job opportunities. However, it is crucial for both employers and employees to navigate and address the associated challenges, such as communication hurdles and potential feelings of isolation. As the workforce continues to evolve, finding a balance between the advantages and drawbacks of remote live chat jobs will be key to harnessing the full potential of this employment trend.

    CLICK HERE-- https://subratajajabar.systeme.io/livechatjobs



    In the ever-evolving landscape of the modern workplace, remote opportunities have become increasingly prevalent, and one sector that has experienced significant growth is remote live chat jobs. These positions, often in customer service or sales, allow individuals to connect with customers or clients in real-time from the comfort of their own homes. In this review article, we will delve into the world of remote live chat jobs in the USA, exploring the advantages and challenges associated with this burgeoning employment trend. Pros: Flexibility and Work-Life Balance: One of the most appealing aspects of remote live chat jobs is the flexibility they offer. Employees can often set their own schedules within certain parameters, allowing for a better work-life balance. This is particularly advantageous for individuals who value autonomy and seek to avoid the traditional 9-to-5 grind. Reduced Commute Stress: Commuting can be a major source of stress for many workers. Remote live chat jobs eliminate this burden entirely, freeing up valuable time and reducing the environmental impact associated with daily travel. Geographical Independence: With remote live chat jobs, location becomes less of a barrier. Talented individuals from various parts of the country can contribute to a company's success without the need to relocate. This opens up opportunities for a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Cost Savings: Both employers and employees can enjoy cost savings associated with remote work. Companies can reduce expenses related to office space, while employees save money on commuting, work attire, and meals. Increased Job Opportunities: The proliferation of remote work has expanded the job market, providing more opportunities for those who may have faced limitations due to geographical constraints or personal circumstances. Cons: Isolation and Lack of Social Interaction: While remote work offers independence, it can also lead to feelings of isolation. The absence of face-to-face interaction may impact team cohesion and employee morale. Communication Challenges: Effective communication is essential in any workplace. Remote live chat jobs heavily rely on digital communication tools, and misinterpretations or delays in response time can occur, potentially affecting customer satisfaction. Potential for Distractions: Working from home presents its own set of distractions, ranging from household chores to family interruptions. Maintaining focus and productivity can be a challenge without a structured office environment. Technology Hurdles: Dependence on technology means that technical issues can disrupt workflow. Internet outages, software glitches, or hardware malfunctions can pose challenges for individuals working in remote live chat positions. Security Concerns: Handling sensitive customer information requires robust cybersecurity measures. Remote work introduces additional security risks, and companies must invest in secure platforms to protect both customer data and the integrity of their operations. In conclusion, remote live chat jobs in the USA offer a myriad of benefits, from flexibility and cost savings to increased job opportunities. However, it is crucial for both employers and employees to navigate and address the associated challenges, such as communication hurdles and potential feelings of isolation. As the workforce continues to evolve, finding a balance between the advantages and drawbacks of remote live chat jobs will be key to harnessing the full potential of this employment trend. CLICK HERE-- https://subratajajabar.systeme.io/livechatjobs
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6819 Views
  • Beazley Plc, a leading European and US specialist insurer, issued the market's first cyber catastrophe (CAT) bonds earlier this year. New offerings are emerging as well. #CyberSecurity
    Beazley Plc, a leading European and US specialist insurer, issued the market's first cyber catastrophe (CAT) bonds earlier this year. New offerings are emerging as well. #CyberSecurity
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    Cyber 'Catastrophe Bonds' Gain Traction Among Investors As Hack Attacks Soar - Activist Post
    Beazley's global head of cyber risks, Paul Bantick, said cyber losses for corporations mean "traditional reinsurance can't get you there."
    Like
    3
    1 Comments 0 Shares 1043 Views
  • What does Cyber 9/11 mean? Is there a real risk? What should we be preparing for? #CyberSecurity
    What does Cyber 9/11 mean? Is there a real risk? What should we be preparing for? #CyberSecurity
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    Is a Cyber 9/11 Coming? - Activist Post
    The tendency to see crisis as opportunity is absolutely vital to understanding everything going on today.
    Like
    3
    0 Comments 0 Shares 860 Views
  • Edward Graham - NIST releases revised cyber requirements for controlled unclassified information:

    https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2023/11/nist-releases-revised-cyber-requirements-controlled-unclassified-information/391904/

    #SensitiveInformation #ControlledInformation #CUI #NIST #SP800171 #Government #RiskManagement #InformationSecurity #InfoSec #Security
    Edward Graham - NIST releases revised cyber requirements for controlled unclassified information: https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2023/11/nist-releases-revised-cyber-requirements-controlled-unclassified-information/391904/ #SensitiveInformation #ControlledInformation #CUI #NIST #SP800171 #Government #RiskManagement #InformationSecurity #InfoSec #Security
    WWW.NEXTGOV.COM
    NIST releases revised cyber requirements for controlled unclassified information
    The proposed revisions will ideally serve as a “balanced, strong starting point” for agencies and contractors that deal with sensitive information, a NIST official said.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2199 Views
  • It seems that the U.S. Department of Defense plans to continue spending millions on #5G with the hope that someday it’ll be secure enough to use. #cybersecurity
    It seems that the U.S. Department of Defense plans to continue spending millions on #5G with the hope that someday it’ll be secure enough to use. #cybersecurity
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    Top Pentagon Official on Military Use of 5G: “the challenge remains finding new ways to secure that data” - Activist Post
    The Pentagon is also experimenting with how 5G might fit into battlefield scenarios, such as combat-aircraft missions.
    Like
    3
    0 Comments 0 Shares 885 Views
  • The Age of Megathreats
    Nouriel RoubiniNov 4, 2022
    op_roubini3_Getty Images_worlddisaster Getty Images
    NEW YORK – Severe megathreats are imperiling our future – not just our jobs, incomes, wealth, and the global economy, but also the relative peace, prosperity, and progress achieved over the past 75 years. Many of these threats were not even on our radar during the prosperous post-World War II era. I grew up in the Middle East and Europe from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, and I never worried about climate change potentially destroying the planet. Most of us had barely even heard of the problem, and greenhouse-gas emissions were still relatively low, compared to where they would soon be.

    Moreover, after the US-Soviet détente and US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in the early 1970s, I never really worried about another war among great powers, let alone a nuclear one. The term “pandemic” didn’t register in my consciousness, either, because the last major one had been in 1918. And I didn’t fathom that artificial intelligence might someday destroy most jobs and render Homo sapiens obsolete, because those were the years of the long “AI winter.”

    Similarly, terms like “deglobalization” and “trade war” had no purchase during this period. Trade liberalization had been in full swing since the Great Depression, and it would soon lead to the hyper-globalization that began in the 1990s. Debt crises posed no threat, because private and public debt-to-GDP ratios were low in advanced economies and emerging markets, and growth was robust. No one had to worry about the massive build-up of implicit debt, in the form of unfunded liabilities from pay-as-you-go social security and health-care systems. The supply of young workers was rising, the share of the elderly was still low, and robust, mostly unrestricted immigration from the Global South to the North would continue to prop up the labor market in advanced economies.

    Against this backdrop, economic cycles were contained, and recessions were short and shallow, except for during the stagflationary decade of the 1970s; but even then, there were no debt crises in advanced economies, because debt ratios were low. The kind of financial cycles that lead to crises were contained not just in advanced economies but even in emerging markets, owing to the low leverage, low risk-taking, solid financial regulation, capital controls, and various forms of financial repression that prevailed during this period. The advanced economies were strong liberal democracies that were free of extreme partisan polarization. Populism and authoritarianism were confined to a benighted cohort of poorer countries.

    Goodbye to All That

    Fast-forward from this relatively “golden” period between 1945 and 1985 to late 2022, and you will immediately notice that we are awash in new, extreme megathreats that were not previously on anyone’s mind. The world has entered what I call a geopolitical depression, with (at least) four dangerous revisionist powers – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – challenging the economic, financial, security, and geopolitical order that the United States and its allies created after WWII.

    There is a sharply rising risk not only of war among great powers but of a nuclear conflict. In the coming year, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine could escalate into an unconventional conflict that directly involves NATO. And Israel – and perhaps the US – may decide to launch strikes against Iran, which is on its way to building a nuclear bomb.


    Subscribe to PS Digital now to read all the latest insights from Nouriel Roubini.

    Digital subscribers enjoy access to every PS commentary, including those by Nouriel Roubini, plus our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content, including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More.

    For a limited time, save $15 with the code ROUBINI15.

    Subscribe Now

    With Chinese President Xi Jinping further consolidating his authoritarian rule, and with the US tightening its trade restrictions against China, the new Sino-American cold war is getting colder by the day. Worse, it could all too easily turn hot over the status of Taiwan, which Xi is committed to reuniting with the mainland, and which US President Joe Biden is apparently committed to defending. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed North Korea has once again been seeking attention by firing rockets over Japan and South Korea.

    Cyberwarfare occurs daily between these revisionist powers and the West, and many other countries have adopted a non-aligned posture toward Western-led sanctions regimes. From our contingent vantage point in the middle of all these events, we don’t yet know if World War III has already begun in Ukraine. That determination will be left to future historians – if there are any.

    Even discounting the threat of nuclear Armageddon, the risk of an environmental Apocalypse is becoming increasingly serious, especially given that most of the talk about net-zero and ESG (environment, social, and governance) investing is just greenwashing – or greenwishing. The new greenflation is already in full swing, because it turns out that amassing the metals needed for the energy transition requires a lot of expensive energy.

