(For those who say I just don’t get it…get this!)

There have been very few in the media whether it’s business, financial, thought leadership, et cetera that have the ability to have their insights, of any type, aired across the media unless they are either 1) Contracted to submit a certain amount of content for publication. i.e. A weekly or daily column for example. Or 2) They pay via some prearranged agreement, whether it be direct payment, or some “exclusivity” styled arrangement where actual money doesn’t exchange, yet both benefit in other ways that is mutually understood between the parties.. i.e., Not paid, yet reciprocally helps either sell ads, tickets, magazines, clicks, whatever. This is the arrangement for most “celebrity” styled “insights” you’ll find across most media today.

There’s another way, although it is far harder with far less “celebrity” attached to it, but it is the “gold standard,” if you will. And that is when your insights are published around the world, on the largest media outlets – because they found you and thought it worthy on its own merits. This is a very select group of business people who can claim they are in this category, which I am fortunate to be one of.

If I may speak candidly: I’m probably one of the most widely published business experts most have never heard of. But I’m not concerned about a mass audience per se. The audience I care about are those that are looking truly looking for pragmatic insights they can use, which is you dear reader.

I’m not claiming I’m always correct, but what I am saying is that I’m also one of the very few that had the chutzpah to dare question, or call out, many of these famous names publicly and have those insights carried, again, across the largest media venues globally.

Not in a disrespectful way, but in a questioning way that held business pragmatic or insight at the forefront. Politics, ad hominem, or any other type of scathing rebuke has never been my style, nor should it be. But calling a-spade-a-spade is what is needed more than ever in business today – not more hype for what’s “hot.”

So, with the above said and in concert with the horse Justify winning the Belmont, therefore winning the Triple Crown, I would like to offer up three calls that I made, which at the time, were received with complete derision and more across many media outlets. However, now in retrospect, one can see a bit more clearly.

Race 1) Social Media:

I stated from the beginning that the only ones making money on social media were those (i.e., Guru’s) telling/selling you that you needed it. As of today everything you spent and learned trying to develop your social media presence is either no longer relevant or useful, meaning – it’s all been a complete sinkhole of wasted expenses and wasted time you may never (more probably never) recoup.

This statement has moved from the hypothetical category of argument of where it began a few years ago, to an argument of fact with the revelations that have been coming forth at a dizzying pace. The “buzzword” now being bandied across boardrooms everywhere when someone brings up the question of “What should we do next concerning our current social media presence and/or strategy?” Hint: “Delete it.”

If you want to make money in this post social everything environment, I’ll give one idea that could be worth $Millions, at no charge. Here it is:

Start selling ways for companies to feel confident they can/should cancel or negate their current social media expenditures and get back to making sales the old-fashioned way by making one customer happy so that they tell a friend. Do that one thing – and the world is your oyster.

And just a reminder – I’ve never used social, of any type. since the beginning, which makes my arguments that more pointed.

Race 2) Daring to call out some of my own contemporaries in the motivation space. e.g., Tony Robbins, Suze Orman, et al.

When I first addressed my concerns for what I was hearing when it came to the new “financial” or “real estate” insights that were being bandied across not only many a mainstream business/financial outlet, but also from stages across the U.S. and Canada I made my thoughts about it very clear. I thought what was being professed would turn out to be more detrimental to those following it than it would be beneficial. Again, this was met with derision. Then the results began to bear fruit – and it seems it’s all been rotting.

As of this writing home prices in Toronto alone, with Chicago being much the same, if not worse (for those not familiar here’s a link to help explain) have plunged 22% compared to one year ago. Some as high as 30% according to the Toronto Real Estate Board.

Here’s a bit of what I said in that prior article, you know, when everything was just “red-hot” and all the “Guru’s” were now touting it. To wit:

“However, since I’m also in the business/motivation business let me offer you up this little tidbit of caution if you’re planning on attending one of these so-called “wealth” seminars. And it’s this…

As you jump, cheer, and shout as Tony or any other speaker there screams from the stage for you to shout in unison, or to the person directly adjacent to you, “I own you!” as some mantra for you to remember as to help solidify your reasoning, and wherewithal as to commit to your decision-making process. Let me add this one note of caution…

That is precisely what the banks, mortgage holders, credit card companies, city, and county real estate tax authorities, IRS, bankruptcy courts, lawyers, and more will be shouting at you if there’s even a hiccup in this current BTFD “market” stampede.”

