A DIFFERENT TAKE ON 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS, A LESSON FOR SINGAPORE ON TRUMP-HARRIS

"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." 
Eleanor Roosevelt 

There is a new word for 'politics of envy' and it's called 'social justice'. In economics it's known as taking other peoples' money to distribute to the under class. The Democrats in the US have honed this skill to perfection. The mendacity of Democrats is so prevalent but they have the unassailable ability to fool a generation of Americans churned out by liberal institutions of learning, and a black community kept in the DNC plantation for a hundred years. Take for example the fact the Democrat Party is the party of Ku Klux Klan, but they have been able to capture majority of black votes for a hundred years and call the other party racists. What could be so wrong to push 'social justice' agendas, of economic policies that will level the playing field, for equality of opportunities. So the case for free healthcare, forgive student loans, reparation for slaves, the list goes on. 

As a young student of accountancy, I learnt of an incentive scheme in a factory in the old Soviet Union.The factory produced chandeliers and reported production numbers in terms of tonne weightage to communist bosses. Communist Party members in charge implemented a bonus scheme based on weightage output. Made sense, right? The result was chandeliers got heavier and heavier until they started dropping from ceilings. Just like incentive schemes, economic policies can and often do, result in outcomes never anticipated due to dynamics in complex interconnectedness of things and the psychology of human motivation.

In the previous blog "Trump-Harris : Which side Singapore wants and why?"  I shared why I feel the Singapore government prefers a Harris presidency. Harris is of course also the preferred choice of the educated liberal Singaporeans sitting on the high horses of virtue signalling who have bought into a Trump persona sold by leftist media of a thuggish, mysogist, fascist, racist, tyrannical candidate.

Because of its role in world economy, miss-steps in US policies impact all countries. In this blog I want to discuss one specific illustration. This is a re-visit to the 2008 global financial meltdown known as the subprime mortgage crisis. You most likely have read bits and pieces here and there, but I am certain no one locally has explained it the way it's done here. I explain how it happened, the tecnical aspects, the human motivational aspects that Ludwig von Mises and his Austrian School of Economics would have explained, the policy mis-steps. Then I bring this home to show why Singaporeans should be concerned about what happens thousands of miles away because it impacts our nation, and to several hundred Singaporeans, personally, in a very painful way. The purpose is to show the danger of Democrats in general and Harris in current play. In the process, I lay a condemning finger on Obama, the first black president enamoured by most people including Singaporeans, all unable to see he is the one who bears most responsibility for the cultural chaos in US for bringing identity politics to the fore, and where we are concerned here, his role in the 2008 financial mess which has gone mostly un-noticed. 

A very simple explanation of what the mess was all about:

The crisis was triggered by a combination of lending to high-risk borrowers, financial innovations like securitization and derivatives, and deregulation that allowed financial institutions to take on excessive risks. When interest rates rise and housing prices began to fall, the entire system collapsed, leading to widespread defaults, contagion financial institution failures, and a global recession.

To understand how this happened, one must understand the human motivation dynamics at play. In the aftermath of the Dot.com bubble, interest rates were pressed low to stimulate the economy, With low interest rates, people invest in houses. As demand side builds up, housing prices went up. More people began taking advantage of low interest rates to buy houses to flip and make a profit. So a speculative market built up that fueled prices to greater heights.

Lenders extended credit which soon covered borrowers they normally would not lend to. These were called subprime mortgages which are pecked at higher interest rates for the higher risks. Deregulation allowed commercial banks to securitise their subprime mortgages into derivatives to sell to investors generating for them a great stream of income. Proceeds from sales of derivatives created a cashflow back into their operations that beefed up liquidity, which allowed banks to onlend into the subprime mortgage again. The repeat loop of cash backflow from sale of securities created extremely leveraged housing loan portfolios in banks that grew way beyond their capital reserves.

In case you still don't get it, it works this way. Banks lend to house buyers at high margins. Banks package their assets (mortgage loans) as backing for financial derivatives. Banks sold derivatives to investors whose earnings come from a share of the margins banks earn from housing loans. By giving away some of their earnings, banks receive cash from investors who purchased the derivatives. With the cash, banks can lend again to more house buyers. Rinse and repeat. The profitable game continued so long as the higher margin on the subprime mortgages is sufficient enough to be shared with investors of the derivatives. It's the familiar frenzy that creates bubbles. 

The housing boom of 2000s increased only housing prices, it did not cause increase in the general price levels. By 2004, the economy had come out of the recession of 2001 Dot.com bubble. The Fed started a series of interest rate increases to pre-empt inflation. This caused low income mortgagees to no longer able to service their loans, especially those with floating rate mortgages. Demand decreased and housing prices fell. Speculators who can, sold their properties and suffer losses, while some speculators are caught holding properties they cannot sell.  Large scale default took place. All banks with highly leveraged portfolios rushed for the exit which put further downward pressure on housing prices. Banks without credit default swap (insurance guarantees) suffered massive losses and were unable to service their derivatives books. The impact on portfolio valuation devastated bank capital and bankrupted insurance companies. 

The securities worked like this:

Mortgage-backed securities (MBS).
Banks packaged their subprime mortgages and securitised them. Means they issued securities (bonds etc) backed by these package of subprime mortgages. Because the subprime mortgages were priced high, banks can share some of the interest earnings with investors of MBS. The money received from MBS is ploughed back into the housing market. So they increased their exposure to the market, but generate more profits. When interest rates rose and housing market collapsed, buyers defaulted. As cashflow from the subprime mortgages that are used to pay MBS investors vapourised, the securities valuation plummeted and caused massive losses.

Collaterised Debt Obligations (CDO).
These are backed by pools of MBS and other loans, all bundled together. Based on specified bundles of loans, banks created securities called CDO and sold to investors. In other words, derivatives of derivatives. When the underlying subprime mortgages defaulted, CDO valuation crashed.

