Sunday, July 24, 2016

Gold World News Flash

Gold World News Flash


MASSIVE JP MORGAN & HSBC GOLD WITHDRAWAL FROM COMEX

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 10:22 PM PDT

from Silveready1:

There is a lot of movement in the Bullion Markets right now and a lot is happening behind the scenes.

Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Democrats Rigged Primary, Reveal Extensive Media Collusion

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 10:10 PM PDT

from Zero Hedge:

There are three key findings to emerge from yesterday’s dump of leaked DNC emails released by Wikileaks:

  • There had been a plot designed to smear Bernie Sanders and to hand the Democratic nomination to Hillary on a silver platter
  • There has been repeated collusion between the DNC and the media
  • There has been questionable fundraising for both Hillary Clinton and the DNC

First, a quick recap for those who missed the original report, yesterday Wikileaks released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is what the whistleblower organization reported:

WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.d

Subsequently, the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 (who has denied he works with the Russian government), who has already released hundreds of hacked DNC emails previously, told The Hill he leaked the documents to Wikileaks.

An initial read of the thousands of emails in the data dump reveals top officials at the Democratic National Committee privately plotting to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign, confirming a long-running allegation by the Sanders campaign who has claimed that the DNC and Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had tipped the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton during the party's presidential primary. They also reveal instances of media collusion as well as various questionable instances of fundraising.

Plotting Against Bernie Sanders

In an email from early May, DNC CFO Brad Marshall wrote about a plot to question Sanders's religion. While not naming the Vermont senator directly, it talks about a man of "Jewish heritage" Marshall believes to be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were holding upcoming primary elections.

"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," the email says.

"AMEN," DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy K. Dacey replied.

Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell The Intercept, which first noticed the email, "I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.”

* * *

In an email that concerned Sanders out-polling Clinton in Rhode Island, where the state reportedly only had a fraction of voting stations open, one staffer took a contemptuous tone of Sanders' supporters,  speaking about them more as a nuisance than an arm of the party. "If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct," the staffer writes, "They'll probably complain regardless, actually."

* *  *

Another email shows similar ‘us and them’ language being directed at Sanders supporters. "We have the Sanders folks admitting that they lost fair and square, not because we ‘rigged’ anything," the email said. "Clinton likely to win the state convention with a slim margin and we’ll send a release with final delegate numbers."

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

image: liberallyconservative.com

Brian McEwen on the Chinchillas Opportunity Amidst the Rising Price of Silver

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 08:30 PM PDT

from The Daily Bell:

The Daily Bell: Tell us a little more about your background.

Brian McEwen: I graduated from UBC in 1981, with a BSc in Earth Sciences, the worked in the coal mines of SE BC for 10 years, moved on to consulting with Cominco Engineering, MRDI and then AMEC. I worked around the world in open pit and underground project and mining evaluations, mostly development or production companies, as Chief Geologist, Manager of Geology, and finally Mining Manager for AMEC Peru. In 2003 I incorporated my own consulting company and worked mostly in senior or executive roles for junior companies, including Dynasty Gold, Buffalo Gold, London Mining, New World Resources, Northern Lion Gold, North Arrow and now Golden Arrow.

The Daily Bell: We want to ask some technical questions to begin with because of your role, and then we'll get a bit more general. Tell us about your time with MRDI.

Brian McEwen: I worked with Dr. Harry Parker, my technical supervisor. I was Chef Geologist for Canada, followed by Manager of Mining in Peru. I worked on many major projects throughout the world but mostly in Latin America, including Antamina, Cerro Colorado, Spence, Quebrada Blance, Alumbrera, Lomas Bayas, Petaquilla… to name a few.

The Daily Bell: How is Golden Arrow positioned in Argentina from a success standpoint.

Brian McEwen: We have defined resources which continue to grow, and Silver Standard's Pirquitas mine 35 kms away is running out of ore. Silver Standard is currently paying for all the pre-development costs for advancing our exploratory effort and evaluating a joint mining operation, so the project is moving forward at no dilution to shareholders.

Read More @ TheDailyBell.com

Donald Trump: Crooked Hillary Clinton in Unfit to be President!

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 07:00 PM PDT

Donald Trump, along with the American people, are TIRED of Crooked Hillary and her fellow lying politician buddies screwing the American people over for their own personal benefit.We need TRUMP. It is time to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Banks, Cartels and Money Laundering -- Stuff They Don't Want You To Know

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 06:37 PM PDT

How do criminals turn dirty cash into clean money? Who helps them? And more importantly, what happens when the launderers are caught? The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers ,...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Rogue Money Radio: Guest Jeff Berwick The Dollar Vigilante.

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 06:00 PM PDT

from Rogue Money:

The Guerrilla and The Vigilante need we say more?!!!

Look Who’s Frantically Demanding that Taxpayers Stop Italy’s Bank Meltdown

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 05:30 PM PDT

by Wolf Richter, Wolf Street:

New Opportunities for "America's Most Corrupt Bank."

It was a perfect gift to a desperate market. All that was needed was a gentle hint that Italy's troubled banks and their bondholders might not be hung out to dry. A "public backstop" for Italy's weakest lenders would be a "very useful" measure in these "exceptional times," ECB President Mario Draghi said.

Most Italian and European bank stocks surged.

The ECB is the second member of the institutional triad formerly known as the Troika to have called for a taxpayer funded bailout of Italy's banking system. Earlier this month the IMF used its article IV consultation – an annual economic and financial health check – to warn of "global spillovers" from a full-blown Italian banking crisis, "given Italy's systemic weight."

Desperate times call for "significant measures," says IMF economist Juan Toro. These measures include a taxpayer-funded state intervention, a practice that was supposed to have been consigned to the annals of history by Europe's enactment of new bail-in rules on Jan 1, 2016. The idea behind the new legislation was simple: never again would taxpayers be left exclusively paying to bail out bondholders of Europe's insolvent banks.

But even before the ink has dried, the new rules are about to be broken, or at least bent beyond recognition. Apparently this is necessary for two main reasons:

a) To save the small investors. Under the EU's new bail-in laws, Italy's government can only create a bank rescue package by making bondholders pay for a bailout by converting a portion of their bonds into equity. But roughly one-third of senior bank debt and half of subordinated bank debt, worth a combined total of €235 billion, has been sold, with the government's overt blessing, to small Italian retail investors and savers, in lieu of CDs. If the bail-in rules are followed to the letter, hundreds of thousands of little people will be taken to the cleaners.

b) To avert a political bloodbath. If hundreds of thousands of Italian retail investors are sacrificed in this type of bondholder bail-in, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's chances of winning the do-or-die referendum on changes to Italy's constitution in October will be further impaired. A public backlash over a bail-in could lead voters to turn to the 5 Star Movement, which has called for a referendum on Eurozone membership. The mere prospect of such an outcome would be enough to trigger a surge in bond yields, credit-rating downgrades, further economic slowing, and added troubles for banks. Oh, and it could be the final nail in the Eurozone's coffin.