    There is also a growing risk of new pandemics that would be worse than biblical plagues, owing to the link between environmental destruction and zoonotic diseases. Wildlife, carrying dangerous pathogens, are coming into closer and more frequent contact with humans and livestock. That is why we have experienced more frequent and virulent pandemics and epidemics (HIV, SARS, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, Zika, Ebola, COVID-19) since the early 1980s. All the evidence suggests that this problem will become even worse in the future. Indeed, owing to the melting of Siberian permafrost, we may soon be confronting dangerous viruses and bacteria that have been locked away for millennia.

    Moreover, geopolitical conflicts and national-security concerns are fueling trade, financial, and technology wars, and accelerating the deglobalization process. The return of protectionism and the Sino-American decoupling will leave the global economy, supply chains, and markets more balkanized and fragmented. The buzzwords “friend-shoring” and “secure and fair trade” have replaced “offshoring” and “free trade.”

    But on the domestic front, advances in AI, robotics, and automation will destroy more and more jobs, even if policymakers build higher protectionist walls in an effort to fight the last war. By both restricting immigration and demanding more domestic production, aging advanced economies will create a stronger incentive for companies to adopt labor-saving technologies. While routine jobs are obviously at risk, so, too, are any cognitive jobs that can be unbundled into discrete tasks, and even many creative jobs. AI language models like GPT-3 can already write better than most humans and will almost certainly displace many jobs and sources of income. In due course, some scientists believe that Homo sapiens will be rendered entirely obsolete by the rise of artificial general intelligence or machine super-intelligence – though this is a highly contentious subject of debate.

    Thus, over time, economic malaise will deepen, inequality will rise even further, and more white- and blue-collar workers will be left behind.

    Hard Choices, Hard Landings

    The macroeconomic situation is no better. For the first time since the 1970s, we are facing high inflation and the prospect of a recession – stagflation. The increased inflation in advanced economies wasn’t “transitory.” It is persistent, driven by a combination of bad policies – excessively loose monetary, fiscal, and credit policies that were kept in place for too long – and bad luck. No one could have anticipated how much the initial COVID-19 shock would curtail the supply of goods and labor and create bottlenecks in global supply chains. The same goes for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, which caused a sharp spike in energy, food, fertilizers, industrial metals, and other commodities. Meanwhile, China has continued its “zero-COVID” policy, which is creating additional supply bottlenecks.

    While both demand and supply factors were in the mix, it is now widely recognized that the supply factors have played an increasingly decisive role. This matters for the economic outlook, because supply-driven inflation is stagflationary and thus increases the risk that monetary-policy tightening will produce a hard landing (increased unemployment and potentially a recession).

    What will follow from the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks’ current tightening? Until recently, most central banks and most of Wall Street belonged to “Team Soft Landing.” But the consensus has rapidly shifted, with even Fed Chair Jerome Powell recognizing that a recession is possible, that a soft landing will be “very challenging,” and that everyone should prepare for some “pain” ahead. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s model shows a high probability of a hard landing, and the Bank of England has expressed similar views about the United Kingdom. Several prominent Wall Street institutions have also now made a recession their baseline scenario (the most likely outcome if all other variables are held constant).

    History, too, points to deeper problems ahead. For the past 60 years in the US, whenever inflation has been above 5% (it is above 8% today), and unemployment has been below 5% (it is now 3.5%), any attempt by the Fed to bring inflation down toward its 2% target has caused a recession. Thus, a hard landing is much more likely than a soft landing, both in the US and across most other advanced economies.

    Sticky Stagflation

    In addition to the short-term factors, negative supply shocks and demand factors in the medium term will cause inflation to persist. On the supply side, I count eleven negative supply shocks that will reduce potential growth and increase the costs of production. Among these is the backlash against hyper-globalization, which has been gaining momentum and creating opportunities for populist, nativist, and protectionist politicians, and growing public anger over stark income and wealth inequalities, which is leading to more policies to support workers and the “left behind.” However well-intentioned, such measures will contribute to a dangerous wage-price spiral.

    Other sources of persistent inflation include rising protectionism (from both the left and the right), which has restricted trade, impeded the movement of capital, and heightened political resistance to immigration, which in turn has put additional upward pressure on wages. National-security and strategic considerations have further restricted flows of technology, data, and talent, and new labor and environmental standards, as important as they may be, are hampering both trade and new construction.

    This balkanization of the global economy is deeply stagflationary, and it is coinciding with demographic aging, not just in developed countries but also in large emerging economies such as China. Because young people tend to produce and save more, whereas older people spend down their savings and require many more expensive services in health care and other sectors, this trend, too, will lead to higher prices and slower growth.

    Today’s geopolitical turmoil further complicates matters. The disruptions to trade and the spike in commodity prices following Russia’s invasion were not just a one-off phenomenon. The same threats to harvests and food shipments that arose in 2022 may well persist in 2023. Moreover, if China does finally end its zero-COVID policy and begin to restart its economy, a surge in demand for many commodities will add to the global inflationary pressures. There is also no end in sight for Sino-Western decoupling, which is accelerating across all dimensions of trade (goods, services, capital, labor, technology, data, and information). And, of course, Iran, North Korea, and other strategic rivals to the West could soon contribute in their own ways to the global havoc.

    Now that the US dollar has been fully weaponized for strategic and national-security purposes, its position as the main global reserve currency could eventually begin to decline, and a weaker dollar would of course add to inflationary pressures in the US. More broadly, a frictionless world trading system requires a frictionless financial system. But sweeping primary and secondary sanctions have thrown sand in what was once a well-oiled machine, massively increasing the transaction costs of trade.

    On top of it all, climate change, too, will create persistent stagflationary pressures. Droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and other disasters are increasingly disrupting economic activity and threatening harvests (thus driving up food prices). At the same time, demands for decarbonization have led to underinvestment in fossil-fuel capacity before investment in renewables has reached the point where they can make up the difference. Today’s large energy-price spikes were inevitable.

    The increased likelihood of future pandemics also represents a persistent source of stagflation, especially considering how little has been done to prevent or prepare for the next one. The next contagious outbreak will lend further momentum to protectionist policies as countries rush to close borders and hoard critical supplies of food, medicines, and other essential goods.

    Finally, cyberwarfare remains an underappreciated threat to economic activity and even public safety. Firms and governments will either face more stagflationary disruptions to production, or they will have to spend a fortune on cybersecurity. Either way, costs will rise.

    The Worst of All Possible Economies

    When the recession comes, it will not be short and shallow but long and severe. Not only are we facing persistent short- and medium-term negative supply shocks, but we are also heading into the mother of all debt crises, owing to soaring private and public debt ratios over the last few decades. Low debt ratios spared us from that outcome in the 1970s. And though we certainly had debt crises following the 2008 crash – the result of excessive household, bank, and government debt – we also had deflation. It was a demand shock and a credit crunch that could be met with massive monetary, fiscal, and credit easing.

    Today, we are experiencing the worst elements of both the 1970s and 2008. Multiple, persistent negative supply shocks have coincided with debt ratios that are even higher than they were during the global financial crisis. These inflationary pressures are forcing central banks to tighten monetary policy even though we are heading into a recession. That makes the current situation fundamentally different from both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Everyone should be preparing for what may come to be remembered as the Great Stagflationary Debt Crisis.

    While central banks have been at pains to sound more hawkish, we should be skeptical of their professed willingness to fight inflation at any cost. Once they find themselves in a debt trap, they will have to blink. With debt ratios so high, fighting inflation will cause an economic and financial crash that will be deemed politically unacceptable. Major central banks will feel as though they have no choice but to backpedal, and inflation, the debasement of fiat currencies, boom-bust cycles, and financial crises will become even more severe and frequent.

    The inevitability of central banks wimping out was recently on display in the United Kingdom. Faced with the market reaction to the Truss government’s reckless fiscal stimulus, the BOE had to launch an emergency quantitative-easing (QE) program to buy up government bonds. That sad episode confirmed that in the UK, as in many other countries, monetary policy is increasingly subject to fiscal capture.

    Recall that a similar turnaround occurred in 2019, when the Fed, after previously signaling continued rate hikes and quantitative-tightening, stopped its QT program and started pursuing a mix of backdoor QE and policy-rate cuts at the first sign of mild financial pressures and a growth slowdown. Central banks will talk tough; but, in a world of excessive debt and risks of an economic and financial crash, there is good reason to doubt their willingness to do “whatever it takes” to return inflation to its target rate.

    With governments unable to reduce high debts and deficits by spending less or raising revenues, those that can borrow in their own currency will increasingly resort to the “inflation tax”: relying on unexpected price growth to wipe out long-term nominal liabilities at fixed interest rates.

    How will financial markets and prices of equities and bonds perform in the face of rising inflation and the return of stagflation? It is likely that, as in the stagflation of the 1970s, both components of any traditional asset portfolio will suffer, potentially incurring massive losses. Inflation is bad for bond portfolios, which will take losses as yields increase and prices fall, as well as for equities, whose valuations are hurt by rising interest rates.

    For the first time in decades, a 60/40 portfolio of equities and bonds suffered massive losses in 2022, because bond yields have surged while equities have gone into a bear market. By 1982, at the peak of the stagflation decade, the average S&P 500 firm’s price-to-earnings ratio was down to eight; today, it is closer to 20, which suggests that the bear market could end up being even more protracted and severe. Investors will need to find assets to hedge against inflation, political and geopolitical risks, and environmental damage: these include short-term government bonds and inflation-indexed bonds, gold and other precious metals, and real estate that is resilient to environmental damage.