Credit Default Swaps (CDS).
These are financial derivatives that allow investors to sell the risks of default on their investment to someone else. Insurance companies like AIG issued CDS to cover MBS and CDO of these subprime mortgages. The buyers of CDS paid annual or quarterly premiums to the insurance companies, in return they are reimbursed for losses on liquidation of their CDO and MBS when subprime mortgagees default. This allowed insurance companies to take on massive unfunded liability far in access of capital requirements and under regulatory radar due to its off-balance sheet nature. Of course, for years before the crash, they reported huge gains in premium income. When the underlying subprime mortgages defaulted, insurance companies suffered massive losses. 

How did government policies play into this?

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999):
Prior to 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated commercial banking from investment banking. Commercial banks were not allowed to involve in more risky financial activities of securities trading. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) repealed provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which then allowed commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to consolidate and engage in a wider range of activities, including high-risk trading and investment. 

Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000):
This Act exempted derivatives, including credit default swaps (CDS), from regulatory oversight, allowing institutions to trade these financial products without adequate transparency or capital reserves.

Acts of Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).
In 2004, the SEC allowed large investment banks (like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch) to voluntarily opt out of the traditional leverage limits. This allowed them to trade more aggressively with higher levearage.
In 2007 SEC eliminated the Uptick Rule of 1938. This rule limited short selling by requiring that a stock could only be sold short if its last trade was at a higher price than the previous trade (an "uptick"). This allowed more aggresive short selling of stocks which during the crisis, caused panic selling of bank stocks.

Basel II Capital Accords (2004-2007 Implementation)
The rules allowed banks to use their own internal risk models to calculate the required capital for different asset classes. US banks used overly optimistic risk models that underestimated the risk of default on mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. This allowed them to hold more risky assets than their capital reserves permit.

Community Reinvestment Act (1977).
The CRA is an anti-redlining law designed to encourage banks to provide loans in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in a manner that satisfies the safety and soundness of banks. The mission statement is an oxymoron that request an uptake of sub-quality loans which satisfies bank credit standards.

So who were responsible for these policies?

Republicans believe in government should move out of the way and allow free market to work itself out. Thus they tend to reduce tax and to de-regulate. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act were bipartisan bills. They were Republican initiatives, but had Democrat support and were signed by Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The 2 acts of SEC were signed off by Republican commissioners.

Democrats are socialist and believe government should interfere in the market place to ensure equality of opportunities. They tend to go for more public spending. tax the rich for more funds, and more regulation. They passed the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to lend to the poorer segment of people whom they feel have been redlined and discriminated. 

Basel II was implemented during Republican George Bush's admin but this was an international regulatory framework.

How did the regulations and ideologies play out?

While the CRA had been there since 1977, it hadn't been a problem all the way through the 1980s. While Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Commodity Futures Modernization Act, Basel II and SEC deregulated the financial industry, banks have internal risk controls to behave themselves.

In the 1990s something happened. Social liberalism reared it's ugly head as US turned more progressive. Political pressure started mounting to do more for the housing needs of the poor. The social justice agenda of the Democrats became a good platform against a Republican administration. The DNC began shifting from centre to the left. Today, many Democrats are on the extreme left. The CRA became the socialist tool.

Banks were given a coposite rating on their commitment to CRA. At first this rating was confidential, but public pressure forced Congress in 1989 to amend the act which then required the public release of CRA ratings of banks. Continued political pressure forced tightened regulation in 1995 for CRA ratings to be examined. Big banks were examined once every 5 years, smaller banks once in 2 years. Banks generally care a great deal about CRA compliance since federal regulators consider CRA ratings when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers and acquisitions. This forced banks to increasingly lower credit standards and grant housing loans to those who do not have the 'credit scores' to qualify.

As banks' subprime mortgage inventory built up, they securitised these into MBS and CDO and sold to investors. Liquidity flows back to the backs and another cycle of subprime housing loan is built.

How Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got caught in the crisis

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) which are privately-owned. GSEs are financial institutions created by the government to enhance the flow of credit to certain sectors of the economy. In the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they cover the housing market.

They raise their own equity and working capital in the capital markets. Although not owend nor funded by the government, they operate under rules and mandates designed to promote public policy objectives, in their case, affordable housing. They are regulated by certain agencies and deemed to carry an 'explicit' government guarantee which allows them to raise capital at a cheaper cost.

Mae and Mac buy up loans from banks. By buying certain qualifying loans they set the criteria that encourages banks to lend into particular market segments that the government promotes. So if the government pushes the social mission of more credit facilities to the poor, banks will lend to those of lower credit standing since these mortgages can be sold to Mae and Mac. Look at it as if Mae and Mac are wholesalers and banks the retailers. Mae and Mac then repackage these loans into MBS, remember the mortgage-backed securities, and resell to investors. This way, Mae and Mac source the liquidity to fund their operations. Investors buy MBS of Mae and Mac because of the very low risks as they have government backing. This operation has been going on for decades.

Then in the 1990s, Mae and Mac faced two problems - political pressure to do more for the housing needs of the social underclass and competition from banks. With deregulation, banks were then securitising their subprime mortgages and selling MBS, the stuff that Mae and Mac used to do. So the two GSEs started buying more subprime mortgages as well as MBS from banks and repacking their own MBS. So some kind of derivatives on derivatives was going on. Mae and Mac got into the same rinse and repeat mode of banks and build a massive inventory of assets backed by subprime mortgages that went way beyond their capital reserves.

When the housing bubble burst, the government had to pump in US$100b into Mae and Mac to prevent them from collapsing.

Blame on Democrats in general and Obama in particular?

