Where major corporations are investing, guest blogger Michael Smith

"If you are paying attention, you do not need an army of analysts or a divining rod to find water here.

Meat prices at the grocery store are going up - and yet the price on the hoof is not. As a matter of fact, many cattle producers are caught in a squeeze and losing money on a per head basis. I saw a report a few weeks ago that noted the retail businesses have a profit margin of about $30 per head of cattle while the meat processor’s margin is around $1000 per head. The rancher’s margin? Between $10 a head and loss of $30, depending on the timing of the sale.

How does that work? The answer is that it does not.

 
The meat processing industry is controlled by four companies, Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef, that process 80% of all slaughtered animals and because access to processing is so limited, you either sell to them or one of their agents or you do not sell at all. Why would the meat processors be putting so much pressure on the producers of protein on the hoof?

Well, at present, three of the four major processors have gone woke, adopting the ESG methods of corporate control. Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance data refers to metrics related to intangible assets within the enterprise, roughly equivalent to China’s Social Credit System (that ranks citizens and punishes them with throttled internet speeds and flight bans if the Communist Party deems them untrustworthy).

And a good ESG score means you must believe in anthropogenic climate change. The “climate scientists” at the UN have determined that livestock production, especially raising cattle, generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent than transportation. In 2006, senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said, “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cow farts are killing us.

Why would meat processors be destroying their own businesses?

They really are not. They will still process cattle, but the meat will be far more expensive, a luxury for most – but where these companies are putting their investments is telling – fake meat. Each of these companies are pouring millions into research and development of plant-based protein meat substitutes.
Plant-based? Is it any wonder why Bill Gates is the largest private owner of farm land in the United States?

Several large investment firms are buying up single family homes. BlackRock, the largest asset management firm on the planet with over $9 trillion in assets, and other money institutions buying up single-family homes as quickly as they can at rates higher than the average homebuyer is willing to pay. Of course, taking homes off the market by overpaying for them, drives overall home prices up.
Why? Well first, these investment firms can borrow money at historically low rates, even lower than any individual home buyer, but the goal is more insidious - BlackRock and others are causing a shift from home ownership to renting (BlackRock is also the third largest institutional shareholder in the "engineered meat" producer, Beyond Meat).

 
Renting degrades the economy for lower and middle class folks while limiting their upward financial mobility by robbing them of the equity increases home ownership typically brings. This is not just BlackRock, Bloomberg just published an article claiming that “America should become a nation of renters”, further stating “The very features that made houses an affordable and stable investment are coming to an end.”

This idea, coupled with BlackRock’s actions, simply points to a commoditization of the housing market and a consolidation into corporate control of the foundational asset of the American family, their own home. It represents the loss of individual control of another asset class and a created dependence on corporations for the most basic of needs, shelter.

Now, add to that the control over media and the fact the Internet Overlords and Social Media Commissars have become agents of the federal government and the Democrat Party, and you have a pretty good idea of where the corporations and the big investors think we are going.

Biden's government continues its radical eco-agenda. Aside from being implicated tree spiking in the Pacific Northwest, an ecoterrorist act, and support for government enforced population control, Biden's horrific nominee to run the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning, is notoriously anti-cattle grazing rights on federal lands. In her graduate thesis, Stone-Manning wrote:

"The origin of our abuses is us. If there were fewer of us, we would have less impact. We must consume less, and more importantly, we must breed fewer consuming humans."

The thesis also goes on to claim that cattle grazing on public lands is "destroying the West."
While not busying himself with mumbling incoherently, creepily whispering to reporters and lying about the Constitution, Dementia Joe is shutting down pipeline construction and cutting off oil leases on public lands.

What could go wrong?

Pick any dystopian novel or movie production – Blade Runner, Alien, Fahrenheit 451, Soylent Green, even The Fifth Element – all feature a future managed and controlled by marriages between corporations and governments and people dependent upon that unholy marriage for housing and sustenance.

 
This is a future being created today in the boardrooms and halls of government - and a one that is entirely avoidable.

They say science fiction will become science fact.

Let us hope not.

Remember – Soylent Green is people."

*     *    *

Glenn Beck has also done extensive research on the problem,  https://youtu.be/PQTbpJl2-Ho  seeing it as an extension of the Obama fundamental transformation.  The great reset.