Conspicuously absent from the bleeding-hearts narrative is the even greater risk of contagion to other financial institutions, not just in Europe but all around the world. Almost all the talk is about protecting small-time investors, but what about the big fish?

The Real Risk

The total exposure of French banks and private investors alone to Italian government debt exceeds €250 billion. Germany holds €83.2 billion worth of Italian bonds. Deutsche bank alone has nearly €12 billion worth of Italian bonds on its books. The other banking sectors most at risk of contagion are Spain (€44.6 billion), the U.S. (€42.3 billion) the UK (€29.8 billion) and Japan (€27.6 billion).

Not to mention the more than €200 billion of currency and transferable deposits that international banks are estimated to have exposure to in Italy, or the roughly €150 billion in bank bonds and loans they own.

Read More @ WolfStreet.com

A Collision-Course With Crisis: Making The Wrong Choices For The Wrong Reasons

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 04:40 PM PDT

Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

Life is full of examples where folks make bad choices for noble reasons. Not every decision is a winner: sometimes you make the right call, sometimes you don't.

  • In 1962, Decca Records passed on signing a young new band because it thought that guitar-based groups were falling out of favor. That band was The Beatles.
  • Napolean Bonaparte calculated he could conquer Russia by assembling one of the largest invading forces the world has ever seen. He marched towards Moscow in the summer of 1812 with over 650,000 troops. Less than six months later, he retreated in failure, his forces decimated down to a mere 27,000 effective soldiers.
  • 1985 217 separate investors turned down an entrepreneur trying to raise the relatively modest sum of $1.6 million to fund his vision of transforming a daily routine shared by millions around the world. That company? Starbucks.  

In these cases, those making the decision made what they felt was the best choice given the information available to them at the time. That's completely understandable and defensible. Fate is fickle, and no one is 100% right 100% of the time.

But what's much harder to condone -- and this is the focus of this article -- is when people embrace the wrong decision even when they have ample evidence and comprehension that doing so runs counter to their welfare.

Really? you might be skeptically thinking. Do people really ever do this?

Yes, sadly. Absolutely they do.

Because decision-making isn't just based on data. It's also influenced by beliefs. And when our beliefs don't align with the data, we humans can be woefully stubborn against changing our behavior, even in spite of mounting evidence that our beliefs are incorrect and possibly even detrimental to us.

The fascinating field of behavioral economics is dedicated to studying why people are capable of making bad decisions despite have access to good data (if you've got the time, listen to our past interviews with behavioral economist Dan Ariely here. They're riveting.)

So, yes, we humans are easily capable of being our own worst enemies.

For a prime example, let's turn to one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

The Curious Case Of Wilt Chamberlain's Free Throws

On a long drive I took recently, I listened to a podcast produced by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point as well as a number of other intellectually enjoyable human interest books.

Gladwell's podcast tackled this same topic of Why do smart people make dumb decisions?, and it featured Wilt Chamberlain's free throw career to make its point.

Wilt Chamberlain is widely cited as the best forward to ever play the game of basketball. At 7' 1" and 275 pounds, with a ferocious attitude and athletic grace, he was a dominating force on the court during the 1960-70s. He won seven scoring titles, including the game he is best known for in which he single-handedly scored 100 points -- a record that still stands today.

That record 100-point game is even more interesting than most people realize, Gladwell points out. It's significant not just for the total number of points that Chamberlain scored, but also for the number of free throws that he made during the game: 28. 

Chamberlain was on fire with his free throws that night. He made 88% of them (28 of 32). That's a very high percentage versus the league average, and amazingly high given Chamberlain's career average of roughly 50%.

In fact, Chamberlain was widely regarded as a horrible free throw shooter. His overall stats certainly say he was, but this short video clip below does an even better job of hitting home how poorly he typically shot from the line:

So how did Chamberlain's free throw conversion get so much better?

To answer that, we need to look at another basketball great...

Rick Barry & The 'Granny Shot'

A contemporary of Wilt Chamberlain was Rick Barry, who played much of his career for the Golden State Warriors. Barry was a phenomenal free-throw shooter -- at the time he played he was the best in history.

His career percentage? 90%

That's over a 15-year pro career. Amazing. (His best year was in 1979 when he completed a freakishly high 94.7% of his shots from the line).

Why was Barry so successful at free throws? Why was he so much better than Wilt?

He shot his free throws underhanded.

Yep, that's right. This 12-time NBA all-star made 'granny shots'.

Barry approached the free throw as a physics problem, and had a willingness to "do whatever it takes" to improve his accuracy and precision:

"Physicists have done all kinds of testing and said it's the most efficient way to shoot because there are fewer moving parts. It's so much more natural to shoot this way," he says. "Who walks around with their hands over their head?"

 

As Barry has often explained, the primary benefits of Granny style are that it increases the likelihood of a straight toss, and it produces a much softer landing on the rim. [Shooting underhand] is also able to generate more backspin, which gives him more breaks on errant throws. 

Here's a clip of Barry in action:

He didn't always shoot this way. Barry started as an overhand shooter like everybody else. But when he realized that his completion percentage improved by adopting the underhand toss, he switched over and the rest is NBA history.

Which brings us back to Chamberlain.

As a notoriously bad foul-line shooter, Chamberlain was advised to adopt the granny shot. He did, and his free throw percentage soon rose to a career high 61% in 1961-62, the same season as his famous 100-point game. So, the change worked. His stats improved, his team won more games, and his amazing consistency helped him set a single-game scoring record that remains untouchable to this day.

But then something unexpected happened: Chamberlain stopped shooting underhanded.

Making The Wrong Choices For The Wrong Reasons

When Wilt gave up the granny shot, his free throw percentage proceeded to decline, plummeting to a career low of just 38% by the 1967-68 season.

So, the big question here is: Why? Why would Chamberlain willingly abandon a superior form of shooting, especially when he had already experienced direct personal gain from its benefits?

The answer goes back to beliefs: he felt "like a sissy" shooting that way.

Sure, in the early days of the NBA, underhanded foul shots were common. But by the time of Chamberlain's career, pretty much only female basketball players shot that way anymore.

Given the machismo of professional sports, it's understandable that a star like Wilt cared what the other guys thought of him. But was it important enough to abandon a solution that improved his quality of play so much? After all, isn't the most respected teammate the one who can be counted on to put the most points on the board?

Gladwell notes that it has been estimated that Chamberlain could have scored over 1,000 additional points in his career had he shot underhand from the foul line throughout.