There is no doubt the social justice agenda of the Democrats manifested in the political pressure on the Republican George Bush admin to push housing programmes for the poor over the cliff.

Republicans sounded the alarm on the housing bubble. In 2003/2004. Representative Mike Oxley and Senator Chuck Hagel wanted more oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 2005 Republican Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act which aimed to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and address risks in the housing finance system. Fed Chairman Alen Greenspan warned about 'froth' in the housing market. These were rejected by Democrats (and some Republicans).

Querries with leftist media and AI bots mostly say can't blame any side, CRA is not the cause, and Obama did not cause but inherited the problem. Indeed many economists have written about the crisis and put no blames on CRA.

In a 2012 National Bureau of Economic Research paper "Did the CRA lead to risky lending?" by researchers Sumit Agarwal, Effi Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, and Amit Seru, they gave a resounding YES. Very basically, they used banks that were not having CRA examination as the control group, and compared to banks that were being examined for CRA compliance by regulators. "The main econometric challenge in evaluating the CRA’s impact on lending is obtaining the counterfactual lending behavior in the absence of the CRA. Our empirical design addresses this issue by exploiting variation in banks’ incentive to conform to CRA standards around scheduled regulatory examinations." It was very clear that banks under examination beefed up their lendings to less credit-worthy borrowers more than the control group. The reason being these banks want a favourable CRA rating. In today's language, they needed to be seen to be "woke". (For the records, Sumit Agarwal at the time was Associate Professor of Finance and Real Estate, National University of Singapore Business School).

Before entering politics in 2005, Barrack Obama was a civil-rights attorney and community organiser.  He focused on "housing rights" After he graduated, he worked for a Chicago civil-rights law firm that worked closely with radical activitist organisations Gamaliel Foundation, National People's Action, and Accorn (Association of Community Organization for Reform Now), ambulance chasing lending-cases. As a civil-rights attorney, he sued banks to rubberstamp mortgages for urban poor residents. His work basically pushed thousands of credit-poor blacks into homes they couldn't afford, and putting anti-redlining pressure on banks to take on more low quality housing loans. His work with Accorn, a very big liberal and powerful activist organisation, has been downplayed since the association had to close down in 2010 under a cloud of cheating, voter fraud, corruption and child prostitution. And whilst he can boast his work helped many poor blacks to own homes, those subprime loans came with very high interest rates that made banks rich, and after the market crashed, left those black borrowers homeless and crippled with debt.

Senator Charles Grassley Report calls ACORN a “big shell game” in which charities “are being used to raise monies which are then funneled to other charities or to other organizations for purposes other than what the donor may have intended … Dollars raised for charitable [purposes] appear to be used for impermissible lobbing and political activity.” Money from the front group that ‘ostensibly helps the poor’, is swapped to the political support of Democrats. The poor get played. 

The graph below reflects the pressure Obama and Accorn put on banks.

In his second term, Obama admin was again pushing for increasing auto and housing loans to the non-credit worthy segment, the same subprime lending madness as if the 2008 financial meltdown never happened.

(The feature image is ChatGPT created. I photoshopped Obama right into the centre. Can you see him?)

Kamala Harris is made in the same Democrat DNA for socialist, populist moves to win votes. It's never the economy, stupid. Harris is coy of detailing her economic plans but we know she wants to remove medical debt from credit scores, claiming it will help poor working families to borrow more money, never mind if they are already in debt. Removing medical debts undermines lenders' assessment of borrwers' ability to pay, creating low quality loan inventories. It's the same subprime loan story.

What has all these got to do with Singapore and Singaporeans?

There are many areas where the Democrat's socialist agenda can harm the US, but that is none of our concern. We should however be very concerned when their policies trigger financial meltdowns that impact beyond American shores, such as the 2008 global financial meltdown. Liberal Singaporeans who root for Harris either never experienced the pain of 2008, or never fully understood the subprime crisis had Democrat fingerprints all over, need a rethink. When pain is more direct, then people understand. So feel for the hundreds of Singaporeans who bought the 'minibonds' from DBS. These were not securities issued by Lehman Bros. They were structured products which were credit-linked notes tied to a basket of companies, including Lehman Brothers as one of the reference entities. Singaporeans bought into a fixed-rate security backed by the credit worthiness of Lehmam and other financial institutions who were all deep into the subprime mortgage market. When US housing market collapsed, Lehman et al had assets whose valuation had been wiped out. The notes that DBS sold became worthless.

So Singaporeans, be careful who you wish for.

For those who enjoy the financial thriller genre, here's "Margin Call". Great action by Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. Here is a clip of the risk management committee meeting part.  Watch the explanation by the analyst Peter Sullivan. If you have seen the movie before, you may not have understood what he was saying. My explanation of the 'rinse and repeat' and how selling the derivatives gave the banks the cashflow to onlend back into the subprime market, thus creating the huge leverage on their loans portfolio, is exactly the leverage that Sullivan was referring to and how an increase in their risk metrics, which would include a fall in housing prices, can wipe out their capital and market capitalisation, ie a share price plunge. And he mentioned MBS.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

TRUMP-HARRIS : WHICH SIDE SINGAPORE WANTS AND WHY

Whether Trump or Harris wins, it is none of our business. Americans (and if Democrats have their way, all illegal immigrants) will vote in whoever they think is best for their own interest. No less than Lee Hsien Loong has expressed this is the position of Singapore. But privately, certainly Singapore hope the one that is best aligned with our own interest wins. 

In the run up to the US 2024 election, Straits Times have thus far carried some articles written by local journalists as well as syndicated posts. All the articles I have read unabashedly lean towards Kamala Harris. I see the same biased reporting of US leftist media propagating a Harris win in the debate. There was no calling out the numerous lies of Harris but on the other hand calling out Trump's truth as untrue. There is no serious analysing of economic platforms, for which Harris actually presented none other than rhetorics. One gets the impression the Straits Times is an extended mouthpiece of the Democrats.