    The Moment of Truth

    In any case, these megathreats will further contribute to rising income and wealth inequality, which has already been putting severe pressure on liberal democracies (as those left behind revolt against elites), and fueling the rise of radical and aggressive populist regimes. One can find right-wing manifestations of this trend in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, the US (under Donald Trump), post-Brexit Britain, and many other countries; and left-wing manifestations in Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and now Brazil (which has just replaced a right-wing populist with a left-wing one).

    And, of course, Xi’s authoritarian stranglehold has given the lie to the old idea that Western engagement with a fast-growing China would ineluctably lead that country to open itself up even more to markets and, eventually, to democratic processes. Under Xi, China shows every sign of becoming more closed off, and more aggressive on geopolitical, security, and economic matters.

    How did it come to this? Part of the problem is that we have long had our heads stuck in the sand. Now, we need to make up for lost time. Without decisive action, we will be heading into a period that is less like the four decades after WWII than like the three decades between 1914 and 1945. That period gave us World War I; the Spanish flu pandemic; the 1929 Wall Street crash; the Great Depression; massive trade and currency wars; inflation, hyperinflation, and deflation; financial and debt crises, leading to massive meltdowns and defaults; and the rise of authoritarian militarist regimes in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and elsewhere, culminating in WWII and the Holocaust.

    In this new world, the relative peace, prosperity, and rising global welfare that we have taken for granted will be gone; most of it already is. If we don’t stop the multi-track slow-motion train wreck that is threatening the global economy and our planet at large, we will be lucky to have only a repeat of the stagflationary 1970s. Far more likely is an echo of the 1930s and the 1940s, only now with all the massive disruptions from climate change added to the mix.

    Avoiding a dystopian scenario will not be easy. While there are potential solutions to each megathreat, most are costly in the short run and will deliver benefits only over the long run. Many also require technological innovations that are not yet available or in place, starting with those needed to halt or reverse climate change. Complicating matters further, today’s megathreats are interconnected, and therefore best addressed in a systematic and coherent fashion. Domestic leadership, in both the private and public sector, and international cooperation among great powers is necessary to prevent the coming Apocalypse.