In addition to that, he likely would have scored even more points by playing more minutes. Because he was such a poor free thrower, Wilt was often benched in the final minutes of play during close games -- as a poor foul shooter is a big liability under those conditions. The opposing team can foul him with confidence that he'll miss his shots and they'll then get possession of the ball.

Gladwell marvels that somebody so driven to win would deliberately abandon such an easy and advantageous solution as Chamberlain did the granny shot. Even after he had personally experienced its superiority. But he did, thus proving how belief can trump reason.

Later, in his autobiography Wilt: Larger Than Life, Chamberlain admits that switching back to an overhanded free throw was a clear mistake:

"I felt silly, like a sissy, shooting underhanded. I know I was wrong. I know some of the best foul shooters in history shot that way. Even now, the best one in the NBA, Rick Barry, shoots underhanded. I just couldn't do it."

What's amazing is that even though both Rick Barry and Wilt Chamberlain very visibly demonstrated the advantages of the underhanded free throw, half a century later almost nobody -- not in the NBA and not in college ball -- has adopted it. Think of all the additional points that could have been scored over that time, all the additional minutes played, all the additional team wins. It's not like players haven't had a powerful incentive to consider changing their behavior -- these are the very stats their contracts are based on. In great likelihood, many $millions ($billions?) of additional player compensation have been forfeited over the past 50 years simply because the athletes didn't want to look a tiny bit 'girly' at the line.

Later on in his podcast, Gladwell concludes that Chamberlain -- like virtually everbody else in professional basketball -- had a high threshold for overcoming conventional opinion. He wasn't comfortable being a maverick when it came to bucking social mores. Rick Barry, on the other hand, clearly had a lower threshold -- famously not caring what others thought of him (Barry was widely disliked across the league for his disregard of other's feelings).

He ends the podcast with this observation:

I know we've really only been talking about basketball, which is just a game in the end. But the lesson here is much bigger than that. It takes courage to be good, social courage, to be honest with yourself, to do things the right way.

A Lack Of Courage To Be Good & Honest

Which brings us back to the point of this article. Chamberlain's willful blindness to the ramifications of his clearly inferior choice is not unique. In fact, when we look at many of the decisions being made by world leaders in recent years, we see a depressing abundance of intentional bad choices.

Most emblematic of this, in my opinion, are the ZIRP/NIRP interest rate policies the world's central banks are implementing. As discussed many times here at PeakProsperity.com, the endgame of these policies is easy to predict. History is replete with examples of similar attempts of governments attempting to print their way to prosperity. It's simply not possible. As Chris says, if it were, the Romans would have figured it out and today we'd all be speaking Latin.

The head central bankers are not morons (although a number of them may indeed be ivory tower academics too out-of-touch with the real world). Many of them realize that they have painted themselves into a corner by easing too much for too long, by flooding the world with too much cheap debt-based money. Many understand, perhaps today more than ever, Ludwig von Mises' rule that: 

"There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

But, like Chamberlain, they do not have the courage to re-evaluate their beliefs and chart an alternative course.

To 'voluntarily abandon further credit expansion' means letting natural market forces bring down stock, bond and real estate prices from their current bubble highs -- thereby vaporizing a lot of paper wealth. It means widespread layoffs as inefficient companies that have been kept alive by nearly free access to nearly unlimited credit have to start actually generating profits if they can. It means living below our means today, so that we can sustainably live within them tomorrow.

Instead, they simply double down on the policies that got us into this mess in the first place, claiming that their efforts to date just haven't been big enough yet to succeed. And they do this with the full support of our politicians, who want to avoid any unpopular austerity measures because they care much more about getting re-elected than the hard work of actually addressing our nation's structural problems. So interest rates go even lower, asset bubbles grow even higher, the wealth gap extends even wider, and the risks of a "total catastrophe of the currency system" become even more extreme.

The coming economic/financial/monetary reckoning can't be avoided at this point; only managed. But we can't position ourselves to manage it gracefully if we don't have to courage to even recognize its existence. And our current leaders do not have that courage.

Which is why we need to ready ourselves, as individuals. Charles Hugh Smith recently penned an excellent report Investing For Crisis which is an essential read for any investor who shares the concern that we will continue to see more wrong choices being made for the wrong reasons -- until the entire systems fails. If you haven't read it yet, you really should.

Click here to read Charles' Investing For Crisis report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Harry Dent - BREAKING A Bold Warning Financial Meltdown Eminent

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 04:11 PM PDT

Harry S. Dent Harry S. Dent Jr. The Great Depression Ahead Harry S. Dent, Jr. is the Founder and President of the H. S. Dent Foundation, whose mission is "Helping People Understand Change". Using exciting new research developed from years of hands-on business experience, Mr. Dent offers a...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

"If You Can't Touch It, You Don't Own It"

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 03:40 PM PDT

Submitted by Jeff Thomas, Writer for Doug Casey’s International Man and Strategic Wealth Preservation, via SprottMoney.com,

The pending Brexit has, not surprisingly, caused a shakeup in the investment world, particularly in the UK. Of particular note is that, recently, asset management firms in Britain began refusing their clients the right to cash out of their mutual funds. Of the £35 billion invested in such funds, just under £20 billion has been affected.

For those readers who live in the UK, or are invested in UK mutual funds, this is reason to tremble at the knees.

So, why have these investors been refused the right to exit the funds? Well, it’s pretty simple. The trouble is that quite a few of them made the request at about the same time. Of course the management firms don’t keep enough money on hand to pay them all off, so, rather than spend all their money paying off as many clients as possible, then going out of business due to a lack of liquidity, they simply announce a freeze on redemptions.

Those who are outraged may read the fine print of their contracts and find that the fund managers have every right to halt redemptions, should “extraordinary circumstances” occur. Who defines “extraordinary circumstances?” The fund managers.

Across the pond in the US, investors are reassured by the existence of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has the power to refuse this power to investment firms…or not, should they feel that a possible run on redemptions might be destructive to the economy.

Countries differ as to the level of freedom they will allow mutual fund and hedge fund management firms to have on their own, but all of them are likely to err on the side of the protection of the firms rather than the rights of the investor, as the firms will undoubtedly make a good case that a run on funds is unhealthy to the economy.

The Brexit news has created a downward spike in investor confidence in the UK – one that it will recover from, but, nevertheless, one that has caused investors to have their investment locked up. They can’t get out, no matter how badly they may need the money for other purposes. This fact bears pondering.

Presently, the UK, EU, US, et al, have created a level of debt that exceeds anything the world has ever seen. Historically, extreme debt always ends in an economic collapse. The odiferous effluvium hasn’t yet hit the fan, but we’re not far off from that eventuality. Therefore, wherever you live and invest, a spike such as the one presently occurring in the UK could result in you being refused redemption. Should there then be a concurrent drop in the market that serves to gut the fund’s investments, you can expect to sit by and watch as the fund heads south, but be unable to exit the fund.