The Straits Time being a state media, what it publishes provides an insight into the position of the Singapore government. It is obvious to me the government favours Harris over Trump. This seems an oddity since Harris is held by many as the most extreme progressive Democrat who has been placed to the Left of Bernie Sanders, the one hypocrite millionaire Congressman generally held as the number one communist in the DNC. Harris' socialist economic ideas are totally at odds with PAP's stringent approach towards fiscal management.

As a small city state with no hinterland, no natural resources, and no critical mass population, a free trade order in the world is an existential matter for Singapore. For years, Singapore bureaucrats had worked feverishly with the Obama regime for the Trans Pacific Partnership. This was a large free trade agreement negotiated among 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including the U.S. It was designed to create a new set of rules for trade among these nations, reduce tariffs, and foster economic ties. Trump believed TPP would harm American workers and manufacturing. His election platform was for 'America First' in trade policies. On coming into office in 2017, Trump withdrew the US from the TPP. In addition, Trump holds disdain for certain world organisation like UN and WTO, believing that while US is the biggest funder, these institutions have been captaured by countries hostile to US interests. In December 2019 Trump admin blocked the appointment of new judges to the Appellate Body of WTO. The Appellate Body adjudicates trade disputes between member nations. Trump believed the WTO was biased against the U.S. and that the Appellate Body had overstepped its mandate. By preventing the appointment of new judges, the Appellate Body could no longer function, halting its ability to hear trade disputes.

In the realm of free trade. 'America First' ideology of Trump does not sit well with Singapore Inc. This sole factor overides all other considerations, overlooking all the strengths of Trump that ordinarily the Singapore Government would have appreciated -- his promises for world peace, a stronger US leadership in a very troubled world, withdrawal of US military adventurism, engage China in economic competition rather than military, and reduction in funding NATO. As a non-politician now, George Yeo once articulated his admiration on the net-net positive attributes of Trump. In the kind of group-think world of PAP, it's most likely Yeo was voicing party opinion. So the government's position is not so much a love for Harris, but a fear of Trump's views on free trade initiatives.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

DID GOD OR MOTHER MARY WARN ABOUT POPE FRANCIS?

"A coincidence is a small miracle when God chooses to remain anonymous"
Albert Einstein

I have made comments and written a bit on Pope Francis that annoyed quite a few Catholics. It has even driven some to leave my social chat groups. For perspective, I am Catholic, and it pains me to dwell on negativities of the largest religious organisation in the world. But I rather face brutal facts for the Truth sets us free. There is nothing uncivilised in the way I convey my views. It has always been personal critical assessments based on factual events and acts of Bergolio. Coming from the Jesuit line, one had hopes for the opportunity to cleanse the Vatican swamp. Alas I am persuaded he has proven himself to be a progressive liberal pope, fallen in with the very axis of power in the Vatican that forced Benedict to resign. It is regrettable my social media 'friends' prefer an unexamined life. They have confused the holiness of the seat of St Peter with the man sitting on the chair. My challenge to these 'friends' is to read this account of a miracle and determine for self whether it is pure coincidence or a message or warning from God or Mother Mary.

Last December, an extremely crazy natural event occurred in Argentina that the faithful has to decide for self if it was a fluke of nature or something supernatural.

Before going into the miracle, I give this example of a typical view of mine that shows no malice but a careful analysis of what I observe. Many have questioned quite a few acts of Bergolio which did not seem to be in line with tenets of Catholic doctrines. This is but one such incident. 

In an inflight interview during the recent apostolic tour of Indonesia, PNG, East Timor and Singapore, Bergolio was asked for his views on the US election. He said both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump promote policies that take lives. Harris' pro-abortion stand Bergolio likens to 'killing' which is stating the obvious. He equated Trump's anti-illegal immigration stand as similar to 'taking lives' when he turns away poor immigrants. However, Trump is only against illegal immigrants, a fundamental law strictly enforced in every country in the world except many Western countries that have the insane open borders policy. Here, Bergolio is obviously making a political alignment with the globalist elites and neglects the catastrophe of the downside of mass illegal migration that is playing out in Europe and US.  Bergolio condemns Trump's stand as a 'divine sin'. In Christianity, a divine sin is a sin against God, which covers blesphamy, pride, idolatory, disobedience and rebellion. To Christians, divine sin results in separation with God. By comparison, in his silence, Harris' killing of unborn is a venial sin. Quite clearly, to his mind, Trump's divine sin is the greater evil. Disregarding the Ten Commandments, Bergolio made a moral equivalency of the two by asking voters to chose the lesser evil.

On 17th December 2023, lightning struck a statue of St Peter. What was micraculous was the statue proper was left intact but only 3 specific parts were destroyed - the halo around the head of St. Peter, the key he held in his right hand, and the right hand itself. The statue was left standing, even the metal staff that conducts electricity, was not affected. You can see the before and after state of the statue in the feature image above. What is the significance of these 3 parts that were destroyed?

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."... Matthew 16:18-19

St. Peter is the foundational rock of the Chatholic Church. The papacy is an apostalic continuation of the seat of St. Peter that is considered holy. That holiness is conferred to the person who sits on that seat. The halo often found in images of St. Peter, and in this statue, represents that holiness. Is the destruction of the halo meant to indicate holiness is rescinded for the current pope?

The "Keys of Heaven" are a traditional symbol of the papal office, representing the authority given to St Peter by Jesus according to Christian tradition. This symbolism is often depicted in art and the Vatican's coat of arms, where two keys are crossed, one gold and one silver, bound together by a red cord. In ceremonial events, the pope might carry or be associated with a key as a symbol of his spiritual authority and role as the successor to St Peter. However, there’s no physical key that every pope actually carries. Is the destruction of the key a sign that Bergolio no longer has this spiritual authority?