How many are still jumping and cheering in a 30% down market since? Maybe they are, but I’ll wager if there’s any “hopping” today it’s more akin to hopping-mad. But I digress.

Race 3) Bitcoin™ millionaire retirement advice Guru’s:

The “crypto” space acted much like the “social” space when it came to immediate condemnation of anyone daring to question its narrative. And yet, that’s precisely what I did, and that’s exactly what transpired – complete and utter derision.

It wasn’t just me this time, others such as Nouriel Roubini, David Stockman, Jim Rickards, and a few others dared to state what we felt was the obvious. And we all paid the price. The incessant condemnation by the “true believers” or “HODL’s” shall we say, has been surreal too say the least.

So how has it all been working out for the “so-called” crypto guru’s we should ask. After-all, with all the “insight” and “expert” advice they were telling/selling the return on investment has to be at least better than Toronto housing should it not?

Hint: Here’s as they say in “The Valley” a “picture” that tells its own storyline. Again, to wit:


But not too worry! For as I used to say half-jokingly that the next thing many of these “Gurus” will be selling next for an encore will be seminars to help with bankruptcy filings. And since you were a one “premium seated” attendee you’ll probably get a discount for admission.

Again, that was what I used to say jokingly, but truth is far stranger than fiction, and sometimes funnier. Why do I say this? Easy, for do yo remeber when this “advice” was in your news-feed or any other feed for that matter, incessantly? Here’s a reminder. To wit:

(Non-working advertisement screenshot)

So, you want to feel better about your crypto losses, or maybe forget about them all together? He’s now got a product for you to do just that. Again, to wit:

(Non-working advertisement screenshot)

All I’ll do is end with this, for you can’t make this stuff up – it writes itself…

The above gives new meaning to all that “millionaire retirement advice” going “up-in-smoke” does it not?

© 2018 Mark St.Cyr

Footnote: These “FTWSIJDGIGT” articles came into being when many of the topics I had opined on over the years were being openly criticized for “having no clue”. Yet, over the years these insights came back around showing maybe I knew a little bit more than some were giving me credit for. It was my way of tongue-in-cheek as to not use the old “I told you so” analogy. I’m saying this purely for the benefit of those who may be new or reading here for the first time (and there are a great many of you and thank you too all). I never wanted or want to seem like I’m doing the “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” type of response to my detractors. I’d rather let the chips fall – good or bad – and let readers decide the credibility of either side. Occasionally however, there are, and have been times they do need to be pointed out which is why these now have taken on a life of their own. (i.e., something of significance per se that may have a direct impact on one’s business etc., etc.) And readers, colleagues, and others have requested their continuance.

Facebook’s Political Plight Has Only Just Begun

Another day – another Facebook™ (FB) scandal.

It seems those that were naive to take Mark Zuckerberg at his word when he defended his company and practices before congress a month or so back are suddenly shocked (shocked!) to have it revealed that maybe he wasn’t being so forthcoming, or truthful during his responses to questioning. That is – if he even answered at all.

In pure politician style his lips may have been moving, but just like the old joke portends – that doesn’t mean something remotely truthful is being said. Usually, quite the contrary.

Yet, all jokes aside, there’s one thing politicians don’t laugh at – it’s the idea of being politician’d from someone who is not. And Mark has been doing that as of late, in spades.

I have written about this far too many times over the years to list. Every time FB suddenly found itself in the middle of some brouhaha where it stepped on someone toes, or slighted some group, it would orchestrate some form of apology outreach with the laughably scripted and stylized excuse I coined the, “Gee, golly-whiz…”

That is: only if that group was considered large or vocal enough to warrant a response in the first place. Everyone else? Screw you – welcome to FB.

The warning signs that something was terribly wrong (as well as possibly unlawful) have been emerging over the last few years at a dizzying pace. The first high-profile (which I believe is still pending) was launched in 2016 by Steven Crowder of “Louder with Crowder” where he alleges that FB was censoring or suppressing his material because of his political bias.