    Yet there are many domestic and international obstacles standing in the way of policies that would allow for a less dystopian (though still contested and conflictual) future. Thus, while a less bleak scenario is obviously desirable, a clear-headed analysis indicates that dystopia is much more likely than a happier outcome. The years and decades ahead will be marked by a stagflationary debt crisis and related megathreats – war, pandemics, climate change, disruptive AI, and deglobalization – all of which will be bad for jobs, economies, markets, peace, and prosperity.
    The Age of Megathreats Nouriel RoubiniNov 4, 2022 op_roubini3_Getty Images_worlddisaster Getty Images NEW YORK – Severe megathreats are imperiling our future – not just our jobs, incomes, wealth, and the global economy, but also the relative peace, prosperity, and progress achieved over the past 75 years. Many of these threats were not even on our radar during the prosperous post-World War II era. I grew up in the Middle East and Europe from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, and I never worried about climate change potentially destroying the planet. Most of us had barely even heard of the problem, and greenhouse-gas emissions were still relatively low, compared to where they would soon be. Moreover, after the US-Soviet détente and US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in the early 1970s, I never really worried about another war among great powers, let alone a nuclear one. The term “pandemic” didn’t register in my consciousness, either, because the last major one had been in 1918. And I didn’t fathom that artificial intelligence might someday destroy most jobs and render Homo sapiens obsolete, because those were the years of the long “AI winter.” Similarly, terms like “deglobalization” and “trade war” had no purchase during this period. Trade liberalization had been in full swing since the Great Depression, and it would soon lead to the hyper-globalization that began in the 1990s. Debt crises posed no threat, because private and public debt-to-GDP ratios were low in advanced economies and emerging markets, and growth was robust. No one had to worry about the massive build-up of implicit debt, in the form of unfunded liabilities from pay-as-you-go social security and health-care systems. The supply of young workers was rising, the share of the elderly was still low, and robust, mostly unrestricted immigration from the Global South to the North would continue to prop up the labor market in advanced economies. Against this backdrop, economic cycles were contained, and recessions were short and shallow, except for during the stagflationary decade of the 1970s; but even then, there were no debt crises in advanced economies, because debt ratios were low. The kind of financial cycles that lead to crises were contained not just in advanced economies but even in emerging markets, owing to the low leverage, low risk-taking, solid financial regulation, capital controls, and various forms of financial repression that prevailed during this period. The advanced economies were strong liberal democracies that were free of extreme partisan polarization. Populism and authoritarianism were confined to a benighted cohort of poorer countries. Goodbye to All That Fast-forward from this relatively “golden” period between 1945 and 1985 to late 2022, and you will immediately notice that we are awash in new, extreme megathreats that were not previously on anyone’s mind. The world has entered what I call a geopolitical depression, with (at least) four dangerous revisionist powers – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – challenging the economic, financial, security, and geopolitical order that the United States and its allies created after WWII. There is a sharply rising risk not only of war among great powers but of a nuclear conflict. In the coming year, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine could escalate into an unconventional conflict that directly involves NATO. And Israel – and perhaps the US – may decide to launch strikes against Iran, which is on its way to building a nuclear bomb. Subscribe to PS Digital now to read all the latest insights from Nouriel Roubini. Digital subscribers enjoy access to every PS commentary, including those by Nouriel Roubini, plus our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content, including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More. For a limited time, save $15 with the code ROUBINI15. Subscribe Now With Chinese President Xi Jinping further consolidating his authoritarian rule, and with the US tightening its trade restrictions against China, the new Sino-American cold war is getting colder by the day. Worse, it could all too easily turn hot over the status of Taiwan, which Xi is committed to reuniting with the mainland, and which US President Joe Biden is apparently committed to defending. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed North Korea has once again been seeking attention by firing rockets over Japan and South Korea. Cyberwarfare occurs daily between these revisionist powers and the West, and many other countries have adopted a non-aligned posture toward Western-led sanctions regimes. From our contingent vantage point in the middle of all these events, we don’t yet know if World War III has already begun in Ukraine. That determination will be left to future historians – if there are any. Even discounting the threat of nuclear Armageddon, the risk of an environmental Apocalypse is becoming increasingly serious, especially given that most of the talk about net-zero and ESG (environment, social, and governance) investing is just greenwashing – or greenwishing. The new greenflation is already in full swing, because it turns out that amassing the metals needed for the energy transition requires a lot of expensive energy. There is also a growing risk of new pandemics that would be worse than biblical plagues, owing to the link between environmental destruction and zoonotic diseases. Wildlife, carrying dangerous pathogens, are coming into closer and more frequent contact with humans and livestock. That is why we have experienced more frequent and virulent pandemics and epidemics (HIV, SARS, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, Zika, Ebola, COVID-19) since the early 1980s. All the evidence suggests that this problem will become even worse in the future. Indeed, owing to the melting of Siberian permafrost, we may soon be confronting dangerous viruses and bacteria that have been locked away for millennia. Moreover, geopolitical conflicts and national-security concerns are fueling trade, financial, and technology wars, and accelerating the deglobalization process. The return of protectionism and the Sino-American decoupling will leave the global economy, supply chains, and markets more balkanized and fragmented. The buzzwords “friend-shoring” and “secure and fair trade” have replaced “offshoring” and “free trade.” But on the domestic front, advances in AI, robotics, and automation will destroy more and more jobs, even if policymakers build higher protectionist walls in an effort to fight the last war. By both restricting immigration and demanding more domestic production, aging advanced economies will create a stronger incentive for companies to adopt labor-saving technologies. While routine jobs are obviously at risk, so, too, are any cognitive jobs that can be unbundled into discrete tasks, and even many creative jobs. AI language models like GPT-3 can already write better than most humans and will almost certainly displace many jobs and sources of income. In due course, some scientists believe that Homo sapiens will be rendered entirely obsolete by the rise of artificial general intelligence or machine super-intelligence – though this is a highly contentious subject of debate. Thus, over time, economic malaise will deepen, inequality will rise even further, and more white- and blue-collar workers will be left behind. Hard Choices, Hard Landings The macroeconomic situation is no better. For the first time since the 1970s, we are facing high inflation and the prospect of a recession – stagflation. The increased inflation in advanced economies wasn’t “transitory.” It is persistent, driven by a combination of bad policies – excessively loose monetary, fiscal, and credit policies that were kept in place for too long – and bad luck. No one could have anticipated how much the initial COVID-19 shock would curtail the supply of goods and labor and create bottlenecks in global supply chains. The same goes for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, which caused a sharp spike in energy, food, fertilizers, industrial metals, and other commodities. Meanwhile, China has continued its “zero-COVID” policy, which is creating additional supply bottlenecks. While both demand and supply factors were in the mix, it is now widely recognized that the supply factors have played an increasingly decisive role. This matters for the economic outlook, because supply-driven inflation is stagflationary and thus increases the risk that monetary-policy tightening will produce a hard landing (increased unemployment and potentially a recession). What will follow from the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks’ current tightening? Until recently, most central banks and most of Wall Street belonged to “Team Soft Landing.” But the consensus has rapidly shifted, with even Fed Chair Jerome Powell recognizing that a recession is possible, that a soft landing will be “very challenging,” and that everyone should prepare for some “pain” ahead. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s model shows a high probability of a hard landing, and the Bank of England has expressed similar views about the United Kingdom. Several prominent Wall Street institutions have also now made a recession their baseline scenario (the most likely outcome if all other variables are held constant). History, too, points to deeper problems ahead. For the past 60 years in the US, whenever inflation has been above 5% (it is above 8% today), and unemployment has been below 5% (it is now 3.5%), any attempt by the Fed to bring inflation down toward its 2% target has caused a recession. Thus, a hard landing is much more likely than a soft landing, both in the US and across most other advanced economies. Sticky Stagflation In addition to the short-term factors, negative supply shocks and demand factors in the medium term will cause inflation to persist. On the supply side, I count eleven negative supply shocks that will reduce potential growth and increase the costs of production. Among these is the backlash against hyper-globalization, which has been gaining momentum and creating opportunities for populist, nativist, and protectionist politicians, and growing public anger over stark income and wealth inequalities, which is leading to more policies to support workers and the “left behind.” However well-intentioned, such measures will contribute to a dangerous wage-price spiral. Other sources of persistent inflation include rising protectionism (from both the left and the right), which has restricted trade, impeded the movement of capital, and heightened political resistance to immigration, which in turn has put additional upward pressure on wages. National-security and strategic considerations have further restricted flows of technology, data, and talent, and new labor and environmental standards, as important as they may be, are hampering both trade and new construction. This balkanization of the global economy is deeply stagflationary, and it is coinciding with demographic aging, not just in developed countries but also in large emerging economies such as China. Because young people tend to produce and save more, whereas older people spend down their savings and require many more expensive services in health care and other sectors, this trend, too, will lead to higher prices and slower growth. Today’s geopolitical turmoil further complicates matters. The disruptions to trade and the spike in commodity prices following Russia’s invasion were not just a one-off phenomenon. The same threats to harvests and food shipments that arose in 2022 may well persist in 2023. Moreover, if China does finally end its zero-COVID policy and begin to restart its economy, a surge in demand for many commodities will add to the global inflationary pressures. There is also no end in sight for Sino-Western decoupling, which is accelerating across all dimensions of trade (goods, services, capital, labor, technology, data, and information). And, of course, Iran, North Korea, and other strategic rivals to the West could soon contribute in their own ways to the global havoc. Now that the US dollar has been fully weaponized for strategic and national-security purposes, its position as the main global reserve currency could eventually begin to decline, and a weaker dollar would of course add to inflationary pressures in the US. More broadly, a frictionless world trading system requires a frictionless financial system. But sweeping primary and secondary sanctions have thrown sand in what was once a well-oiled machine, massively increasing the transaction costs of trade. On top of it all, climate change, too, will create persistent stagflationary pressures. Droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and other disasters are increasingly disrupting economic activity and threatening harvests (thus driving up food prices). At the same time, demands for decarbonization have led to underinvestment in fossil-fuel capacity before investment in renewables has reached the point where they can make up the difference. Today’s large energy-price spikes were inevitable. The increased likelihood of future pandemics also represents a persistent source of stagflation, especially considering how little has been done to prevent or prepare for the next one. The next contagious outbreak will lend further momentum to protectionist policies as countries rush to close borders and hoard critical supplies of food, medicines, and other essential goods. Finally, cyberwarfare remains an underappreciated threat to economic activity and even public safety. Firms and governments will either face more stagflationary disruptions to production, or they will have to spend a fortune on cybersecurity. Either way, costs will rise. The Worst of All Possible Economies When the recession comes, it will not be short and shallow but long and severe. Not only are we facing persistent short- and medium-term negative supply shocks, but we are also heading into the mother of all debt crises, owing to soaring private and public debt ratios over the last few decades. Low debt ratios spared us from that outcome in the 1970s. And though we certainly had debt crises following the 2008 crash – the result of excessive household, bank, and government debt – we also had deflation. It was a demand shock and a credit crunch that could be met with massive monetary, fiscal, and credit easing. Today, we are experiencing the worst elements of both the 1970s and 2008. Multiple, persistent negative supply shocks have coincided with debt ratios that are even higher than they were during the global financial crisis. These inflationary pressures are forcing central banks to tighten monetary policy even though we are heading into a recession. That makes the current situation fundamentally different from both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Everyone should be preparing for what may come to be remembered as the Great Stagflationary Debt Crisis. While central banks have been at pains to sound more hawkish, we should be skeptical of their professed willingness to fight inflation at any cost. Once they find themselves in a debt trap, they will have to blink. With debt ratios so high, fighting inflation will cause an economic and financial crash that will be deemed politically unacceptable. Major central banks will feel as though they have no choice but to backpedal, and inflation, the debasement of fiat currencies, boom-bust cycles, and financial crises will become even more severe and frequent. The inevitability of central banks wimping out was recently on display in the United Kingdom. Faced with the market reaction to the Truss government’s reckless fiscal stimulus, the BOE had to launch an emergency quantitative-easing (QE) program to buy up government bonds. That sad episode confirmed that in the UK, as in many other countries, monetary policy is increasingly subject to fiscal capture. Recall that a similar turnaround occurred in 2019, when the Fed, after previously signaling continued rate hikes and quantitative-tightening, stopped its QT program and started pursuing a mix of backdoor QE and policy-rate cuts at the first sign of mild financial pressures and a growth slowdown. Central banks will talk tough; but, in a world of excessive debt and risks of an economic and financial crash, there is good reason to doubt their willingness to do “whatever it takes” to return inflation to its target rate. With governments unable to reduce high debts and deficits by spending less or raising revenues, those that can borrow in their own currency will increasingly resort to the “inflation tax”: relying on unexpected price growth to wipe out long-term nominal liabilities at fixed interest rates. How will financial markets and prices of equities and bonds perform in the face of rising inflation and the return of stagflation? It is likely that, as in the stagflation of the 1970s, both components of any traditional asset portfolio will suffer, potentially incurring massive losses. Inflation is bad for bond portfolios, which will take losses as yields increase and prices fall, as well as for equities, whose valuations are hurt by rising interest rates. For the first time in decades, a 60/40 portfolio of equities and bonds suffered massive losses in 2022, because bond yields have surged while equities have gone into a bear market. By 1982, at the peak of the stagflation decade, the average S&P 500 firm’s price-to-earnings ratio was down to eight; today, it is closer to 20, which suggests that the bear market could end up being even more protracted and severe. Investors will need to find assets to hedge against inflation, political and geopolitical risks, and environmental damage: these include short-term government bonds and inflation-indexed bonds, gold and other precious metals, and real estate that is resilient to environmental damage. The Moment of Truth In any case, these megathreats will further contribute to rising income and wealth inequality, which has already been putting severe pressure on liberal democracies (as those left behind revolt against elites), and fueling the rise of radical and aggressive populist regimes. One can find right-wing manifestations of this trend in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, the US (under Donald Trump), post-Brexit Britain, and many other countries; and left-wing manifestations in Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and now Brazil (which has just replaced a right-wing populist with a left-wing one). And, of course, Xi’s authoritarian stranglehold has given the lie to the old idea that Western engagement with a fast-growing China would ineluctably lead that country to open itself up even more to markets and, eventually, to democratic processes. Under Xi, China shows every sign of becoming more closed off, and more aggressive on geopolitical, security, and economic matters. How did it come to this? Part of the problem is that we have long had our heads stuck in the sand. Now, we need to make up for lost time. Without decisive action, we will be heading into a period that is less like the four decades after WWII than like the three decades between 1914 and 1945. That period gave us World War I; the Spanish flu pandemic; the 1929 Wall Street crash; the Great Depression; massive trade and currency wars; inflation, hyperinflation, and deflation; financial and debt crises, leading to massive meltdowns and defaults; and the rise of authoritarian militarist regimes in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and elsewhere, culminating in WWII and the Holocaust. In this new world, the relative peace, prosperity, and rising global welfare that we have taken for granted will be gone; most of it already is. If we don’t stop the multi-track slow-motion train wreck that is threatening the global economy and our planet at large, we will be lucky to have only a repeat of the stagflationary 1970s. Far more likely is an echo of the 1930s and the 1940s, only now with all the massive disruptions from climate change added to the mix. Avoiding a dystopian scenario will not be easy. While there are potential solutions to each megathreat, most are costly in the short run and will deliver benefits only over the long run. Many also require technological innovations that are not yet available or in place, starting with those needed to halt or reverse climate change. Complicating matters further, today’s megathreats are interconnected, and therefore best addressed in a systematic and coherent fashion. Domestic leadership, in both the private and public sector, and international cooperation among great powers is necessary to prevent the coming Apocalypse. Yet there are many domestic and international obstacles standing in the way of policies that would allow for a less dystopian (though still contested and conflictual) future. Thus, while a less bleak scenario is obviously desirable, a clear-headed analysis indicates that dystopia is much more likely than a happier outcome. The years and decades ahead will be marked by a stagflationary debt crisis and related megathreats – war, pandemics, climate change, disruptive AI, and deglobalization – all of which will be bad for jobs, economies, markets, peace, and prosperity.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 23547 Views
  • The Age of Megathreats
    Nouriel RoubiniNov 4, 2022
    op_roubini3_Getty Images_worlddisaster Getty Images
    NEW YORK – Severe megathreats are imperiling our future – not just our jobs, incomes, wealth, and the global economy, but also the relative peace, prosperity, and progress achieved over the past 75 years. Many of these threats were not even on our radar during the prosperous post-World War II era. I grew up in the Middle East and Europe from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, and I never worried about climate change potentially destroying the planet. Most of us had barely even heard of the problem, and greenhouse-gas emissions were still relatively low, compared to where they would soon be.