As stated above, excessive debt results in an economic collapse, which results in a market crash. It’s a time-tested scenario and the last really big one began in 1929, but the present level of debt is far higher than in 1929, so we can anticipate a far bigger crash this time around.

But the wise investor will, of course diversify, assuring him that, if one investment fails, another will save him. Let’s look at some of the most prominent ones and consider how they might fare, at a time when the economy is teetering in the edge.

Stocks and Bonds

Presently, the stock market is in an unprecedented bubble. The market has been artificially propped up by banks and governments and grows shakier by the day. Bonds are in a worse state – the greatest bubble they have ever been in. This bubble is just awaiting a pin. We can’t know when it will arrive, but we can be confident that it’s coming. Rosy today, crisis tomorrow.

 

Cash on Deposit

Cyprus taught us in 2013 that a country can allow its banks to simply confiscate (steal) depositors’ funds, should they decide that there is an “emergency situation” – i.e., the bank is in trouble. Unfortunately, the US (in 2010), Canada (in 2013) and the EU (in 2014) have all passed laws allowing banks to decide if they’re “in trouble”. If they so decide, they have a free rein in confiscating your deposit.

 

Safe Deposit Boxes

Banks in North America and Europe have begun advising their clients that they cannot store money or jewelry in safe deposit boxes. Some governments have passed legislation requiring those who rent safe deposit boxes to register the location of the box, its number and its contents with the government.

 

Each year, the storage of valuables in a safe deposit box is becoming more dubious.

 

Pensions

Pension plans tend to be heavily invested in stocks and bonds, making them increasingly at risk in a downturn. To make matters worse, some governments have begun to attack pensions. Others, such as the US, have announced plans to force pensions to invest in US Government Treasuries – which, in a major economic downturn could go to zero.

 

These are amongst the most preferred stores of wealth and are all very much at risk. In addition, there are two choices that, if invested correctly, promise greater safety.

 

Real Estate

The Mutual funds in the UK that are presently in trouble are heavily invested in real estate. But real estate that you invest in directly does not face the same risk. However, any real estate that’s located in a country that’s presently preparing for an economic crisis, such as those mentioned above, will be at risk. Real estate in offshore jurisdictions that are not inclined to be at risk is a far better bet. (An additional advantage is that real estate in offshore locations is not even reportable for tax purposes in most countries, because it cannot be expatriated to another country.

 

Precious Metals

Precious metals are a highly liquid form of investment. They can be bought and sold quickly and can be shipped anywhere in the world, or traded for metals in another location. Of course, storage facilities in at-risk countries may find themselves at the mercy of their governments. However, private storage facilities exist in Hong Kong, Singapore, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland and other locations that do not come under the control of the EU or US. Precious metals ownership provides greater protection against rapacious governments, but storage must be outside such countries.

The lesson to take away here is that, if you can’t touch it, you don’t own it. Banks and fund management firms can freeze your wealth, so that you can’t access it. Governments and banks can confiscate your wealth. If you don’t have the power to put your hands on your wealth on demand, you don’t own it.

This evening, take account of all your deposits and investments and determine what percentage of them you do truly own. If you decide that that percentage is too low for you to accept, you may wish to implement some changes... before others do it for you.

"As Long As All The Offensive Shit Is Verbatim, I'm Fine With It"

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 03:10 PM PDT

Deep inside the treasure trove of smears, collusion, and questionable fund-raising exposed by Wikileaks dump of DNC leaked emails was this little gem of 'innocent propaganda' by the Clinton campaign against the Trump campaign.

The email - found here- shows DNC staffers’ creating a fake craigslist job posting made for women who wish to apply to jobs at one of Trump’s organizations.

The fake position, titled a Honey Bunny, requires the prospective applicant to, among other tasks, refrain from gaining weight, be open to public humiliation and be alright with groping or kissing by her boss...

Multiple Positions (NYC area)

 

Seeking staff members for multiple positions in a large, New York-based corporation known for its real estate investments, fake universities, steaks, and wine. The boss has very strict standards for female employees, ranging from the women who take lunch orders (must be hot) to the women who oversee multi-million dollar construction projects (must maintain hotness demonstrated at time of hiring). 

 

Title: Honey Bunch (that’s what the boss will call you)

 

Job requirements:

 

* No gaining weight on the job (we’ll take some “before” pictures when you start to use later as evidence)

* Must be open to public humiliation and open-press workouts if you do gain weight on the job

* A willingness to evaluate other women’s hotness for the boss’ satisfaction is a plus

* Should be proficient in lying about age if the boss thinks you’re too old Working mothers not preferred (the boss finds pumping breast milk disgusting, and worries they’re too focused on their children).

 

About us:

 

We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table.

 

Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to jobs@trump.com<mailto:jobs@trump.com>

And when passed up the chain for comms approval, the response was positive...

"As long as all the offensive shit is verbatim I’m fine with it."

And just in case readers thought this was from The Onion, here is the original leaked email chain...

 

We are sure donors to Hillary's "victim card" funds will be more than happy to see such stunts being pulled... or is this just another example of how the body politik works nowadays - propaganda tops policy any day.

The Market For Lemons, The Market For Bullshit, And The Great Cascading Credence Crash Of 2016

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 02:38 PM PDT

Submitted by Daniel Cloud

The Market for Lemons, the Market for Bullshit, and the Great Cascading Credence Crash of 2016

"The cost of dishonesty, therefore, is not only the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the cost must also include the loss incurred from driving legitimate business out of existence."

       George Akerlof, The Market for Lemons

 

People have begun to worry that we're experiencing a crisis of confidence in our traditionally most prestigious institutions - in our political parties, and central banks, and great newspapers, and universities, and even in accredited experts.

Views that would have been regarded as extreme in the past also seem much more common now. The entire political spectrum, all around the world, seems to be in the middle of collapsing into a collection of smaller, more radical groups. Some of them advocate violence.

The problem doesn't seem to be unique to this particular historical moment. There are other times in recent history – the 1930's, perhaps, or the 1960's – when the public seemed equally unhappy with existing institutional points of view. Like the present, they were periods of relatively rapid change in organizational and communications technology.

The underlying problem is, I think, a very strange one. But it's a risk faced by any society that both undergoes rapid technological change, and contains organized interest groups. (Formal or informal.) Something really bad is happening to all our bullshit. In fact, I've begun to worry that there's actually a sort of crash or cascading failure going on in the bullshit market. If there is, I think it's driven, as previous bullshit crashes were, by changing technology.