However, those that just focused on the “political bias” issue, I believed, were missing the greater point and expressed it. Here’s what I said about it in May of 2016. To wit:

“As I see things, Crowder used Facebook for business purposes. He also paid (as in actual monetary payments) to Facebook for the sole purpose to help grow or maintain his brand. He paid (that word “paid” is where everything changes and hinges) Facebook for that help. If Facebook was taking his money while simultaneously suppressing either his content or, the viewership that was implied he would reach? All while he was being told (or sold) something different? There’s a term for that and it’s called: a criminal offense.”

(Here’s a link to his website and documentation of filing)

The reason why I pointed this one out, in-particular was it seemed to be the beginning for setting a precedent as to exactly what FB could be facing in the near future (as in lawsuits and more) because from a standpoint of law – not opinion – FB’s entire advertising model, as well as records, were at risk of being brought into the courts for examination.

Remember: FB, as a business, more than likely has the lawful and unassailable right to publish, or not publish, anything posted on its platform, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

What they do not have a right to, and should be held accountable both civilly, as well as criminally: is sell (as in collect actually money) a product described as one thing – then behind the scenes, knowingly and purposefully deliver something different.

That’s called deception, and there are laws on the books for precisely that. And the Crowder suit has all the appearance of exposing just that, which is why I am of the opinion, Zuck-and-Crew suddenly made an abrupt shift and publicly began addressing this issue quite publicly thereafter and since.

Hint: Remember the “sit down” with conservative publishers that happened in near unison or slightly after?

This “meaningful meeting” as was described across most media outlets via my opinion and acumen was pure theatre, only for FB to have the ability to argue, should they need to, in some kind of future court proceeding: “Look, we tried to get to the bottom of issues, we even asked directly for their insights as to help us blah, blah, blah.” And said so. Again from the same article:

“This (in my opinion) is a “look over here” part of both misdirection, as well as to help build any evidence for defense that may be needed if the real “conservative” nightmare plays out in a way of charges which Facebook itself thought (or acted as if) it was immune to. i.e., Accusations of underhanded business practices which effected businesses unfairly, as well as adversely, that may need to be both defended against in court. And/or monetary damages to plaintiffs are possibly awarded.

The more I looked at who was invited, where, and the format – the more I saw PR text-book damage control (which is really useless when administered in such fashion) and more “discovery” and “narrative setting” for Facebook if or when needed in the future.”

What has happened since? Hint – more charges and evidence that FB has been doing even more of the same. And – a lot of other things that are much, much worse.

The problem with the “worse” part? It’s now the politicians (U.S. as well as Europe) weighing into the quagmire of arguments with both a bullseye on FB’s business model, as well as – its wallet. And Mark is looking more like an ill-prepared, glitch filled robot, being readied for a dismantling than the touted “well prepared” business executive being touted. i.e,, Not only is old schtick not cutting it? His responses, posture, eye contact, cadence, and more looks completely ridiculous if not child like.

If you think this is over-the-top type criticism? Fair point, so as evidence to this I would ask you to watch Mark in his latest political theater appearance before the EU Parliament last month. You can find links to the entire meeting, but here’s one link consisting of highlights that describes exactly what I’m arguing. Just fast-forward to about the 8 minute mark thereabout and what you’ll see are two stunning revelations.

First: One of the panelists is incensed about Mark’s answers of no meaning. The frustration appears unified across the panel.

But that’s not the most informative part via my eye.

At about the 9-minute-mark, Mark demonstrates exactly how out-of-place, ill-prepared, and robotic he truly is. So much so anyone with a modicum of business acumen will understand just how eye-opening this revelation is. i.e., He’s far too programmed and that’s all there is. There’s no real there, there.

As I’ve professed many times prior – Mark (as well as many in “The Valley”) all seem to have been schooled by the same speech writers, coaches, and lawyers.  (Think Susan Holmes of Theranos™ infamy)

The canned: acknowledge, repeat, thanks for the question, then respond with meaningless drivel is so formulaic, it’s laughable.

You’ll see this type of “coaching” at work as he addresses the room: his head and eyes sweep across the room from side to side in a vacant manner. That’s a “coached” mannerism that is supposed to be used or taken as a guide to help facilitate the idea of inclusion into your audience. But when it’s used and employed as Mark has clearly been “schooled” to do? It shows there’s no there, there. Only programming.

Where this really shows just how programmed he is, and why it demonstrates (all my opinion) FB need at-all-costs to stay on message and not say anything that could be used against them, takes place at the end.