    Moreover, after the US-Soviet détente and US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in the early 1970s, I never really worried about another war among great powers, let alone a nuclear one. The term “pandemic” didn’t register in my consciousness, either, because the last major one had been in 1918. And I didn’t fathom that artificial intelligence might someday destroy most jobs and render Homo sapiens obsolete, because those were the years of the long “AI winter.”

    Similarly, terms like “deglobalization” and “trade war” had no purchase during this period. Trade liberalization had been in full swing since the Great Depression, and it would soon lead to the hyper-globalization that began in the 1990s. Debt crises posed no threat, because private and public debt-to-GDP ratios were low in advanced economies and emerging markets, and growth was robust. No one had to worry about the massive build-up of implicit debt, in the form of unfunded liabilities from pay-as-you-go social security and health-care systems. The supply of young workers was rising, the share of the elderly was still low, and robust, mostly unrestricted immigration from the Global South to the North would continue to prop up the labor market in advanced economies.

    Against this backdrop, economic cycles were contained, and recessions were short and shallow, except for during the stagflationary decade of the 1970s; but even then, there were no debt crises in advanced economies, because debt ratios were low. The kind of financial cycles that lead to crises were contained not just in advanced economies but even in emerging markets, owing to the low leverage, low risk-taking, solid financial regulation, capital controls, and various forms of financial repression that prevailed during this period. The advanced economies were strong liberal democracies that were free of extreme partisan polarization. Populism and authoritarianism were confined to a benighted cohort of poorer countries.

    Goodbye to All That

    Fast-forward from this relatively “golden” period between 1945 and 1985 to late 2022, and you will immediately notice that we are awash in new, extreme megathreats that were not previously on anyone’s mind. The world has entered what I call a geopolitical depression, with (at least) four dangerous revisionist powers – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – challenging the economic, financial, security, and geopolitical order that the United States and its allies created after WWII.

    There is a sharply rising risk not only of war among great powers but of a nuclear conflict. In the coming year, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine could escalate into an unconventional conflict that directly involves NATO. And Israel – and perhaps the US – may decide to launch strikes against Iran, which is on its way to building a nuclear bomb.


    Subscribe to PS Digital now to read all the latest insights from Nouriel Roubini.

    Digital subscribers enjoy access to every PS commentary, including those by Nouriel Roubini, plus our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content, including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More.

    For a limited time, save $15 with the code ROUBINI15.

    Subscribe Now

    With Chinese President Xi Jinping further consolidating his authoritarian rule, and with the US tightening its trade restrictions against China, the new Sino-American cold war is getting colder by the day. Worse, it could all too easily turn hot over the status of Taiwan, which Xi is committed to reuniting with the mainland, and which US President Joe Biden is apparently committed to defending. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed North Korea has once again been seeking attention by firing rockets over Japan and South Korea.

    Cyberwarfare occurs daily between these revisionist powers and the West, and many other countries have adopted a non-aligned posture toward Western-led sanctions regimes. From our contingent vantage point in the middle of all these events, we don’t yet know if World War III has already begun in Ukraine. That determination will be left to future historians – if there are any.

    Even discounting the threat of nuclear Armageddon, the risk of an environmental Apocalypse is becoming increasingly serious, especially given that most of the talk about net-zero and ESG (environment, social, and governance) investing is just greenwashing – or greenwishing. The new greenflation is already in full swing, because it turns out that amassing the metals needed for the energy transition requires a lot of expensive energy.

    There is also a growing risk of new pandemics that would be worse than biblical plagues, owing to the link between environmental destruction and zoonotic diseases. Wildlife, carrying dangerous pathogens, are coming into closer and more frequent contact with humans and livestock. That is why we have experienced more frequent and virulent pandemics and epidemics (HIV, SARS, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, Zika, Ebola, COVID-19) since the early 1980s. All the evidence suggests that this problem will become even worse in the future. Indeed, owing to the melting of Siberian permafrost, we may soon be confronting dangerous viruses and bacteria that have been locked away for millennia.

    Moreover, geopolitical conflicts and national-security concerns are fueling trade, financial, and technology wars, and accelerating the deglobalization process. The return of protectionism and the Sino-American decoupling will leave the global economy, supply chains, and markets more balkanized and fragmented. The buzzwords “friend-shoring” and “secure and fair trade” have replaced “offshoring” and “free trade.”

    But on the domestic front, advances in AI, robotics, and automation will destroy more and more jobs, even if policymakers build higher protectionist walls in an effort to fight the last war. By both restricting immigration and demanding more domestic production, aging advanced economies will create a stronger incentive for companies to adopt labor-saving technologies. While routine jobs are obviously at risk, so, too, are any cognitive jobs that can be unbundled into discrete tasks, and even many creative jobs. AI language models like GPT-3 can already write better than most humans and will almost certainly displace many jobs and sources of income. In due course, some scientists believe that Homo sapiens will be rendered entirely obsolete by the rise of artificial general intelligence or machine super-intelligence – though this is a highly contentious subject of debate.

    Thus, over time, economic malaise will deepen, inequality will rise even further, and more white- and blue-collar workers will be left behind.

    Hard Choices, Hard Landings

    The macroeconomic situation is no better. For the first time since the 1970s, we are facing high inflation and the prospect of a recession – stagflation. The increased inflation in advanced economies wasn’t “transitory.” It is persistent, driven by a combination of bad policies – excessively loose monetary, fiscal, and credit policies that were kept in place for too long – and bad luck. No one could have anticipated how much the initial COVID-19 shock would curtail the supply of goods and labor and create bottlenecks in global supply chains. The same goes for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, which caused a sharp spike in energy, food, fertilizers, industrial metals, and other commodities. Meanwhile, China has continued its “zero-COVID” policy, which is creating additional supply bottlenecks.

    While both demand and supply factors were in the mix, it is now widely recognized that the supply factors have played an increasingly decisive role. This matters for the economic outlook, because supply-driven inflation is stagflationary and thus increases the risk that monetary-policy tightening will produce a hard landing (increased unemployment and potentially a recession).

    What will follow from the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks’ current tightening? Until recently, most central banks and most of Wall Street belonged to “Team Soft Landing.” But the consensus has rapidly shifted, with even Fed Chair Jerome Powell recognizing that a recession is possible, that a soft landing will be “very challenging,” and that everyone should prepare for some “pain” ahead. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s model shows a high probability of a hard landing, and the Bank of England has expressed similar views about the United Kingdom. Several prominent Wall Street institutions have also now made a recession their baseline scenario (the most likely outcome if all other variables are held constant).

    History, too, points to deeper problems ahead. For the past 60 years in the US, whenever inflation has been above 5% (it is above 8% today), and unemployment has been below 5% (it is now 3.5%), any attempt by the Fed to bring inflation down toward its 2% target has caused a recession. Thus, a hard landing is much more likely than a soft landing, both in the US and across most other advanced economies.

    Sticky Stagflation

    In addition to the short-term factors, negative supply shocks and demand factors in the medium term will cause inflation to persist. On the supply side, I count eleven negative supply shocks that will reduce potential growth and increase the costs of production. Among these is the backlash against hyper-globalization, which has been gaining momentum and creating opportunities for populist, nativist, and protectionist politicians, and growing public anger over stark income and wealth inequalities, which is leading to more policies to support workers and the “left behind.” However well-intentioned, such measures will contribute to a dangerous wage-price spiral.

    Other sources of persistent inflation include rising protectionism (from both the left and the right), which has restricted trade, impeded the movement of capital, and heightened political resistance to immigration, which in turn has put additional upward pressure on wages. National-security and strategic considerations have further restricted flows of technology, data, and talent, and new labor and environmental standards, as important as they may be, are hampering both trade and new construction.

    This balkanization of the global economy is deeply stagflationary, and it is coinciding with demographic aging, not just in developed countries but also in large emerging economies such as China. Because young people tend to produce and save more, whereas older people spend down their savings and require many more expensive services in health care and other sectors, this trend, too, will lead to higher prices and slower growth.

    Today’s geopolitical turmoil further complicates matters. The disruptions to trade and the spike in commodity prices following Russia’s invasion were not just a one-off phenomenon. The same threats to harvests and food shipments that arose in 2022 may well persist in 2023. Moreover, if China does finally end its zero-COVID policy and begin to restart its economy, a surge in demand for many commodities will add to the global inflationary pressures. There is also no end in sight for Sino-Western decoupling, which is accelerating across all dimensions of trade (goods, services, capital, labor, technology, data, and information). And, of course, Iran, North Korea, and other strategic rivals to the West could soon contribute in their own ways to the global havoc.

    Now that the US dollar has been fully weaponized for strategic and national-security purposes, its position as the main global reserve currency could eventually begin to decline, and a weaker dollar would of course add to inflationary pressures in the US. More broadly, a frictionless world trading system requires a frictionless financial system. But sweeping primary and secondary sanctions have thrown sand in what was once a well-oiled machine, massively increasing the transaction costs of trade.

    On top of it all, climate change, too, will create persistent stagflationary pressures. Droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and other disasters are increasingly disrupting economic activity and threatening harvests (thus driving up food prices). At the same time, demands for decarbonization have led to underinvestment in fossil-fuel capacity before investment in renewables has reached the point where they can make up the difference. Today’s large energy-price spikes were inevitable.

    The increased likelihood of future pandemics also represents a persistent source of stagflation, especially considering how little has been done to prevent or prepare for the next one. The next contagious outbreak will lend further momentum to protectionist policies as countries rush to close borders and hoard critical supplies of food, medicines, and other essential goods.