Catholic tradition holds that the right hand is associated with favours, blessings and authority. The pope gives blessings with his right hand to make the sign of the cross over the congregation or individuals. Is the destruction of the statue's right hand a sign that Pope Francis no longer has authority to give blessings?

To those who say well lighting strucks all the time, just a coincidence. Take a look at the picture below. The statue is on the right of the building on a raised platform (circled red). It is not touching bare Earth, hence little conductivity. The building has all the necessary lightning protection system. Why did it not strike the taller part of the structure which has all the lightning rods to ground a lightning strike? Seems strange.

Chapel of Our Lay of Rosary of San Nicolas

We know Pope Francis sits on the seat of St Peter, but are there other signs the lightning strike has deference to Bergolio.?

Well that statue of St. Peter is in Buenos Aires Province of Argentina. It is the home dioscese of Archibishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio before he became Pope Francis. Of all the statues of St. Peter to be struck by lightning, it was the one in Bergoglio's home diocese. If that does not catch your attention, the lightning had to strike on 17 December, which is Bergolio's birthday. He was born 17 December 1936.

The lightning struck on 17 December 2023, one day before Pope France made the declaration "Fiducia Supplicans" which opens up the pandora box of blessings for gay couples. 

Was the lightning strike a message for Pope Francis, or a warning for Catholics about Bergolio? 

To top if off, the statue is at the chapel known as The Sanctuary of  Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolás in the city of San Nicolás de los Arroyos, in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. It has a huge history of Marian apparition.

On 25 Sep 1983, Gladys Quiroga de Motta, a middle-aged housewife with 2 daughters, in the city of San Nicolás de los Arroyos, Argentina, began having apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Her vision started one day when she noticed her rosary turned shining brilliantly, which was witnessed by her village friends. The apparition she saw was Mary carrying baby Jesus in her arms. In time, Gladys recognised a wooden carving of Mary carrying baby Jesus was the vision she had seen. That carving was consecrated to the Cathedral in the Cathedral of St Nicolas de Bari which was built in 1884. The carving had gone decrepit and slightly damaged and had been stored away in the bell tower for decades.  It has since been restored.

Our Lady of Rosary of San Nicolas

Gladys received her visions from 25 Sep 1983 till 11 Feb 1990. It was only on the 7th vision on 13 Oct 1983 that Mother Mary first spoke to Gladys. 13 Oct 1983 was the 3rd anniversary of the Fatima miracles. In all, Gladys received more than a thousand messages, mostly from Mother Mary, and some from Jesus. She recorded the messages as best she could. Although she had very little education, somehow she managed to record the messages well. Basically, the messages Gladys received were quite similar to Fatima's -- the world is at risk, time is running out, evil has taken over, 2/3 of humanity has turned away from God and must be saved (p.s. 1/3 of world population are Christians!), pray to bring non-believers back to the fold, prayer is powerful, rosary is a good weapon, etc. The themes were focused on prayers, repentance, conversion, devotion to the Rosary, and the need for peace in the world. Unlike in Fatima, there was no specific mention of corruption in the Church. 

As in the miracles of Fatima, in Gladys' vision, Mother Mary wanted a sanctuary be built for her. She desired to be with her 'children' and for the sanctuary to be a place to spread out the words for a return to God. Gladys was shown a precise place to locate the sanctuary. The foundation for chapel of Our Lady of Rosary of San Nicolas was laid in 1989. The chapel has been built but it is still an ongoing development work to cope with the ever growing number of visitors who make pilgramage to the sanctuqary every year. Every year on 25th September the township hosts hundreds of thousands who turn up to commemorate the visitation of Our Lady of Rosary. It's popularity is bolstered by anecdotes of healings and divine manifestations of various kinds.

The messages and apparitions were subjected to a lengthy investigation by the Catholic Church. After careful study and consideration, the local bishop, Bishop Héctor Cardelli, officially approved the authenticity of the apparitions on May 22, 2016.

One of the messages read:

"Today the world is confused, very confused.  Evil appears to be the only solution. Mankind is being lead by Satan to the deepest of the abysses, to the total condemnation of the soul. Fortunate those that want to see clear in their hearts.  Fortunate those that stop to meditate.  Fortunate those that are lead by the Mother. Glory be to the Eternal one."

It's up to self to determine whether the lightning stike is a fluke of nature, or a timely sign or warning from God or Mother Mary, about the pope, or perhaps it was a message to Bergolio. Amen.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

RIDING THE PANDEMIC TIGER IN A POLYCRISIS

Hi. If you reached this page, you must have been directed here from my Facebook link. 
To go to the original post, please click here.

RIDING THE PANDEMIC TIGER IN A POLYCRISIS

A polycrisis is a situation where several crises take place at the same time. The various crises may or may not be intersecting. Unless one is living in a cave, it is impossible not to be conscious of multiple crises that are currently affecting humanity globally. The bombardment of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, and suppression of facts, by the public, the state, and media, makes for a bewildering complication of entangled clusterfuck beyond the average guy to unravel and discern the truth.

Rahm Emanuel, one time Obama adviser, famously said during the 2008 financial turmoil to "never let a crisis go to waste". He reprised the quote in 2020 relating to the pandemic. The origin of this quote is unknown, but Emanuel has embellished the Democrats with the proclivity to spin every crisis for political advantage. Quick to see opportunities for weaponising the Covid-19 crisis, Democrats mounted the pandemic tiger early and found fellowship in riders of profiteers, power-seekers, a dumpster truckful load of sycophantic opportunists and some good-intentioned do-gooders whose knee jerk reaction to the fear mongering shut down their ability for critical thinking.