At the end of this meeting Mark is seen clearly following the programming – but then the programming shows just how consuming it’s being deployed when he follows the usual “look at the person speaking at, or too you, directly,” as he does.

But then, as others are speaking too him – he never turns his head and keeps it pointing directly at the facilitator to his right as his eyes can clearly be seen shifting too-and-fro as people are directing questions at him. I can only sum it up as what one gets when the cross a “deer in the headlights” with a “déjà vu moment” in the Matrix. It’s that bizarre.

Yet, it shows by far the most concrete example of just how programmed and choreographed every detail has been met and scripted out for Mark. For if a situation arose (which it clearly did) that would put Mark in a situation where he might not have the answers, or may compromise any further statements? The programming appears to have instructed him to: Run out the clock. Don’t respond, don’t do or say anything further.

And that’s precisely what he did, to the letter.

Only problem now is in following that “program” made him look and appear “programmed.” Literally. Therefore, not truthful in his responses. Not only that, his frozen-in-place moment appeared to not only made him look childlike, but from my acumen showed just how scared (and possibly at risk) the entire FB bottom-line and model probably is. For when you go to that length of preparedness? You give more reasons to question, rather than reasons for accepting.

Again: when the CEO of one of the most prominent, as well as prosperous companies, with enormous reach and influence, has been schooled and trained to the point of not being able, or possibly allowed, to interact unless robotically scripted? You know there’s real trouble on the horizon. As in real money and regulation.

But don’t worry about Mark, I’m sure he’ll probably have sold out by then.

© 2018 Mark St.Cyr

A Follow Up To: ‘For Those Wondering’

A little over a week ago I posited the following observation, it came as I was looking at the Russell 2000™. From my “technical eye” I saw what I believed to be a pattern that is very well-known (as in has better odds) to resolving in certain manners. Below is that observation:

Over the ensuing days it appeared that my original observation may be playing out, for the pattern seemed to be resolving much like it is known to do. Then – everything took-off, once again. The catalyst? Let’s go with an ant made it across a busy road during rush-hour traffic in Boston. That’s about a good a reason (and has more logic!) as any compared to what I’ve heard across the mainstream business/financial media.

However, as I was perusing the “markets” this morning I looked at the same index using the same time intervals as the above chart and , once again, this pattern caught my eye. The issue is – it’s far bigger. Here’s what I’m speaking to…


What I’ve done is annotate where my original observations were, what happened, and where we are now.

The issue here is two-fold.

First: If this pattern resolves in the manner that I first described the drop will be far more precipitous, as well as volatile.

Second: A drop of this size and scope happening, along with what is happening elsewhere, will exacerbate any and all markets. (think Emerging Markets for just one)

The Russell, much like the NASDAQ™ is the last bastion for any remaining “hot” or “chasing higher” money still remaining. When these run out of steam, that’s when the real pressure to the rest of the “markets” may resume.

Will it happen? Who knows. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth paying attention to and look for clues before hand. As always…

We shall see.

© 2018 Mark St.Cyr

For Those In The “Won’t Happen Again In Our Lifetime” Camp

History is a nebulous construct depending on who you ask. The only thing more vague is trying to figure out what any sort of “history” means to someone. Just trying to find whether they consider something to be ancient or contemporary sounds like it should be any easy question, till you find yourself suddenly mired in a never-ending conversation of minutia just trying to discern if the term “ancient” means the same thing to the both of you. In other words, just trying to establish a benchmark to propose relevancy has become a near futile task, more often than not.

I am convinced today, more than ever, trying to demonstrate or provide perspective using historical benchmarks and/or clues (any!) as to formulate pragmatic risk decisions – has been relegated to the dust bin of history by far too many. But (and it’s a very big but) none more so than those that have entered the business landscape, at all levels, over the last decade.

Historical perspective for what can or will, should or could, ______(fill in the blank) not only is never given a second thought – it’s not even considered in the first place. “It’s different this time” thinking has now morphed (at least in my view) away from trying to rationalize the differences between today and yesterday, straight into a defense as to allow one not to think in the first place.

If you think this is hyperbole? I would counter you haven’t tried to have an in-depth conversation in respects to business fundamentals with anyone under 35, as of late. And – it’s getting increasingly more difficult by the day.

The reason is simple, and it’s not their fault, it’s the Central Banks and their gaggle of Ivory Tower’d Ph.D’s that profess and endorse this new monetary doctrine of lunacy.