    Finally, cyberwarfare remains an underappreciated threat to economic activity and even public safety. Firms and governments will either face more stagflationary disruptions to production, or they will have to spend a fortune on cybersecurity. Either way, costs will rise.

    The Worst of All Possible Economies

    When the recession comes, it will not be short and shallow but long and severe. Not only are we facing persistent short- and medium-term negative supply shocks, but we are also heading into the mother of all debt crises, owing to soaring private and public debt ratios over the last few decades. Low debt ratios spared us from that outcome in the 1970s. And though we certainly had debt crises following the 2008 crash – the result of excessive household, bank, and government debt – we also had deflation. It was a demand shock and a credit crunch that could be met with massive monetary, fiscal, and credit easing.

    Today, we are experiencing the worst elements of both the 1970s and 2008. Multiple, persistent negative supply shocks have coincided with debt ratios that are even higher than they were during the global financial crisis. These inflationary pressures are forcing central banks to tighten monetary policy even though we are heading into a recession. That makes the current situation fundamentally different from both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Everyone should be preparing for what may come to be remembered as the Great Stagflationary Debt Crisis.

    While central banks have been at pains to sound more hawkish, we should be skeptical of their professed willingness to fight inflation at any cost. Once they find themselves in a debt trap, they will have to blink. With debt ratios so high, fighting inflation will cause an economic and financial crash that will be deemed politically unacceptable. Major central banks will feel as though they have no choice but to backpedal, and inflation, the debasement of fiat currencies, boom-bust cycles, and financial crises will become even more severe and frequent.

    The inevitability of central banks wimping out was recently on display in the United Kingdom. Faced with the market reaction to the Truss government’s reckless fiscal stimulus, the BOE had to launch an emergency quantitative-easing (QE) program to buy up government bonds. That sad episode confirmed that in the UK, as in many other countries, monetary policy is increasingly subject to fiscal capture.

    Recall that a similar turnaround occurred in 2019, when the Fed, after previously signaling continued rate hikes and quantitative-tightening, stopped its QT program and started pursuing a mix of backdoor QE and policy-rate cuts at the first sign of mild financial pressures and a growth slowdown. Central banks will talk tough; but, in a world of excessive debt and risks of an economic and financial crash, there is good reason to doubt their willingness to do “whatever it takes” to return inflation to its target rate.

    With governments unable to reduce high debts and deficits by spending less or raising revenues, those that can borrow in their own currency will increasingly resort to the “inflation tax”: relying on unexpected price growth to wipe out long-term nominal liabilities at fixed interest rates.

    How will financial markets and prices of equities and bonds perform in the face of rising inflation and the return of stagflation? It is likely that, as in the stagflation of the 1970s, both components of any traditional asset portfolio will suffer, potentially incurring massive losses. Inflation is bad for bond portfolios, which will take losses as yields increase and prices fall, as well as for equities, whose valuations are hurt by rising interest rates.

    For the first time in decades, a 60/40 portfolio of equities and bonds suffered massive losses in 2022, because bond yields have surged while equities have gone into a bear market. By 1982, at the peak of the stagflation decade, the average S&P 500 firm’s price-to-earnings ratio was down to eight; today, it is closer to 20, which suggests that the bear market could end up being even more protracted and severe. Investors will need to find assets to hedge against inflation, political and geopolitical risks, and environmental damage: these include short-term government bonds and inflation-indexed bonds, gold and other precious metals, and real estate that is resilient to environmental damage.

    The Moment of Truth

    In any case, these megathreats will further contribute to rising income and wealth inequality, which has already been putting severe pressure on liberal democracies (as those left behind revolt against elites), and fueling the rise of radical and aggressive populist regimes. One can find right-wing manifestations of this trend in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, the US (under Donald Trump), post-Brexit Britain, and many other countries; and left-wing manifestations in Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and now Brazil (which has just replaced a right-wing populist with a left-wing one).

    And, of course, Xi’s authoritarian stranglehold has given the lie to the old idea that Western engagement with a fast-growing China would ineluctably lead that country to open itself up even more to markets and, eventually, to democratic processes. Under Xi, China shows every sign of becoming more closed off, and more aggressive on geopolitical, security, and economic matters.

    How did it come to this? Part of the problem is that we have long had our heads stuck in the sand. Now, we need to make up for lost time. Without decisive action, we will be heading into a period that is less like the four decades after WWII than like the three decades between 1914 and 1945. That period gave us World War I; the Spanish flu pandemic; the 1929 Wall Street crash; the Great Depression; massive trade and currency wars; inflation, hyperinflation, and deflation; financial and debt crises, leading to massive meltdowns and defaults; and the rise of authoritarian militarist regimes in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and elsewhere, culminating in WWII and the Holocaust.

    In this new world, the relative peace, prosperity, and rising global welfare that we have taken for granted will be gone; most of it already is. If we don’t stop the multi-track slow-motion train wreck that is threatening the global economy and our planet at large, we will be lucky to have only a repeat of the stagflationary 1970s. Far more likely is an echo of the 1930s and the 1940s, only now with all the massive disruptions from climate change added to the mix.

    Avoiding a dystopian scenario will not be easy. While there are potential solutions to each megathreat, most are costly in the short run and will deliver benefits only over the long run. Many also require technological innovations that are not yet available or in place, starting with those needed to halt or reverse climate change. Complicating matters further, today’s megathreats are interconnected, and therefore best addressed in a systematic and coherent fashion. Domestic leadership, in both the private and public sector, and international cooperation among great powers is necessary to prevent the coming Apocalypse.