It is very unfortunate that under the excuse of preventing misinformation, many states have clamped down on, and discouraged even academic discussions, and chosen instead to rely on narratives and circular justifications from the very parties that originated the crises, themselves becoming agents of disinformation. The consequence is officialdom the world over is finding itself very late on the curve against a tide of rising excess deaths and stupendous incidence of vaccine-induced medical conditions many scientists warned years earlier. Having painted themselves to a corner, and unable to admit policy miss-steps, the alternative is to stick to indefensible positions on the vaccines, and suppress or manipulate data and emerging new evidence.

To have a better understanding of the Covid-19 pandemic, one needs to step back and take in a big picture view.

Types of drugs - Chemical-based, biologics and mRNA vaccines:

Chemical-based drugs have been the cornerstone of modern medicine. These traditional small molecule drugs are produced through chemical synthesis in a laboratory. The production process is more straightforward and typically involves a series of chemical reactions to produce the final compound. Advantages of chemical-based drugs are more predictable behavior, easier to reproduce, regulatory process somewhat more streamlined, more often cheaper than those produced by biologics, chemical synthesis process is typically well-established and easier to scale. Traditional chemical-based pharmas produce a wide range of drugs, including those for chronic conditions.

Biotech pharmas focus on developing biologic products derived from living organisms. Biologics are large, complex molecules such as proteins, antibodies, or nucleic acids that are typically produced using biotechnology methods like genetic engineering. Living cells are cultured and genetically modified to produce the desired therapeutic proteins. This process is complex, requires sophisticated bioreactors,  strict control of environmental conditions, stringent regulatory scrutiny, extensive clinical testing and a demonstration of safety, efficacy, and manufacturing consistency. Thus longer timelines for development and higher costs. Biotech companies focus on specialized and cutting-edge therapies, and in cases where small molecule drugs are less effective.

The SARS-Cov2 virus has a large protein on its exterior called the spike-protein. This spike protein attaches to the ACE2 receptor of cells and facilitates the entry of the genome of the virus to enter the cell where it then produces more viruses. Biotech pharma produces synthetic RNA which are molecules of ribonucleic acid that carries a long string of nucleotides. The messenger type of RNA (mRNA) is encased in lipid nanoparticles and injected into the arm muscles where it enters our cells. The mRNA is basically a code that makes our DNA to get the cells to produce the spike proteins of the virus. The mRNA vaccines such as those from Pfizer and Moderna are considered as biologics because they manufacture living organisms although production takes place in our bodies. 

Big pharmas protect profits with M&A model:

Pharmas spend huge sums of money on R&D hoping for a block-buster money-spinner drug where their patent gives them exclusivity for a number of years. Patents depend on jurisdictions and generally could be for 20 years. However, since patents commence on date of registration and it takes years for a product to be developed. tested and ready for market, pharmas actually have probably about 10-12 years exclusivity to sell. Sometimes, for various reasons, the patent could be extended, giving pharmas additional years of exclusivity. When patents run out, many smaller pharmas cash in on the generic market at much cheaper prices. Big pharmas protect their market by buying up smaller pharmas via mergers and acquisitions. This has resulted in the market being monopolised by several too-big-to-fail Big Pharmas. There are now only 10-20 big names in the business which include Pfizer, J&J, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Takeda, etc.

The patent cliff:

The patent cliff in the pharma industry is used to describe the time when a patent runs out and the companies' cashflow from its exclusivity of the branded drug comes to an end. According to a study by Ernst & Young, the top 20 pharmas have about US$180b sales at stake between now and 2028 when many brands hit the patent cliff.

The M&A route of protection is now not possible as traditional small pharmas have all been acquired. Big pharmas now turn to acquisition of small biotech companies especially those with promises of hitting a block-bluster biologic drug. The same big pharmas are themselves also switching into R&D and production of biologic drugs.

Unlike chemical-based drugs, biologics are impossible to replicate. Competitors cannot make generics and are compelled to make 'biosimilar' products. Biologic drugs are complex, large-molecule medications derived from living organisms, and even slight variations between different brands can potentially impact their safety and effectiveness. A biosimilar drug is not an identical drug, which means a patient's treatment cannot be interchanged without consequence. Unlike generics which can replace a branded product. With processes a well guarded secret, a biologic brand does not suffer the fate of cheap generic competition the way chemical-based drugs do when they reach the patent cliff. This gives Big pharmas first mover advantage with a captive market. Thus with biologic drugs, the problems of patent cliff no longer matters. This is the underlying reason Big pharmas have focused on a paradigm shift to biologics in the past two decades.

The problem with biologics:

But if the paradigm shift to biologics and buying up biotech companies is Big pharmas' reaction to counter the looming tectonic patent cliff, it doesn't come problem-free.

Gene therapy is one of the new medical advances that is the thrust of biologics. We can look at traditional chemical-based medicine as treating immune systems at a general approach whereas gene therapy is a precision-driven technology aimed at specific cells of the body. CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), is the most popular gene editing biotechnology of the time. In simple terms, CRISPR is editing the genomes in a way like a html coder edit some software codes by deleting or inserting some parts. CRISPR is still in its nascent stage for applications. The science has to deal with unresolved ethical issues. The technology often silences and activates genes it isn’t meant to, leading to adverse effects such as cancer.

The mRNA Covid-19 vaccines have often been wrongly accused as gene therapy. It is not. While the technology of mRNA vaccines is long well-understood, associated excess risk of serious adverse effects, especially myocarditis and cancer, were also known but not well-studied even up to the time they were rolled out for Covid-19.

Biologics deal with living microorganisms. They need to be cultured which takes time and requires specialty bioreactors. There are issues of contamination, storage and transportation because the micro-organisms are very thermally unstable. Because of its dangerous nature, regulatory requirements are more stringent. Much longer time is needed for testing. Bottom line is, although it is easy to manufacture and scale, it is more costly to develop and satisfy regulatory requirements.