Central Bank interventionism into the capital markets has not just adulterated historical norms – it’s perverted them.

Instead of rating agencies giving out A,B,C and AA, or BB type ratings to individual businesses and bonds – it should just rate the entire capital markets with a big and bodly placed XXX. At least that rating would be an honest one.

Here is what a decade of central bank interventionism into the capital markets has, and is, currently producing more of every year:

An enormous swath of highly indebted graduates holding business degrees, where the curriculum for magical thinking rivals Hogwarts.

Today 1+1=2 math has been replaced with =’s whatever one wants. Non-GAAP has allowed debt to become income, liabilities to become assets, and on and on.

Net profits are now considered meaningless. After-all, why make money when you can lose or burn through $Billions upon $Billions, and be rewarded far more.

Stock markets appear to be regarded only as some game or way to facilitate and keep track of their latest BTFD (buying the f’n dip) status.

Central bankers inferred sole responsibility is only to ensure one’s portfolio never suffers any meaningful loss again, ever. That, and also to allow worthless, overhyped, blatant anathemas of anything resembling a fundamental business structure (think SnapChat™) the ability for owners and VC’s to cash-out scoring $Billions in an IPO – while the investors of it watch their investment dollars disappear faster than the company’s featured product.

And this is thought of as “ethical business structures or practices.” All I’ll say too that is, “It may be called a ‘business,’ but what it ain’t is anything resembling ethical.”

Again, think this is hyperbole? Then please explain how or why (other than a cult stock) Tesla™ shares not only have barely fluctuated over the last week or so as bad news hit. But rather, seemed impervious to all that “bad news” which consisted of deaths, major malfunctions to one of its main features (e.g., autopilot,) production promises broken, CEO meltdown during earnings call, high-level executives jumping ship, government agency probes, and on, and on. And that’s just the last month or so.

Sorry, but that’s not anything resembling what “normally” happens in response to such things in a market free of central banker interventionism. Period.

And I’m not just picking on Tesla…

Ask the same about competition while throwing Amazon™ into the equation, what you’ll hear is more convoluted reasoning and cognitive dissidence it would make Carl Jung marvel.

Try using Amazon in the same discussion or construct as to rationalize or argue what is known as “dumping” type policies or events? Forget Jung – what you’ll then need is a cop. For if the term “trade” comes up, you’ll suddenly be notified that you’ve now invoked a “Trump” discussion unwittingly where slurs, swearing, and the throwing of objects might be forthcoming should one dare engage with this set any further. It’s beyond idiotic in my view.

As we sit today , like it or not, the U.S. is currently engaged in trying to level a very un-level, as well as unfair playing field when it comes to trade.

Forget about the politics of the moment when it comes to whether it’s your “guy or gal” that is involved. Negotiating deals, of any type, are messy and full of fraught, for both sides. No one wants to give up any, and I do mean any, perceived advantage. Whether real, or not.

What may at first been seen in an original agreement as some form of throwaway concession, can in fact, turn or morph into a devastating weapon of advantage that was never fully understood or conceived when original deals were put in place.

Today: There is no better contemporary example than steel to demonstrate this point.

Let’s use an overly simplistic example using only China and steel to demonstrate this point:

When the original trade deals were constructed allowing for China to enter into the world trade of steel no one expected (or considered I’ll contend) how China would allow for both the making, as well as dumping of steel (as in sanctioned politburo funding) around the world in just a few decades. Yet, here we are, and the costs of just this one “deal” has been devastating to many a nation’s “blue-collar” class employment sectors.

How much steel does China now produce? Fair question, let’s see shall we?

First: Here’s world steel production from 1967, 2000. Note China’s rise. To wit:

That’s quite the increase, wouldn’t you say? And if you are one of those like myself that grew up in the 1960’s and 70’s in what were collectively known as “mill-towns.” You understand the loss of blue-collar jobs during that time probably more acutely than most. (Japan was also a contributing factor back then, to be fair)

But that’s ancient history to most when trying to comprehend what exactly is at stake here, and the consequences of past “deals.” So let’s look at steel from just 2000 to today. e.g., ending 2016. Again, to wit:

(Source: World Steel.org)

What the above represents is the size of the “trade” issues at hand. Steel is just one of them, but it is emblematic as to the entire issue of trade and just what type of “deals” were made prior, and to whose detriment and/or cost. (i.e., all manufacturing trade deals of export and imports to China look ominously similar to steel)

Hint: Level playing fields, and playing by the rules, doesn’t allow for statistically inconsequential manufacturers and suppliers to go from a mere trivial supplier – to displacing not only the previous double-digit % manufacturers and suppliers into single digit, near irrelevant status. But rather, now controlling 50% of the global output in 17 years. Especially in such a vital product to a nation’s security, never-mind employment base, such as steel. Period.

That is – as long as you can understand the reasoning why Netflix™ would never exist (at least for very long) let alone be awarded $Billions in market cap under its current business model. i.e., The more subscribers they add – the more cash they burn. Yet, again, most today have no understanding of the inherent problem in that statement. And that’s a very big problem to understanding where we are – and where we could be overnight.

Far too many holding positions in business have absolutely no clue. The only thing worse is their willingness to remain in that “clueless” state. i.e., They just don’t want to hear it.

The issue at hand is that trade wars and their consequences, rightly or wrongly enacted, are designed to use and/or deliver maximum impact or pain as a negotiating tool. This “pain” is also felt via a rippling effect across the entire business landscape. Disruption in this text will not be used to describe some new “tech innovation.” Rather, it will be used to describe business upheavals where shortages or price spikes may make business near impossible for some to continue.

“Trade wars” or “renegotiation tactics” of any type are going to be messy. And publicly messy at that. Especially when one understands the magnitude of just how far off the rails of “free” and/or “equitable trade” these prior deals have gone. (just look to the above charts for context)

The real issue at hand is when these types of “deals” become as unbalanced as they are now? Trade “war” can turn into shooting wars faster than one can imagine. That’s the stakes we are now in. Make no mistake about it.

China may or will do things, and in ways first thought as inconceivable as to counter losing its now perceived “right” to dominate global trade in ways many will not contemplate.

A sudden extreme devaluation of the Yuan and more could be a tactical first strike sending the global markets into chaos. And that’s just one.

China, along with others (think E.U. types) may be setting up back door trade agreements which may allow for chaos in the near-term to roil markets as to enable China to publicly move in and “save the day.” In turn, shoring up the prospects that it (or some combination of China – E.U. as an example) is the now dominant player or players, displacing U.S. from any or all prior assumptions.

These are the stakes, and they are not trivial. Global dominance, in anything, requires global machinations to facilitate it. And communist, along with socialist leaning entities, will risk far more in human tolls than most will ever consider. History is laden with the results of such actions. And they aren’t pretty, to say the least.

Yet, this is where we now are, where it all goes from here, and too what extent, is anyones’ guess. All one can do is be vigilant and watch for clues as they may appear on the horizon.

And for those in the “It won’t happen again in our lifetimes” camp. i.e., mass disruption of markets and business. I’ll just offer up this latest historical moment that happened just over a week ago. But first a little context from an article I wrote just a bit earlier when it came to all the “Goldilock’s reasoning touted across the mainstream business/financial media just last month. To wit:

I’ll only say this: I agree 100% in the “Goldilocks” comparison if the underlying premise means – we’re currently transgressing within a pure fairytale. For if one thinks a participation rate of about 60%, give-or-take, represents “full?” I have a wonderful fairytale piece of oceanfront property in Kentucky you can have, on the cheap. “Trust me.”

Here’s the troubling issue with the above: The worst possible calamities take place when everyone buys into the premise that either: A) It won’t happen. Or B) Can’t happen, again. That’s about the same as saying a 100-year-flood can’t happen tomorrow, because it happened just 10 years ago. And yet, this is precisely the same amount of critical thinking being professed across the MSBFO’s when it comes to today’s financial and/or market climate. It’s beyond vacuous. And that’s being kind.

And when it comes to that example of “100-year-flood” being an irrelevant analogy, how’s this one, from 2016? To wit:

From USA Today, Aug. 1, 2016: “Rain that caused deadly Md. flood a ‘1-in 1,000’ year event”

Only to be followed 2 years later…

From Wall Street Journal™ May 29, 2018: “Elliott City Hit by Second ‘1000-Year Flood’ Since 2016”

And people still want to argue things can “never happen again in our lifetime.”

History proves otherwise. That is, if one still believes in reality based thinking.

© 2018 Mark St.Cyr