    Yet there are many domestic and international obstacles standing in the way of policies that would allow for a less dystopian (though still contested and conflictual) future. Thus, while a less bleak scenario is obviously desirable, a clear-headed analysis indicates that dystopia is much more likely than a happier outcome. The years and decades ahead will be marked by a stagflationary debt crisis and related megathreats – war, pandemics, climate change, disruptive AI, and deglobalization – all of which will be bad for jobs, economies, markets, peace, and prosperity.
    The Age of Megathreats Nouriel RoubiniNov 4, 2022 op_roubini3_Getty Images_worlddisaster Getty Images NEW YORK – Severe megathreats are imperiling our future – not just our jobs, incomes, wealth, and the global economy, but also the relative peace, prosperity, and progress achieved over the past 75 years. Many of these threats were not even on our radar during the prosperous post-World War II era. I grew up in the Middle East and Europe from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, and I never worried about climate change potentially destroying the planet. Most of us had barely even heard of the problem, and greenhouse-gas emissions were still relatively low, compared to where they would soon be. Moreover, after the US-Soviet détente and US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in the early 1970s, I never really worried about another war among great powers, let alone a nuclear one. The term “pandemic” didn’t register in my consciousness, either, because the last major one had been in 1918. And I didn’t fathom that artificial intelligence might someday destroy most jobs and render Homo sapiens obsolete, because those were the years of the long “AI winter.” Similarly, terms like “deglobalization” and “trade war” had no purchase during this period. Trade liberalization had been in full swing since the Great Depression, and it would soon lead to the hyper-globalization that began in the 1990s. Debt crises posed no threat, because private and public debt-to-GDP ratios were low in advanced economies and emerging markets, and growth was robust. No one had to worry about the massive build-up of implicit debt, in the form of unfunded liabilities from pay-as-you-go social security and health-care systems. The supply of young workers was rising, the share of the elderly was still low, and robust, mostly unrestricted immigration from the Global South to the North would continue to prop up the labor market in advanced economies. Against this backdrop, economic cycles were contained, and recessions were short and shallow, except for during the stagflationary decade of the 1970s; but even then, there were no debt crises in advanced economies, because debt ratios were low. The kind of financial cycles that lead to crises were contained not just in advanced economies but even in emerging markets, owing to the low leverage, low risk-taking, solid financial regulation, capital controls, and various forms of financial repression that prevailed during this period. The advanced economies were strong liberal democracies that were free of extreme partisan polarization. Populism and authoritarianism were confined to a benighted cohort of poorer countries. Goodbye to All That Fast-forward from this relatively “golden” period between 1945 and 1985 to late 2022, and you will immediately notice that we are awash in new, extreme megathreats that were not previously on anyone’s mind. The world has entered what I call a geopolitical depression, with (at least) four dangerous revisionist powers – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – challenging the economic, financial, security, and geopolitical order that the United States and its allies created after WWII. There is a sharply rising risk not only of war among great powers but of a nuclear conflict. In the coming year, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine could escalate into an unconventional conflict that directly involves NATO. And Israel – and perhaps the US – may decide to launch strikes against Iran, which is on its way to building a nuclear bomb. Subscribe to PS Digital now to read all the latest insights from Nouriel Roubini. Digital subscribers enjoy access to every PS commentary, including those by Nouriel Roubini, plus our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content, including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More. For a limited time, save $15 with the code ROUBINI15. Subscribe Now With Chinese President Xi Jinping further consolidating his authoritarian rule, and with the US tightening its trade restrictions against China, the new Sino-American cold war is getting colder by the day. Worse, it could all too easily turn hot over the status of Taiwan, which Xi is committed to reuniting with the mainland, and which US President Joe Biden is apparently committed to defending. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed North Korea has once again been seeking attention by firing rockets over Japan and South Korea. Cyberwarfare occurs daily between these revisionist powers and the West, and many other countries have adopted a non-aligned posture toward Western-led sanctions regimes. From our contingent vantage point in the middle of all these events, we don’t yet know if World War III has already begun in Ukraine. That determination will be left to future historians – if there are any. Even discounting the threat of nuclear Armageddon, the risk of an environmental Apocalypse is becoming increasingly serious, especially given that most of the talk about net-zero and ESG (environment, social, and governance) investing is just greenwashing – or greenwishing. The new greenflation is already in full swing, because it turns out that amassing the metals needed for the energy transition requires a lot of expensive energy. There is also a growing risk of new pandemics that would be worse than biblical plagues, owing to the link between environmental destruction and zoonotic diseases. Wildlife, carrying dangerous pathogens, are coming into closer and more frequent contact with humans and livestock. That is why we have experienced more frequent and virulent pandemics and epidemics (HIV, SARS, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, Zika, Ebola, COVID-19) since the early 1980s. All the evidence suggests that this problem will become even worse in the future. Indeed, owing to the melting of Siberian permafrost, we may soon be confronting dangerous viruses and bacteria that have been locked away for millennia. Moreover, geopolitical conflicts and national-security concerns are fueling trade, financial, and technology wars, and accelerating the deglobalization process. The return of protectionism and the Sino-American decoupling will leave the global economy, supply chains, and markets more balkanized and fragmented. The buzzwords “friend-shoring” and “secure and fair trade” have replaced “offshoring” and “free trade.” But on the domestic front, advances in AI, robotics, and automation will destroy more and more jobs, even if policymakers build higher protectionist walls in an effort to fight the last war. By both restricting immigration and demanding more domestic production, aging advanced economies will create a stronger incentive for companies to adopt labor-saving technologies. While routine jobs are obviously at risk, so, too, are any cognitive jobs that can be unbundled into discrete tasks, and even many creative jobs. AI language models like GPT-3 can already write better than most humans and will almost certainly displace many jobs and sources of income. In due course, some scientists believe that Homo sapiens will be rendered entirely obsolete by the rise of artificial general intelligence or machine super-intelligence – though this is a highly contentious subject of debate. Thus, over time, economic malaise will deepen, inequality will rise even further, and more white- and blue-collar workers will be left behind. Hard Choices, Hard Landings The macroeconomic situation is no better. For the first time since the 1970s, we are facing high inflation and the prospect of a recession – stagflation. The increased inflation in advanced economies wasn’t “transitory.” It is persistent, driven by a combination of bad policies – excessively loose monetary, fiscal, and credit policies that were kept in place for too long – and bad luck. No one could have anticipated how much the initial COVID-19 shock would curtail the supply of goods and labor and create bottlenecks in global supply chains. The same goes for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, which caused a sharp spike in energy, food, fertilizers, industrial metals, and other commodities. Meanwhile, China has continued its “zero-COVID” policy, which is creating additional supply bottlenecks. While both demand and supply factors were in the mix, it is now widely recognized that the supply factors have played an increasingly decisive role. This matters for the economic outlook, because supply-driven inflation is stagflationary and thus increases the risk that monetary-policy tightening will produce a hard landing (increased unemployment and potentially a recession). What will follow from the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks’ current tightening? Until recently, most central banks and most of Wall Street belonged to “Team Soft Landing.” But the consensus has rapidly shifted, with even Fed Chair Jerome Powell recognizing that a recession is possible, that a soft landing will be “very challenging,” and that everyone should prepare for some “pain” ahead. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s model shows a high probability of a hard landing, and the Bank of England has expressed similar views about the United Kingdom. Several prominent Wall Street institutions have also now made a recession their baseline scenario (the most likely outcome if all other variables are held constant). History, too, points to deeper problems ahead. For the past 60 years in the US, whenever inflation has been above 5% (it is above 8% today), and unemployment has been below 5% (it is now 3.5%), any attempt by the Fed to bring inflation down toward its 2% target has caused a recession. Thus, a hard landing is much more likely than a soft landing, both in the US and across most other advanced economies. Sticky Stagflation In addition to the short-term factors, negative supply shocks and demand factors in the medium term will cause inflation to persist. On the supply side, I count eleven negative supply shocks that will reduce potential growth and increase the costs of production. Among these is the backlash against hyper-globalization, which has been gaining momentum and creating opportunities for populist, nativist, and protectionist politicians, and growing public anger over stark income and wealth inequalities, which is leading to more policies to support workers and the “left behind.” However well-intentioned, such measures will contribute to a dangerous wage-price spiral. Other sources of persistent inflation include rising protectionism (from both the left and the right), which has restricted trade, impeded the movement of capital, and heightened political resistance to immigration, which in turn has put additional upward pressure on wages. National-security and strategic considerations have further restricted flows of technology, data, and talent, and new labor and environmental standards, as important as they may be, are hampering both trade and new construction. This balkanization of the global economy is deeply stagflationary, and it is coinciding with demographic aging, not just in developed countries but also in large emerging economies such as China. Because young people tend to produce and save more, whereas older people spend down their savings and require many more expensive services in health care and other sectors, this trend, too, will lead to higher prices and slower growth. Today’s geopolitical turmoil further complicates matters. The disruptions to trade and the spike in commodity prices following Russia’s invasion were not just a one-off phenomenon. The same threats to harvests and food shipments that arose in 2022 may well persist in 2023. Moreover, if China does finally end its zero-COVID policy and begin to restart its economy, a surge in demand for many commodities will add to the global inflationary pressures. There is also no end in sight for Sino-Western decoupling, which is accelerating across all dimensions of trade (goods, services, capital, labor, technology, data, and information). And, of course, Iran, North Korea, and other strategic rivals to the West could soon contribute in their own ways to the global havoc. Now that the US dollar has been fully weaponized for strategic and national-security purposes, its position as the main global reserve currency could eventually begin to decline, and a weaker dollar would of course add to inflationary pressures in the US. More broadly, a frictionless world trading system requires a frictionless financial system. But sweeping primary and secondary sanctions have thrown sand in what was once a well-oiled machine, massively increasing the transaction costs of trade. On top of it all, climate change, too, will create persistent stagflationary pressures. Droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and other disasters are increasingly disrupting economic activity and threatening harvests (thus driving up food prices). At the same time, demands for decarbonization have led to underinvestment in fossil-fuel capacity before investment in renewables has reached the point where they can make up the difference. Today’s large energy-price spikes were inevitable. The increased likelihood of future pandemics also represents a persistent source of stagflation, especially considering how little has been done to prevent or prepare for the next one. The next contagious outbreak will lend further momentum to protectionist policies as countries rush to close borders and hoard critical supplies of food, medicines, and other essential goods. Finally, cyberwarfare remains an underappreciated threat to economic activity and even public safety. Firms and governments will either face more stagflationary disruptions to production, or they will have to spend a fortune on cybersecurity. Either way, costs will rise. The Worst of All Possible Economies When the recession comes, it will not be short and shallow but long and severe. Not only are we facing persistent short- and medium-term negative supply shocks, but we are also heading into the mother of all debt crises, owing to soaring private and public debt ratios over the last few decades. Low debt ratios spared us from that outcome in the 1970s. And though we certainly had debt crises following the 2008 crash – the result of excessive household, bank, and government debt – we also had deflation. It was a demand shock and a credit crunch that could be met with massive monetary, fiscal, and credit easing. Today, we are experiencing the worst elements of both the 1970s and 2008. Multiple, persistent negative supply shocks have coincided with debt ratios that are even higher than they were during the global financial crisis. These inflationary pressures are forcing central banks to tighten monetary policy even though we are heading into a recession. That makes the current situation fundamentally different from both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Everyone should be preparing for what may come to be remembered as the Great Stagflationary Debt Crisis. While central banks have been at pains to sound more hawkish, we should be skeptical of their professed willingness to fight inflation at any cost. Once they find themselves in a debt trap, they will have to blink. With debt ratios so high, fighting inflation will cause an economic and financial crash that will be deemed politically unacceptable. Major central banks will feel as though they have no choice but to backpedal, and inflation, the debasement of fiat currencies, boom-bust cycles, and financial crises will become even more severe and frequent. The inevitability of central banks wimping out was recently on display in the United Kingdom. Faced with the market reaction to the Truss government’s reckless fiscal stimulus, the BOE had to launch an emergency quantitative-easing (QE) program to buy up government bonds. That sad episode confirmed that in the UK, as in many other countries, monetary policy is increasingly subject to fiscal capture. Recall that a similar turnaround occurred in 2019, when the Fed, after previously signaling continued rate hikes and quantitative-tightening, stopped its QT program and started pursuing a mix of backdoor QE and policy-rate cuts at the first sign of mild financial pressures and a growth slowdown. Central banks will talk tough; but, in a world of excessive debt and risks of an economic and financial crash, there is good reason to doubt their willingness to do “whatever it takes” to return inflation to its target rate. With governments unable to reduce high debts and deficits by spending less or raising revenues, those that can borrow in their own currency will increasingly resort to the “inflation tax”: relying on unexpected price growth to wipe out long-term nominal liabilities at fixed interest rates. How will financial markets and prices of equities and bonds perform in the face of rising inflation and the return of stagflation? It is likely that, as in the stagflation of the 1970s, both components of any traditional asset portfolio will suffer, potentially incurring massive losses. Inflation is bad for bond portfolios, which will take losses as yields increase and prices fall, as well as for equities, whose valuations are hurt by rising interest rates. For the first time in decades, a 60/40 portfolio of equities and bonds suffered massive losses in 2022, because bond yields have surged while equities have gone into a bear market. By 1982, at the peak of the stagflation decade, the average S&P 500 firm’s price-to-earnings ratio was down to eight; today, it is closer to 20, which suggests that the bear market could end up being even more protracted and severe. Investors will need to find assets to hedge against inflation, political and geopolitical risks, and environmental damage: these include short-term government bonds and inflation-indexed bonds, gold and other precious metals, and real estate that is resilient to environmental damage. The Moment of Truth In any case, these megathreats will further contribute to rising income and wealth inequality, which has already been putting severe pressure on liberal democracies (as those left behind revolt against elites), and fueling the rise of radical and aggressive populist regimes. One can find right-wing manifestations of this trend in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, the US (under Donald Trump), post-Brexit Britain, and many other countries; and left-wing manifestations in Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and now Brazil (which has just replaced a right-wing populist with a left-wing one). And, of course, Xi’s authoritarian stranglehold has given the lie to the old idea that Western engagement with a fast-growing China would ineluctably lead that country to open itself up even more to markets and, eventually, to democratic processes. Under Xi, China shows every sign of becoming more closed off, and more aggressive on geopolitical, security, and economic matters. How did it come to this? Part of the problem is that we have long had our heads stuck in the sand. Now, we need to make up for lost time. Without decisive action, we will be heading into a period that is less like the four decades after WWII than like the three decades between 1914 and 1945. That period gave us World War I; the Spanish flu pandemic; the 1929 Wall Street crash; the Great Depression; massive trade and currency wars; inflation, hyperinflation, and deflation; financial and debt crises, leading to massive meltdowns and defaults; and the rise of authoritarian militarist regimes in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and elsewhere, culminating in WWII and the Holocaust. In this new world, the relative peace, prosperity, and rising global welfare that we have taken for granted will be gone; most of it already is. If we don’t stop the multi-track slow-motion train wreck that is threatening the global economy and our planet at large, we will be lucky to have only a repeat of the stagflationary 1970s. Far more likely is an echo of the 1930s and the 1940s, only now with all the massive disruptions from climate change added to the mix. Avoiding a dystopian scenario will not be easy. While there are potential solutions to each megathreat, most are costly in the short run and will deliver benefits only over the long run. Many also require technological innovations that are not yet available or in place, starting with those needed to halt or reverse climate change. Complicating matters further, today’s megathreats are interconnected, and therefore best addressed in a systematic and coherent fashion. Domestic leadership, in both the private and public sector, and international cooperation among great powers is necessary to prevent the coming Apocalypse. Yet there are many domestic and international obstacles standing in the way of policies that would allow for a less dystopian (though still contested and conflictual) future. Thus, while a less bleak scenario is obviously desirable, a clear-headed analysis indicates that dystopia is much more likely than a happier outcome. The years and decades ahead will be marked by a stagflationary debt crisis and related megathreats – war, pandemics, climate change, disruptive AI, and deglobalization – all of which will be bad for jobs, economies, markets, peace, and prosperity.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 22166 Views