Biologics/biotech cannot be rushed to market under conventional regulatory framework and timeline under which most medicine development currently operates.

It is also difficult to persuade consumers that an unpredictable, highly technical drug is safe and effective without the necessary number of years testing it.

Big pharmas, Big money, solve Big problems:

Step one - buy out the regulators.
Today, the WHO is a discredited, captured institution. Many have wrongly claimed WHO is 80% funded by private money. This is incorrect. According to WHO, in 2019 member states contributed 51% of the funds, UN and inter-government organisations 16%, Private donors contributed 33%. In 2020 Trump pulled US out of WHO for poor handling of the pandemic and unwillingness to hold China accountable. This shocked the organisation as US is a major contributor of some 16%.  In the same year, Biden reversed that decision. Of the private donors, Bill Gates via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and GAVI is the single biggest donor of some 17%. Through his vehicles, GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), Bill Gates plays a formidable role in WHO policy making.

Big pharmas and philanthropy capitalism contribute in monetary terms in opaque ways that do not show up in the financials to avoid displays of conflict of interests. This is done via direct funding dollars in various projects including many in management consultancies in WHO which has been on a non-stop decades of reform efforts to beef up structures, operation, and finance.  These reform efforts are well known, often ridiculed internally, and have fatigued staff. By these means, Bill Gates have embedded himself as a power house in global health matters.

Step two - buy out the key players.
To name names may be defamatory. But what is very obvious is the rotating doors and built-in silo networks.

WHO's Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has had long association with Bill Gates during his years as Minister of Health in Ethopia. Of significance during his tenure was the cover up of 3 cholera outbreaks which were reclassified as acute watery diarrhoea (AWD) for political purposes. Sounds familiar?  There is no proof that Gates endorsed Tedross' candidacy for Director General in 2017 but his inputs no doubt mattered. 

Jeremy Farrar, founder of CEPI and former director of the Wellcome Trust (both of which are large funders of the WHO), became Chief Scientist of WHO in 2022.

Of the 15 members on the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE), 13 came from Wellcome Trust or NGOs and institutions funded by Bill Gates or the Gates Foundation. Wellcome Trust is one of the biggest philanthropic foundations in the world managing USD39b endownment fund. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust are two outstanding funders of WHO and they are heavily invested in the various Big pharmas whose products they push. 

Pharmaceutical veteran Moncef Slaoui who once head GSK's vaccine division, and a director of Moderna, ran Operation Warp Speed.

Robert Peter Kadlec, a physician and career officer in the US Air Force, was Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (Preparedness and Response). His past activities included lobbyist for intelligence and defense contractors, lobbyist for the scandal-ridden biodefense company Emergent Biosolutions, which is also a major player in Operation Warp Speed as well as the manufacturer of the controversial anthrax vaccine BioThrax. Kadlec was architect of the controversial April update to the PREP Act. Per STAT News, Kadlec “personally signs off” on every business agreement made on behalf of HHS for Operation Warp Speed. 

Step three - shorten the time to bring a drug to market.
This was achieved with (1) a fast-tracked development under the Pentagon–run Operation Warp Speed, (2) legally authorized by the FDA’s EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), and (3) the WHO's EUL (Emergency Use List).

Operation Warp Speed is a public-private partnership launched to rapidly develop and distribute a Covid-19 vaccine. It is run by military (DOD) and security (HHS) personnel which parceled out US$6b for the Covid vaccines. The reason for military involvement was for its expertise in logistics and supply chain management expertise. The government had no direct contact with Big pharmas. Procurement was via a secretive company ATI (Advanced Technology International) which was later acquired by ANSER (Analytic Services Inc). These are CIA, military and home security contractors. The reason for this layer of contracting is to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reach of FOIA queries so the public will have no access to any information. It was a de facto military operation under the guise of a medical exigency.

Traditionally, medical products are allowed to be marketed after it has received FDA approval which is a strenuous process. EUA was legislated in 2004 to fast track medical products for release to the market without FDA approval. The purpose of EUA was to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiation threats. It was never intended for a national health response. The EUA was in response to the 2001 Anthrax attack in America. Two EUAs were issued in 2008 and 2016 for doxycycline products for post-anthrax exposure, These EUAs are still standing.

Have EUAs been issued for civilians for non chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiation threats? Hell, yes. In 2009, two previously approved flu medications Tamiflu and Relenza, and a new drug, Rapivab, were given EUA for the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. This expired in 2010. 

During the MERS outbreak in 2013/2014, EUAs were issued for 2 diagnostic tests. These EUAs are still active. From 2014 to 2018, the FDA issued 11 EUAs were issued during 2014-2018 for Ebola diagnostic tests. 10 of these EUAs are still active, only one product was subsequently cleared for market. 20 EUAs were issued from 2016-2017 for diagnostic tests for Zika. Only 4 were subsequently allowed on the market, 1 was withdrawn, 1 was discontinued, and 14 EUAs remain active.

Pharmas are provided huge incentives after pandemic to transition products from EUA to FDA approval for general market. So why has there been so few successful transitions? Is it because the additional cost of further research and development to gain FDA approval far outweighs the revenue expected? Or could it be those products never worked or have very low efficacy, or in fact present heavy risks in the first place? These are issues never raised nor studied.

One of the conditions for EUA is that there must be NO existing medical product that can be used for the pathogen. And that is the reason why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had to be high-handedly blocked out by western governments during the Covid-19 pandemic. Other countries simply aped them.