This may seem like an odd thing to worry about. But it's actually a very natural worry, if you have any interest at all in recent American philosophy and/or the economics of informational externalities.

Bullshit Defined

Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit i has, for a long time, been the single best-selling title in Princeton University's Press's philosophy list. The book sells well partly because people think the title is somehow cute, or funny, but Frankfurt himself doesn't really seem to think that bullshit is a laughing matter at all. (Take a look at his 2007 YouTube video2, if you want to see if he's serious about the subject.)

He argues that lying and bullshit are distinct forms of dishonesty. The liar is trying to present something false as true. But the bullshitter doesn't actually care whether what he's saying is true or false, relevant or irrelevant. He represents himself as concerned with the truth, but in fact his only concern is presenting a certain appearance or creating some particular impression in his audience. Frankfurt thinks that this is a much more subtle and powerful strategy, and therefore a much more dangerous one.

The bullshitter is competing with those around him to seem a certain way, or he's competing with them to avoid seeming a certain way. Or perhaps he wants to make someone else seem some way, or make some proposal seem some way, seem noble or contemptible, dangerous or safe. Or he wants to fit in, or stand out, or be admired, or pitied, or feared, or promoted. The truths he speaks in the course of his effort to achieve these things may be completely irrelevant to the point he's supposedly trying to make. But unlike the liar, the bullshit artist doesn't actually have to say anything false to mislead. He might, but he also might not, he might just talk about a lot of irrelevant true stuff. (Machiavelli tells us that a Prince should almost never lie…)

This is a way of deceiving that's much safer for the deceiver than outright lying. A lie can be destroyed by a single incongruous truth. It's much harder for a single fact to pierce the veil of bullshit, because it's more difficult for a single fact to dispositively establish that some set of considerations is irrelevant, or that their importance is being exaggerated. Humans are instinctively angry at the liar, but the bullshit artist slides right past our evolved defenses. Frankfurt thinks this is a much more powerful and subtle strategy than lying, and therefore a more dangerous one.

In fact, it seems to me that one of the ways we can tell that someone is basically a bullshit artist is that it never really happens to the person that they argued for something, and then, to their surprise and dismay, found out that they were wrong about the facts and had to permanently change their views. That just isn't a thing, in their world. The bullshitter's very rare and grudging public mea culpa is always only tactical. When your argument isn't actually based on the trueness of certain facts in the first place, no pattern of facts can possibly dislodge you from it in any lasting way. As Frankfurt says, the bullshit artist has a kind of freedom and a kind of safety that the liar can only dream of.

Is Bullshit Necessary, or Inevitable?

Presumably the idea of a crash in the bullshit market wouldn't actually worry Frankfurt himself very much. In his most recent statements on the topic (in his recent Vimeo video iii) he seems convinced that bullshit is unnecessary, that a world without bullshit would be a better one. But he hasn't always seemed so sure; in the earlier YouTube video, he was still wondering whether bullshit might perhaps be of some use to society.

(The contrast between the two videos I've mentioned is interesting, in itself, as a sign of where we're all headed, of how things are developing at the moment. The 2007 YouTube video has clunky production values and a crystal-clear message. But the much more recent one on Vimeo… Well, let's just say that the producers seem to have been worried that in 2016, a man sitting in a chair telling the truth simply isn't enough.)

Is bullshit, defined as Frankfurt's defined it, something that we can ever really expect to be completely free of? Personally I doubt it. For one thing, some of it strikes me as genuinely useful. The policeman directing traffic in his spiffy uniform is doing his very best to present a somewhat false appearance of gleaming perfection, because a ragged naked man presenting the same truths about where it would be convenient for cars to go would be ignored. He may even wear a hat designed to make him look taller and more imposing than he actually is. He isn't trying to look tall because he's vain. Yes, the whole thing is an act, but in this case it's a necessary act. Because of the nature of the social role that's been delegated to him, because we all want him to send a certain clear, authoritative and unambiguous signal iv, we excuse and approve of these conventional, socially necessary, legitimate forms of bullshit.

No doubt the line between these things and the more egregious or harmful forms of bullshit is a very complex and deceptive one, with one form often disguised as the other. (Perhaps this particular policeman actually is a little vain. Maybe his hat is custom-made, and is a little taller than a regular policeman's hat. Or maybe he takes bribes to let some cars through the intersection more quickly.)

Anyway, empirically, there don't seem to be any large complex human societies without any bullshit. To completely get rid of it, you'd have to read everyone's mind at all times, which seems undesirable. So I can't quite agree with Frankfurt's more recent opinion that we'd all be better off without any bullshit at all. It seems to me that human society would collapse into a collection of small warring tribes. (Just as traffic at the intersection might grind to a halt without the spiffy policeman.) As far as I can tell, that's how we lived before we invented bullshit. No chimpanzee is a bullshit artist – or any other kind of artist.

Like it or not, we have it now, and I find it impossible to imagine a practical plan for completely eliminating it. If we really can't get rid of it, then I can't agree that the relevant question is what life would be like without it. That seems utopian. Bullshit exists; it's doing something in our society. It has effects on us. The real question, I think, is whether there can be better or worse effects. Is some bullshit more damaging than the rest? Are fairly standard forms of timeworn bullshit perhaps a bit like the suite of benign microbes that live in our guts? Is existing, harmless bullshit protecting us from novel, possibly dangerous bullshit? (As the analogies of the 1930's and the Reformation might suggest…) Can anything really go wrong with the market for bullshit? Are there any public dangers associated with this large-scale, apparently rather consequential social phenomenon, do we need to manage it somehow?

Bullshit and Informational Externalities

As for the economics of informational externalities… Frankfurt's philosophical clarification of the meaning of the ordinary English word "bullshit" strikes me as capable of driving an economic model because he suggests that we're most likely to come up with bullshit when it's difficult for us to speak the truth. For example, when we're expected to have a strong opinion about a matter on which we have no expertise. From an economic point of view, this is a theory about how people cope with the potential costs of information gathering.

We all constantly encounter subjects we know very little about. Most conversations about politics are like this. Discussions between people who know rather little about the particular problems they're discussing, problems they personally won't be expected to directly do anything about. It could hardly be otherwise in a democracy, since everyone's asked to vote on whole political programs containing prescriptions for dealing with various different societal problems.

The reward for carefully ascertaining and then impartially telling the unadorned and directly relevant truth in many of these ordinary, inconsequential conversations is small. There might be public benefits. But public knowledge of the truth is a public good. We, personally, will only receive one seven billionth of those benefits, while the entire cost of carefully gathering the information and presenting to people who may not be all that interested in it will fall on us. The temptations to slack off and pursue other social goals which these situations present may be resisted by a few, but those are rare and sometimes unpopular individuals.