Noem: State-Inspected Meat Processors Can Sell Out of State | South Dakota News | US News

Chinese middle class buying up American residential real estate (cnbc.com)

Herman Cain looks at the “good works” for blacks since Obama took office

“If Michelle Nunn wins that means Democrats keep control of the Senate and we can keep on doing some good works.” Barack Obama

Let’s look at the numbers (in all cases giving you the most recent numbers I could get):

• The median income for blacks in 2013 was $34,598. It was $35,387 in 2009.
• In 2013 the number of blacks living under the poverty line -- roughly $12,000 for an individual – rose to more than 11 million. In all, 27.2 percent of blacks were living in poverty in 2013. In 2009, roughly 9.9 million blacks (25.8 of all blacks) lived below the poverty level.
• Non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 37.4 percent of the total federal and state prison population in 2013. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks are 13.2 percent of the U.S. population.
• 43 percent of blacks owned their own home in 2013. The rate was 46.1 percent in the first quarter of 2009.
• Black students had a high school graduation rate of 69 percent in 2011-12. The rate was 66.1 percent in 2009-10.
• From 2009 to 2011, the number of black workers earning only the minimum wage swelled by 16.6 percent, while the same number for whites rose by only 5.2 percent.

http://www.caintv.com/black-stats-obama-doesnt-want

Here’s a myth that helped create our housing crisis

“Homeport Programs at Columbus Housing Partnership is a private, nonprofit organization founded in the belief that a decent and affordable home is the cornerstone of family life and a healthy community.”

1) When you see the word HOUSING linked with NONPROFIT, it means government grants fund it, or the government provides tax incentives to foundations, churches or private companies like Nationwide or Huntington to help fund it.

2) PARTNERSHIP means that rather than private developers bringing their skills and resources to the neighborhood, they are encouraged to “invest” in a corporation offering tax credits where the money will first be used by the CHP to pay its staff and office expenses before it selects the builders and unions that will “redevelop” poor neighborhoods, most of whom will be making political donations to the Democratic party or the Mayor or city councilmen.

3) The mortgage industry and the construction trades may be private non-governmental businesses, but they are the biggest beneficiaries of the government's experiment of putting low-income families in mortgages they can‘t possibly afford, rather than rental property they can afford until they can develop home ownership and budgeting skills, can learn a few home repairs, or save enough for a down payment and all the expenses that go along with ownership.

4) DECENT doesn’t mean cheap. Home Again, a Columbus rehabbing project of $25,000,000, in one year (2006) did 96 roof repairs costing nearly $1,500,000. That’s nearly $14,000 a piece in crumbling neighborhoods of small houses 70-80 years old with poor streets, utilities and public schools. After Hurricane Ike a damaged church in affluent Upper Arlington with a huge roof had it replaced (not repaired) for $5,200.

5) AFFORDABLE in government housing speak means money has been transferred from tax-payer abc to entitlement receiver xyz, but many in that chain are not poor--they are staffers in government backed programs and agencies (like HUD, USDA, HDAP, OHFA COHHIO) earning good salaries, with excellent benefits and job security, which is why the programs must be continuously expanded.

6) FAMILY LIFE may be a single mom with several children. Does she really need a mortgage to add to the burdens the government has already imposed on her and the children? Like limits on her income or savings if she is to qualify for health care or nutrition supplements. The housing money would be better spent on job training and moving the children to charter schools, or a small private van service to get her to a good supermarket outside her unsafe neighborhood (but with repaired roofs).

Dear Reader, do you think the households of Andrew Weiner or Arnold Schwarzenegger are “healthy?” What about their “communities” that are circling the wagons defending them?

A house is shelter. Period. It should not be turned into a government experiment in economics, morality or education, nor an evangelization vehicle for churches.