Just like the FDA in US, the WHO has it's own stringent standards for recommending medical products. For the Covid pandemic, the WHO initiated the EUL to facilitate pharmas that want to promote their vaccines for international use. To do so they need to register their product on the EUL. Although the role of WHO in this case is purely advisory, the EUL provides a veneer of product authenticity to the rest of the world.

Step four - legislate to protect Big pharmas.
Vaccine manufacturers bear heavy responsibility for ensuring product safety. The medical negligence history is rife with pharmas getting hit with massive payout for injuries caused. The Prep Act of 2005 was to provide protection to vaccine manufacturers and a few weeks before Operation Warp Speed was announced, the Act was updated.to ensure therapeutic manufacturers “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries caused by medical countermeasures for Covid-19. This of course works in the US jurisdiction. Sales to other jurisdictions are of course covered by contracts, which many have suggested carry a 'no public liability' clause.

Follow the money:

Pfizer made $35 billion, while competitors BioNTech and Moderna raked in $20 billion each in 2021 and 2022. Bill Gates turned his $55 million investment in BioNTech into $550 million.

Moderna had produced zero drugs before the pandemic. By 2020 it was on the verge of financial collapse. But just weeks after the virus’s sequence had been shared by Chinese scientists, Moderna had a promising Covid-19 vaccine using mRNA technology. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel practically begged everywhere for new capital injection. It was only in May when Morgan Stanley agreed to pump in US$1.34b that Moderna finally was able to start mass production. By end 2021, the company was worth US$135b.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with an endownment of US$67b, and Wellcome Trust with US$45b, are 2 of the biggest foundations in the world. Wellcome Trust was started by the founders of GlaxoSmithKline. Both play enormous roles in funding and policy decisions in WHO. Although technically the two are philantropic organisations, in reality they are active philanthropic capitalists. There is deep conflict of interest in the role they play at WHO and the fact they are heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry.

Temasek invested US$250m in BioNtech during the Covid-19 vaccine development stage. This in no way suggests Temasek has an influence on MOH policies. Similarly many other corporate and investment houses, including Blackrock, are passive investors in pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins, along with other NIH scientists, receive royalties from pharmaceutical companies for the development of drugs and vaccines. It is a known and accepted practice for the roles they play in research and development although a clear case of conflict of interest exists. There have been many unsupported reports they benefitted handsomely. FOIA returns prove nothing as they are heavily redacted.

In his nicely titled book “Pandemic, Inc. Chasing the Capitalists and Thieves Who Got Rich While We Got Sick”, David McSwane wrote of how Covid-19 became a boon to entrepreneurs to people who have access to essential medical supplies, or even just pretending to, became “an unexpected ticket to riches” early in the pandemic, when fears were high and government money was up for grabs. Of course, there certainly were many business persons with good intentions who chipped in to assist. Here in Singapore we had NMP Calvin Cheng who played a role in helping procure Covid-19 vaccines through his company Ensunus. His company focuses on health, wellness, and pharmaceuticals, and was involved in distributing the vaccines. No doubt, a WEF alumnus in the right place at the right time. Ensunus' contribution was in the logistics and distribution. It certainly was not philantrophy. We just don't know his monetary returns other than the Public Service medal he was awarded for his work. For his good work, Cheng earned the right to condemn non-vaxxers whom he recommended be sent to jail. Was that coming from scientific belief in the efficacy of the vaccine, or vested vested interest? Not to forget the failed 'Trace" fiasco. Did someone milk something out of it?

According to McSwane, in the pandemic, vaccines and related businesses created 500 new millionaires and several new billionaires, like Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, BioNTech co-founder Uğur Şahin, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla

Towards a permanent pandemic market:

WHO failed in their May 2024 dateline to pass the Pandemic Treaty. Singapore, together with many members of WHO, participated actively to negotiate and craft the treaty. In the May 2024 vote, Singapore did not support  the draft. The proposed treaty has not been killed, only the date has been pushed further.

The stated idea for the WHO pandemic treaty is to prevent the shortcomings experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic from recurring. There are several areas of contention related to national sovereignty, equity, private sector influence, and complex global dynamics. While official state representatives try to find common ground on these critical issues, the WHO faces a growing public distrust. Several countries and 23 states in the US have made their views known - they will not comply even when the treaty is passed.

The One Health agenda of the pandemic treaty betrays the true nature of the globalist objective.

Max Jones, investigative journalist : "From a business perspective, the One Health agenda would create a cyclical market built on two dominant principles: constant surveillance of pathogens with “pandemic potential,” and R&D on medical countermeasures to these pathogens. This R&D then comes to market through the implementation of regulatory policies for the development and distribution of unapproved, experimental medical products. The recently approved IHR (International Health Regulations) amendments have already cemented these principles into international law. The continued drafting of the WHO CA+ seeks to as well."

Member states will then be legally required to build infrastructure to conduct biosurveillance on entire populations.

Big pharmas with big money solve their big problem of patent cliff that they saw decades ago by taking over the regulatory agency WHO. Globalists and socialists jump on the pandemic tiger for they can see what's on the golden platter -- the mass of proletariats cowed into submission. The sycophants such as media, understand who are the ones paying the piper's bills. They all understand Dr Faucci perfectly when he said :

“It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.”

What will it take for folks to wake up:

In 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum and Gates Foundation, carried out a simulation exercise for a devastating coronavirus pandemic. A few months later, Covid-19 broke out.

In March 2021 at the Munich Security Conference, under the auspices of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a panel of 19 experts comprising of officials from US and China, UN, WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Big Pharmas, simulated a bioattack. This was sponsored by Dustin Muscovitch, co-founder of Facebook. The simulation was based on a secret release of a lab-engineered monkeypox virus that eventually killed 271 million people in a worldwide 19-month pandemic.  The simulation timed the bioattack on May 15, 2022. In the same week, the first international outbreak of monkey pox was reported outside of Africa.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.