Perhaps we all have a threshold. When we know less than x about some subject, we all struggle against a temptation to employ bullshit in discussing it, to just agree with the people around us to be agreeable, or use the incident as an excuse to point out how stupid the hated out-group is, or try to come up with a funny or enraging fairy-tale about what the truth must be, or to complain plaintively about how nobody really cares, or something like that. Making up bullshit is easier than finding the truth about every abstruse subject, so wherever ease or mere courtesy are the most practically relevant considerations, we can expect almost everyone to face a temptation to repeat or invent bullshit. In a sort of conversational version of Gresham's law, bullshit should drive out honesty wherever there are no consequences for the individual.

But the true bullshit artist produces bullshit egregiously, even in contexts where it's not conventional or acceptable. He represents himself as sincerely concerned with the truth in situations where he really should be, but he's not. He isn't just occasionally tempted to make careless and insincere pronouncements on unimportant-seeming subjects he knows nothing about. He's turned doing that into his thing, into a complex art form. He persistently insists that his bullshit is reality, and that the actual truth is just a bunch of bullshit.

He may even get angry when this assertion is questioned. Often the anger is sincere; he thinks it's unfair for you to question his facts, because his argument was never based on facts, the facts were just added to support an existing point of view. They're basically decorations, so by attacking them you're not really invalidating his conversation goal, as far as he's concerned. You're just getting in the way. Like an idiot, like some fool who thinks the conversational contest is about what the facts are. Not, as he believes it to be, about whose bullshit will prevail in the eyes of the audience. Presumably he has no idea that the questioner is doing anything that's different from what he himself is doing…

It seems to me that in some sense this person is a polar opposite or mirror image of Hayek's "man on the spot" v or Kenneth Arrow's benevolent specialist vi, In both these cases, the expert creates positive informational externalities for society by knowing all about some obscure thing, and sharing the information in various ways. Either through the price system, for Hayek, or by broadcasting the information, by publishing it in a journal, for Arrow. I also like to tell a story vii  that involves a kind of person, the entrepreneur, who generates positive informational externalities for society by personally taking the risk of performing an experiment that may fail, of starting a firm and possibly going bankrupt.

But the bullshit artist doesn't perform any experiments, and he doesn't know all about some obscure thing. Or if he does, he doesn't actually just stick to telling the plain unadorned truth about that thing, or about how those experiments came out.  He's surrendered completely to the natural human urge to have a strong opinion on every subject, even ones he's not in a very good position to discover the truth about. He hasn't bothered to take the risks he'd need to take, or go to the trouble he'd need to go to, do the hard work he'd need to do, to engage in the self-criticism and he'd have to engage in, to find out the truth about them. Because he doesn't really care that much about what's true.

Since bullshit is free from the constraints of honesty, it can be perfectly designed to attract attention and elicit belief. (Whereas the actual full truth is usually abstruse and implausible.) From the point of view of cultural evolution, it's a parasitic mimic, like a cuckoo. Like a cuckoo chick, it has to be more dazzling than the real thing in order to displace it.

Nevertheless, the bullshit artist may generate either positive or negative informational externalities, because even he will speak the truth if it suits his ulterior purpose.

The Market for Lemons

But before I say anything more about all that, I need to quickly describe George Akerlof's model of the used car market viii That will put me in a much better position to explain why I'm now starting to worry about cascading failure in the "bullshit market".

Akerlof was interested in the potential of informational asymmetries, in general, to produce market failure. (So it's easy to see why his model might be relevant to the market for bullshit, which by its very nature exists entirely within the precarious and shifting world of asymmetries in information.) The basic idea behind his model is quite simple. Suppose that, when buying a new car, people have an imperfect ability to determine whether the car is a lemon. (For the sake of the example, either quality control is very bad, or else little information on safety, reliability, etc. is available in advance of purchases, or the people simply have imperfect judgment. The model is from a time when it was more plausible that not much information about car quality might be available.) But once they've owned a car for a little while, they begin to have a pretty clear idea of its quality.

People who have a car that they now know is worth more than the prevailing market price for a used car will keep their car off the market. But people who have a car that they now know is worth less than the prevailing market price for a used car would be happy to sell theirs for the prevailing market price. So the used car buyer will have to choose his car from a pool of used cars the very best of which are worth a shade less than the prevailing market price, and the worst of which are worth much less than the prevailing market price.

In the case of completely asymmetric information – if the seller always knows just exactly how bad the lemon is, but the buyer can't ever tell the difference between it and any other car – the average buyer will end up with a car drawn from the middle of this distribution. But that means the average person will get a car that's worth a lot less than he paid for it. Once this becomes generally known, it's hard to see why the buyers wouldn't refuse to buy used cars for any price higher than this average value.

If the price is adjusted down to this new level, however, everyone with a car that's worth more than the new price will withdraw their car from the market. So the average quality of the cars available at that price will be even lower. Once this becomes generally known, it's hard to see why the buyers wouldn't refuse to buy cars for any price higher than the new, lower, average value.

Once the price has been adjusted down to the new new level, however, everyone with a car that's worth more than the new new price will withdraw their car from the market…

By a cascading series of steps like that, the used car market can fail, as a result of the informational asymmetry between buyer and seller. Although at each step there were some sellers willing to sell cars for only a little more than they were worth, and some buyers genuinely willing to pay slightly over fair value to avoid the expense of buying a new car, in the end the equilibrium is zero transactions. 

If some institution or institutions existed to help the buyer determine the actual value of the used car more precisely, or if the people themselves developed a method of detecting lemons, they could meet and transact. So getting rid of the informational asymmetry would remove the market failure. But Akerlof worried that the rating agency would be unreliable, that whoever provided the public information about car quality would be tempted to issue bullshit instead, to use the resulting power to muddy the water in some self-serving way…

The Market For Bullshit

Okay, so now we're back to bullshit, though now we're coming at it from a slightly different angle. But what exactly is the analogy I'm pushing here actually supposed to be? What actually makes the market for bullshit a "market" in the first place? Is that supposed to be some kind of metaphor?

I don't think it is just a metaphor. At the same time, the phrase is slightly misleading, in precisely the same way as the phrase "the market for lemons". Of course, the market for bullshit is parasitic on the market for sincere attempts to tell the truth. Why? Because bullshit derives most of its value from the fact that not everyone can always tell the difference between these two things. Strictly speaking, the market for bullshit is no more separable from the market for putative public truths in general than Akerlof's "market for lemons", for used cars not really worth the price they're being offered for, is from the market for used cars in general. It's one segment of the market for putative truths, in the same way the market for lemons is one segment of the market for used cars. The segment, in both cases, includes all and only those items that are worth less than they're presented as being worth. (Or at least, in the case of bullshit, where the seller hasn't exercised nearly enough diligence to really know that they're worth as much as he's presenting them as being worth.)