  • Image Source: https://www.escapeartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/step0001.jpg
    Bitcoin, the pioneering cryptocurrency, has gained significant attention and popularity since its inception in 2009. However, its decentralized nature, volatility, and potential risks have led to debates about the possibility of governments considering the outlawing of Bitcoin. In this article, we will explore some potential reasons that could contribute to such a decision.
    Regulatory Challenges:
    One primary concern for governments is the lack of regulatory oversight in the cryptocurrency market. Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for anonymous transactions and can potentially facilitate illicit activities such as money laundering, tax evasion, and illegal transactions. Despite efforts to establish regulations and anti-money laundering measures, the anonymity provided by Bitcoin still poses a challenge for authorities to monitor and control financial transactions effectively.
    Financial Stability and Consumer Protection:
    Bitcoin's extreme price volatility can disrupt financial stability and endanger consumer protection. The cryptocurrency's value has witnessed significant fluctuations, often driven by speculative trading, market manipulation, or unexpected events. Such volatility can negatively impact investors, businesses, and overall economic stability. Governments may see the need to protect their citizens from potential financial losses associated with participating in the volatile cryptocurrency market.
    Monetary Policy Control:
    Central banks maintain the responsibility of implementing monetary policy to manage national economies effectively. Bitcoin, being decentralized and beyond government control, poses a challenge to the central bank's ability to influence and regulate monetary systems. If Bitcoin gains widespread acceptance, it could potentially undermine a government's control over its own currency, leading to potential economic instability.
    Cybersecurity and Fraud:
    As with any digital platform, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are susceptible to hacking, fraud, and cyber attacks. Despite the implementation of robust security measures, cryptocurrency exchanges and wallets have experienced numerous high-profile breaches in recent years. These security vulnerabilities raise concerns regarding the protection of users' funds and the potential for criminal activities, which could further contribute to governments considering the outlawing of Bitcoin.
    Potential Loss of Tax Revenue:
    Governments rely on tax revenues to fund public services and infrastructure development. The anonymity associated with Bitcoin transactions presents challenges for tax authorities to identify and track taxable income. The potential widespread adoption of Bitcoin could lead to a substantial loss of tax revenue, making it difficult for governments to meet their financial obligations.
    Conclusion:
    While Bitcoin has attracted a vast user base and supporters who believe in its potential to revolutionize the financial system, several factors may lead governments to consider outlawing it. Regulatory challenges, concerns regarding financial stability and consumer protection, the potential loss of monetary policy control, cybersecurity risks, and the potential impact on tax revenues are some of the primary reasons that may drive governments towards such a decision. However, it's important to note that this article explores potential reasons and does not reflect the definitive outcome or consensus on the future of Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency landscape remains complex and subject to ongoing discussions and developments. #bitcoin #btc #someeofficial #waivio #thgaming #nftm #archon #hivelist
    Image Source: https://www.escapeartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/step0001.jpg Bitcoin, the pioneering cryptocurrency, has gained significant attention and popularity since its inception in 2009. However, its decentralized nature, volatility, and potential risks have led to debates about the possibility of governments considering the outlawing of Bitcoin. In this article, we will explore some potential reasons that could contribute to such a decision. Regulatory Challenges: One primary concern for governments is the lack of regulatory oversight in the cryptocurrency market. Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for anonymous transactions and can potentially facilitate illicit activities such as money laundering, tax evasion, and illegal transactions. Despite efforts to establish regulations and anti-money laundering measures, the anonymity provided by Bitcoin still poses a challenge for authorities to monitor and control financial transactions effectively. Financial Stability and Consumer Protection: Bitcoin's extreme price volatility can disrupt financial stability and endanger consumer protection. The cryptocurrency's value has witnessed significant fluctuations, often driven by speculative trading, market manipulation, or unexpected events. Such volatility can negatively impact investors, businesses, and overall economic stability. Governments may see the need to protect their citizens from potential financial losses associated with participating in the volatile cryptocurrency market. Monetary Policy Control: Central banks maintain the responsibility of implementing monetary policy to manage national economies effectively. Bitcoin, being decentralized and beyond government control, poses a challenge to the central bank's ability to influence and regulate monetary systems. If Bitcoin gains widespread acceptance, it could potentially undermine a government's control over its own currency, leading to potential economic instability. Cybersecurity and Fraud: As with any digital platform, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are susceptible to hacking, fraud, and cyber attacks. Despite the implementation of robust security measures, cryptocurrency exchanges and wallets have experienced numerous high-profile breaches in recent years. These security vulnerabilities raise concerns regarding the protection of users' funds and the potential for criminal activities, which could further contribute to governments considering the outlawing of Bitcoin. Potential Loss of Tax Revenue: Governments rely on tax revenues to fund public services and infrastructure development. The anonymity associated with Bitcoin transactions presents challenges for tax authorities to identify and track taxable income. The potential widespread adoption of Bitcoin could lead to a substantial loss of tax revenue, making it difficult for governments to meet their financial obligations. Conclusion: While Bitcoin has attracted a vast user base and supporters who believe in its potential to revolutionize the financial system, several factors may lead governments to consider outlawing it. Regulatory challenges, concerns regarding financial stability and consumer protection, the potential loss of monetary policy control, cybersecurity risks, and the potential impact on tax revenues are some of the primary reasons that may drive governments towards such a decision. However, it's important to note that this article explores potential reasons and does not reflect the definitive outcome or consensus on the future of Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency landscape remains complex and subject to ongoing discussions and developments. #bitcoin #btc #someeofficial #waivio #thgaming #nftm #archon #hivelist
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10045 Views
  • Over the years, experts and researchers have warned about cybersecurity and privacy risks associated with all “smart” devices and technologies, not just apps.  Of course, installing apps does enable more #privacy invasion.
    Over the years, experts and researchers have warned about cybersecurity and privacy risks associated with all “smart” devices and technologies, not just apps.  Of course, installing apps does enable more #privacy invasion.
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    Got Apps? High Percentage of Smartphone Users Don’t Completely Understand Their Privacy Risks (Study) - Activist Post
    You’d think that since over half of participants report concern about privacy and safety, that there would be less tracking acceptance.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1399 Views
  • For those concerned about #cybersecurity risks, new research provides more reasons to worry about #smartmeters.
    For those concerned about #cybersecurity risks, new research provides more reasons to worry about #smartmeters.
    WWW.ACTIVISTPOST.COM
    Cybersecurity Alert: Research Reveals How Hackers Can “manipulate smart meters to create an oscillation in electricity demand” - Activist Post
    "But if a person were to remotely coordinate a large number of smart meters to switch customers on and off at a particular frequency, that would be a problem."
    Like
    3
    1 Comments 0 Shares 1951 Views
More Results