Home ownership is not a path to wealth

It might be the American dream (soured a bit recently), but it's not a path to wealth, unless you buy it with the intention of selling at a profit, or build it for others to buy, or finance the mortgage for others to pay you back, or own stock in Fannie or Fred, or rent it with someone else paying the mortgage, real estate taxes, insurance and repairs plus a percentage for your risk. Poor people aren't poor because they don't own homes, and they won't become wealthy by signing up for a government deal with no money down (you can still do that with many government programs despite what we learned in 2007-2008). In fact, you can be rich and lose it all, and will have nothing to do with your house, but everything to do with your values (lazy, rude, promiscuous), your bad habits (alcohol, drugs), your health (something you may or may not control) or your marriage (many women become instantly poor after a divorce--it's much more common than "she took me to the cleaners" story--and if she's smart, she won't accept the house in the settlement of assets).

What is a path to wealth is the life style you choose, or should choose, when you become a home owner. You're choosing neighbors, schools, playmates for the kids, distance from employment, public transportation, access to highways, parks and leisure opportunities. Don't renters do that? Not so much--their values are different. Will they be voting in the school or library bond issues, will they complain to the city or the landlord if the trash isn't picked up or the streets not cleared of snow? Like the new employee, the renter isn't "vested." He can move on--he's got his eye on a different ball.

Drive through any high-end suburban neighborhood of any city (I live in Columbus). Look at the people north of Dublin or east of Easton. Do you really think the 30 year old out there trimming the rose bushes got to a $750,000-$1,000,000 house by buying a "starter" in the city and then moving up? Really? With college loans? Car payments? If he's 30, he probably had family help, either for the house down payment or for the college tuition that got him that $150,000 job managing a business. If he's 50, he's probably moved around taking advantage of more responsibility at higher pay with each move. The house is just a symbol of values--hard work, discipline, and genes--it's not wealth building like investing, starting a business, inheritance, or honing your athletic skills and being first pick in the draft (become a millionaire at 19).

We have owned four homes as primary residences (2 in Champaign, IL and 2 in Columbus), and one as a "second home." We haven't had a mortgage in many years. But we are here, not wealthy but comfortable, because the first home we bought was a duplex, and we rented half, invested sweat equity in remodeling, were willing to live in a less than desirable neighborhood, didn't go into marriage with debts, saved when we could, lived on one income even when we had two, didn't take vacations other than visiting relatives until we'd been married 14 years, and got help from our parents.

However much your primary home appreciates, your next place will probably eat that up. You have to live somewhere. Just don't use your equity by thinking your home is a bank that won't come after you.

How ACORN hurts the poor

and scams the middle class. ACORN isn't the only non-profit accepting government money to put people in "affordable homes." They and others, including some well-meaning church groups, contributed to the sub-prime housing failure, which has its roots in the myth that "everyone deserves to own their own home," and the even bigger myth that homeownership is the key to wealth, and therefore banks need to look the other way if minorities or single parents or speculators apply. I've been a homeowner since 1962. We bought a duplex in Champaign, IL with my father's help (his grandmother helped him, and we've helped our children), and although it was a hassle being a landlord, it allowed us to afford something better and make a car payment a few years later. Even so, without his help, we would have done it eventually. But always with 20% down and no more than 1/3 of our income (a wife's income didn't count in the formula in the 1960s) in housing costs. Real income.

That's not how ACORN does it. There are very few foreclosures among people and banks who used the old rules. See the data on negative equity. Foreclosures are very high for no interest loans and accepting government benefits as income. Here's ACORN's website:

With AHC you get:

Lower down payments and closing costs.
No Private Mortage Insurance.
Banks generally require 3 months of mortgage payments in the bank at settlement, but
With our program, they don't, which allows you to buy a home sooner.
Most banks won't count public assistance or voluntarily child support in determining if you'll qualify for a mortgage, but
With our program, all steady income counts.

They are still using that failed formula, but now they are accepting government money to run foreclosure workshops to "help" the people they "helped" the first time around, even though it has been shown that most of those people will fail the second time around too. They really couldn't afford the home ACORN got for them, or didn't want the sacrifices necessary to own a home. But President Obama owes ACORN big time--and no one in his administration will stop this double and triple scamming.

There are many ways to make up that 3 months of mortgage payment in the bank to qualify for a decent bank mortgage--and believe me, you'll need that discipline if you want to be a homeowner--

give up smoking
stop eating out
give up manicures and hair weaves
give up the cell phones
drop your cable subsciption or go to basic-basic
go to the library for your movies
don't lease your furniture or car
learn a few fix-up skills and do your own work
put your family on a cash only budget

and I'm guessing this is not taught to wannabe home owners by ACORN because then the people wouldn't need the hand holding and would become strong and resilient.

The purpose of a house

By poking around in the Plum Book for 2004, I think I've found the root of the housing problem. The government. The Plum Book explains the 7,000 Federal civil service positions, so as soon as the next one is published, Democrats will be all over it like flies on honey to see what's up for grabs. So anyway, I was browsing the Assistant Secretary for Administration of HUD, and came across the Center for Faith Based Initiatives and its Director, Ryan Streeter. Found this dandy little article by him about a viable return on housing investments (by the government) that he'd done for ROMA, Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA), U. S. Department of Health and Human Services in August 2001. He says there are two purposes for housing programs, but that they came about with no overarching plan (surprise!):

(1) There is the conventional view that says housing programs are a good in themselves, and
(2) There is the (more recent) perspective that says housing programs should promote the economic self-sufficiency of the people they serve.

Most federal housing is #1--designed to be shelter, with little plan or thought about the client's long term need. Block grants for shelter or for rehab or construction. But in the last 20 years (can we all say CRA?) HUD began to think more about self-sufficiency combining supportive services with housing services to get people off welfare (can we all say Republicans?). "These have become much more common in recent years. Approximately 1,200 local housing authorities sponsor a Family Self-Sufficiency program."

Of course, Mr. Streeter, continues, #2 is waaaaay more complex (and expensive) than #1. What he says the client gets is very vague--something about not living in an unstable environment and possibly increasing wealth if he becomes a homeowner. The other parties to this transaction are definitely not poor--they are developers, investors, contractors, the real estate market, surrounding homeowners and finally, we taxpayers. In other words, the government housing programs are a lot like the food assistance programs--they do a lot more for the producers than they do for the poor.

Ask yourselves how this has worked out in your own life. Unless you purchased investment/rental property, or were a home flipper in the last housing boom, owning a home didn't do diddly squat for your wealth. You think it did because of the home sale prices, but because of inflation and everything you poured into the house that you wouldn't if you had been a tenent, you are lucky to break even let alone accumulate wealth. What owning a home did for my family was provide shelter, a good school district for the kids, nice neighbors, a life style that suit my tastes and education, and a lot of job opportunities for other people in the housing field--real estate agents, plumbers, electricians, animal and pest control, house painters, pavers, lawn services, tree trimmers, and window salesmen.

We live in a lovely condo complex now with beautiful vistas, trees, ravine and creek, because in 1962 we purchased a dump--a 1912 duplex in a mixed zoning neighborhood in Champaign, Illinois. The student renters paid the mortgage, allowing us to eventually move out, rent both units and get a nicer place, plus have enough left to make a car payment. All other wealth we have accumulated in 48 years has come from salaries, savings, inheritance, and investments (one really strange one where we bought a building lot on a lake in Indiana for $10,000 and sold it the next year for $25,000 not putting a penny into it, except the guy who mowed the weeds, and never spending one night there.) We paid $28,500 for our Abington Rd. home in 1968, sold it in 2002 for $325,000 and paid $275,000 for this one. But we lived on Abington 34 years, put about $170,000 into various additions and remodeling, to say nothing of the general maintenance and decorating (taking out trees, putting up fences, taking down fences, putting in drive-way, replacing garage doors, fixing gas line leaks, rewiring the mess the previous owners had made, building closets everywhere (no basement or attic), treating carpenter ants, treating termites, mopping up after flooded toilets or washing machines, replacing things in the 90s that we'd replaced in the 60s, etc. We paid fees to sell it, and then had to put money into the condo to redecorate brown walls and red ceilings, bring it up to code with insulation, and got hit with a $7,000 roof assessment the first year. Just last week we had someone here to replace some rotting wood on the deck.

No, whether you do it for yourselves, for your children, for your parents, or the government does it for a low income mom with children from several boyfriends, you don't change lives through housing subsidies or grants. Take a tour through any prison, hospital, school or nursing home, and you'll see that it is not the building that changes lives or educates or makes people well. It's the same with us.

Now, will someone tell the government. Someone might need help with safe, comfortable shelter, but they probably don't need the nanny state trying to babysit and redirect their lives.