Every issuance of egregious bullshit that's at all consequential is, in fact, an exchange, involving at least two parties. There are people who produce egregious bullshit, often for a living, and there are people who buy it, and hold onto it until and unless they see through it. The producers are paid by the consumers, not with a permanent transfer of the scarce commodity, credence, but with a conditional loan that can be recalled at will. The unique and distinctive transaction in this market is the temporary exchange of egregious bullshit for credence.  Sooner or later, this credence may be repossessed by the credulous person, when the bullshit becomes discredited in his eyes. (When and if the bullshit artist's ulterior motives become too readily apparent, or crucial facts turn out to be too obviously false, or the emotional impact simply fades.)

So really it's a commodity market, because while some truths remain true forever, bullshit gets used up over time, like gasoline, or sugar, meaning new bullshit must constantly be produced.

The objective of each established vendor of bullshit is to get the customer to constantly roll over his credence to a new story from the same source, instead of repossessing it and looking for another vendor. But if the perceived credibility of the pool of existing vendors, in aggregate, declines, for some reason, new vendors with equally low quality bullshit who were shut ou

The Pokemon GO Conspiracy

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 01:30 PM PDT

Could Pokémon GO be the most intrusive surveillance system in the world? The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Gold And Silver – Debt Addiction Will Carry Precious Metals Higher, Guaranteed

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 12:32 PM PDT

All is not so well within the elite’s New World Order. Their tried and true template of Problem-Reaction-Solution is in full gear as chaos reigns throughout the globe, which is exactly how the globalists like to see events unfold. Chaos [Problem] leads to unnerving situations [Reaction] amongst the masses that eventually cry out for resolve and a return to “normalcy” [Solution, but only as intended by the elites]. Invariably, a return to some kind of order requires the giving up of freedoms, and it often entails tightening the noose of economic hardship. Sadly, the rinse-and-repeat familiarity of this Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario never seems familiar to the masses. Each time is “different,” that is to say the events may seem to be different, but the procedure of how the events unfold each and every time throughout history is never different.

The Pokemon Apocalypse

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 12:30 PM PDT

Before the Collapse: The Pokemon Apocalypse The harmonization of ages, the cult of youth, the infantilization of society, pokemon go is yet another nail in the coffin of individualism. The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Escaping America -- Max Keiser

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 12:00 PM PDT

Max and Stacy talk first to Jeff Berwick of the Dollar Vigilante about Americans renouncing their citizenship as a solution to bank embargoes and double taxation. In the second half, Max and Stacy talk to Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, founder of BitNation - the world's first virtual nation, a...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

CIA Behind Coup In Turkey -- Syrian Girl

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 11:30 AM PDT

Syrian Girl Talks about how turkey coup wasn't planned by erdogan, ties to Turkey's apology, says the CIA and the white house who is behind it, and that russia may have tipped off the turks. The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists ,...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

America in 2017 PLEASE WAKE UP!!!! PROOF NWO AGENDA

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 11:00 AM PDT

Credit to Jason A & Freedom Fighter Times The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

" Hillary Clinton DIRECTLY CONNECTED to LUCIFER" - Ben Carson speech.

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 10:30 AM PDT

Hillary is EVIL, she should not become president or its over for this countryHE WENT THERE: WATCH Dr. BEN CARSON CONNECT HILLARY TO LUCIFER IN RNC SPEECH. She had Saul Alinsky as her beloved mentor, the man who admires Lucifer. The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Central Banks Are Preparing For The Nuclear Option -- Fabian CALVO

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 10:00 AM PDT

Fabian Calvo, founder of TheNoteHouse.us, says, "I would say the U.S. dollar is wounded. The criminal bankers on Wall Street are cornered, and that's why they need to get people's minds off of things by blowing up this economy again to the upside before a big letdown." On the strength of the U.S....

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

The Law of Cosmic Imperative

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 08:00 AM PDT

This post The Law of Cosmic Imperative appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

Where have I been? I admit I was cowering, like the spineless little weasel that I am, in the Mogambo Secret Temporary Bunker (MSTB), which I cleverly constructed in the living room using an overturned couch and some strategically-placed cushions.

That's where I got an email from Junior Mogambo Ranger (JMR) Phil S., who sent an interesting essay he ran across. It was concerned with what we both, as educated people who recoil in mortal horror at suicidal Keynesian econometric lunacy, are both deeply, deeply concerned.

Namely, the incomprehensibly impossible conditions in the world economy, completely saturated, as we are, with massive, unpayable burdens of backbreaking debt, and now terrifyingly teetering, teetering, teetering on the very, very verge of complete cataclysmic collapse, which is not to mention the sudden-yet-stupid appearance of completely gratuitous alliteration.

Bad times, indeed.

In summation, the author dryly noted that "conventional and unconventional policy tools aren’t working." My Initial Arrogant Mogambo Reaction (IAMR), of course, is to reflexively snort in dismissive derision ("Ha!") and predictably rise in loud, self-righteous rebuttal to say "Hey! You! Hold it right there! Policy tools of creating massive amounts of debt and the accompanying ballooning of the money supply aren't working to goose the economy as they used to, alright, but in reality, they are working exactly as they always work: At first they can, and then they can't! Because that's the way it works! Hahahaha!"

I generously waited a moment for that superb Mogambo profundity to sink in, thus allowing time for journalists to eagerly jot down the delicious bon mot. Disappointingly noting neither, I disdainfully thought to myself "Pearls before swine! Morons! I hate you! I hate you all!"

Fortunately, I controlled myself and my fearsome Mogambo Fists Of Rage (MFOR) long enough to continue "It's a law! It must be an economic law of some kind, emanating from some unseen order permeating space and time! A cosmic imperative! The Force is with us!"

I dare say this with some real authority because I actually know for a fact that this same thing, and I am talking Same Exact Damned Thing (SEDT), has happened thousands of times in the last 2,500 years here on Earth: A dirtbag government allows stupidity as concerns debt and the money supply, everything bankrupts itself, things collapse, everybody suffers, hordes of invaders sweep in, and then it starts all over again from nothing, an economy eventually rising from the ashes by turning the ruins into tourist attractions selling T-shirts and tasty food.

And in case you are as curious as most Earthling carbon-units, this SEDT has happened TRILLIONS of other times on countless other planets, too. And in just this one, lousy quadrant of the galaxy!

In fact, innumerable intergalactic research papers have shown that, invariably, some dirtbag, low-IQ creatures living on some dirtbag, low-IQ planet decided "Hey! We should stop wallowing in slime on the bottom of the ocean, where everyone evolved with fins and a developed brain is always pooping on us from above! We need a fiat currency!

That way, we can expand the money supply and buy an expanding, eternal prosperity for ourselves! Then we can evolve into higher-order beings, perhaps intelligent enough to understand that we can't, in reality, do this kind of foolish fiat-money crap without paying a terrible price, and we should stop now before it's too late. But we won't! Whee!"

And they don't. Like I said, trillions of times.

"So, relax," I keep telling myself. "There is still much malignant magic in a fiat currency, bubble, bubble, toil and trouble! Much more than is dreamt of in your nightmares, my dear Horatio!"

Uh-oh! Alert Junior Mogambo Rangers (JMRs) instantly recognize that my bizarrely lapsing into a mishmash of misremembered Shakespearean soliloquies is always a bad sign, portending (dare I say it?) trouble ahead.

Then again, perhaps the hard, bitter lessons of marriage, children, stupid neighbors, crappy careers going nowhere but down, and bizarre Keynesian monetary policy portending bankruptcy and ruination have taught me, pausing for a little self-pity, that there is ALWAYS trouble ahead, and everything crappy can always get a lot MORE crappy.

And usually does, too!

And, for me, it's usually because I don't have the money to buy myself out of another crappy mess by establishing making restitution, or establishing a fake alibi, or framing somebody else, or bribing lawyers, or intimidating witnesses, or faking my own death to start over with a new life in some tropical paradise driving a snazzy convertible with fancy hubcaps and a great sound system.

But — unlike real life! — the evil Federal Reserve can happily create as much money as it wants! Anytime it wants! And so can all the other central banks of the world, too! And (hold onto your hat!) they are!

In fact (still holding onto your hat), according to something I read, I forget where, for at least the last 6 weeks, an incredible $1.5 trillion dollars in new credit was created worldwide! Every week! Every Freaking Week (EFW)!!

And here in the USA, hundreds of billions of dollars are continually springing into being, overnight!

And the Federal Reserve has, believe it or not, given itself the power to create the money to buy financial assets for itself, thus reducing the supply of assets in the market, while at the same time increasing the supply of money looking for assets to buy! More demand and less supply means higher prices!

With the awesome, towering power of buying unlimited assets with unlimited money the Fed creates for itself, you can be sure that nothing bad will permanently happen to the banks, the stock market, the bond market, the housing market, the auto loan market, the student loan market, the derivative market or government deficit-spending or anything else, because if they don't, it's "Game Over, Player One."

Oh, sure, the Fed will let markets sink and rise, up and down, around and around, probably dramatically, so as to allow the sleazy banks and the ethically-bankrupt financial sector to profit from manipulating the markets and transferring investor money to themselves. Just like always. No problem. They've been doing it for years.

This fixes to assets markets.

But what about the real commercial economy? You and me, and kids and spouse who never seem to shut the hell up about wanting things?

Well, it comes down to somehow getting a lot of new, free cash and credit into the hands of people who will spend it (especially by borrowing against future infusions of cash!), thereby goosing (honk!) consumer spending, goosing (honk! honk!) the economy and further goosing (honk! honk! honk!) prices in all the markets.

Ergo, putting on my Mogambo Memory Cap (MMC) and turning the power up to maximum, I begin to remember, remember, remember like it was yesterday, perhaps in that classic book Economica Mogambo, that I have theorized that a 50% tax cut is just what the doctor ordered, and easily administered: At the bottom of your tax return, divide by 2. Send that, and keep the rest.

"After all," I added, "the total of personal and business federal tax paid is less than a few lousy trillions of dollars, while the government has been increasing the national debt by almost a trillion dollars a year for almost a decade! A Whole Freaking Decade (WFD)!"

So, waxing philosophic, what's another trillion and a half of new government debt to cover the now-missing tax receipts?

And, with a snotty air of contempt on my lips, I know that with their simplistic Keynesian mathematical mumbo-jumbo, the Fed will show that the multiplier of new money entering the economy (which was usually about 4) will increase to at least 6 because the lack of taxes on each new dollar no longer gradually erodes its buying power as it passes from hand to hand, giving the economy a sudden increase of a mind-boggling $9 trillion in new buying power!

And with a ludicrously out-of-control fractional-reserve banking (where reserves held against loans) are almost non-existent, we are suddenly talking over a (gulp!) quadrillion potential dollars, just from the Federal Reserve! Which is not to mention all the other desperate governments and central banks around the world who would LOVE to do this crap!

So why am I saying this again now? Because Ben Bernanke, disgraceful former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has, so the rumor holds, visited the government of bankrupt and massively over-indebted Japan to explain why his previous advice to drown in massive amounts of debt didn't work, and now to advise them to literally give people money.

Unfortunately, it will end, years from now, in disaster when the skyrocketing cost of food and energy ("death by price inflation") caused by this insane mega-expansion of the money supply makes people grumpy and things grind to a halt.

And gold and silver prices? To the moon, baby! Talk about your cosmic imperatives!
With such certainty, what can one say except "Whee! This investing stuff is easy!"?

Regards,

The Mogambo Guru
for The Daily Reckoning

Ed. Note: Sign up for your FREE subscription to The Daily Reckoning, and you'll start receiving regular offers for specific profit opportunities. By taking advantage now, your ensuring that you'll be financially secure later. Best to start right away.

 

The post The Law of Cosmic Imperative appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

7 Signs That the Gold Market Remains Resilient

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 06:48 AM PDT

Gold and silver prices ran out of momentum during the first week of July and have been drifting lower ever since. A deeper correction seems like a realistic expectation, but precious metals are showing strong signs of resiliency. Here are seven forces that should be creating headwinds for precious metals, but are barely having any impact.

Gold and Gold Stock Indices

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 06:09 AM PDT

Investing in particular gold stocks gives exposure to movements in price of gold, but also to other factors affecting the gold mining industry, as well as company-specific strengths and weaknesses. This is why investors have to bear in mind the trends in the gold market as well as the mining industry, and wisely select appropriate stocks. One way to avoid the problem of selecting the promising shares (for instance for those that don’t have access to tools that would make the selection easier) is to invest in the index of gold mining companies.

The US Dollar's Impact on Gold and Silver

Posted: 23 Jul 2016 01:00 AM PDT

Technical analyst Jack Chan charts a breakout of the U.S. dollar and comments on its implications for gold and silver.

Breaking News And Best Of The Web

Posted: 22 Jul 2016 06:44 PM PDT

Central banks making big promises, which traders seem to like. S&P 500 near all-time high. Gold corrects; several analysts see a top here. Oil falls for the week. Corporate earnings mixed so far. Brexit is slowing world economy, European hedge funds struggling, Italian banks hopeless. Another terrorist attack, this time at a German shopping mall. […]

The post Breaking News And Best Of The Web appeared first on DollarCollapse.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment