Monday, October 17, 2016

Gold World News Flash

Gold World News Flash

Doug Casey Warns "The Greater Depression Is Going To Be Worse That Even I Thought It Would Be"

Posted: 17 Oct 2016 01:00 AM PDT

Submitted by Doug Casey via,

Mark Twain said, “If you don’t read the papers you’re uninformed. If you do read them, you’re misinformed.”

That’s why I want to draw your attention to a recent article called “The Isolationist Temptation,” in The Wall Street Journal, written by Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The piece wasn’t worth reading—except that it offers some real insight into what the “elite” are thinking. The CFR is one of about a dozen groups, like Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, and Davos, where the self-identified elite gather.

These groups don’t have political power, per se. But their members are members of governments, large corporations, universities, the military, and the media. They all went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs, socialize together and, most important, share the same worldview. What might that be? They believe in the State—not the market—as the best way to organize the world.

Believe it or not (I still don’t…) I was recently invited to one of these conclaves. Probably by mistake. I don’t expect to be a fox in the henhouse, but more like a skeleton at a feast. I’ll tell you all about it next month…

But back to the current topic. Like me, you’ve probably asked yourself, “Who are these people? Are they knaves, or fools, or both? What are they smoking? Are they actually crazy?”

Haass starts out by dividing the world of foreign policy observers into the “internationalists” and the “isolationists”—a false, misleading, and stupid distinction. They’re not “internationalists” (which are people who move between countries); they’re “globalists” (people who want to work for one world government, that they control). He uses the term “isolationists” as a pejorative term for the enemy camp, conflating them with non-interventionists—who are a totally different group. Isolationists bring to mind a backward cult, hiding from the rest of the world. Non-interventionists simply don’t want to stick their noses in other people’s business.

He lauds so-called internationalists (i.e., globalists) as “those who want the U.S. to retain the leading international role it’s held since WW2.” By that he means minions of the U.S. government should roam the world to “spread democracy.” He assumes that democracy—which is actually just a more polite form of mob rule—is always a good thing. Apart from the fact that democracy is only rarely the result of U.S. intervention. Another division he makes (and here I admire his candor) is between the “elites”—like high government officials and people like those in the CFR—and the “non-elites.” He actually uses these words. He terms U.S. invasions and regime change efforts as “an ambitious foreign policy.”

He says, even after referencing disastrous U.S. failures like the Korean, Vietnamese, Afghan, and Iraq wars, and ongoing catastrophes in Libya and Syria, that we should continue on the same course.

He loves the idea of alliances, of course. Despite the fact that alliances only serve to draw one country into another one’s war. Alliances just take relatively small local disputes, and move them up to catastrophic levels. This has always been the case. But the classic example is World War 1, which signaled the start of the long collapse of Western Civilization. Alliances can only serve to draw the U.S. into wars between nothing/nowhere countries that few Americans can find on a map.

Then he goes on to discuss what he calls “free trade,” another dishonest misuse of the term. Free trade exists when there are no duties or quotas, when any business can buy and sell what it wants when and where it wants.

What these people actually want is government-managed trade, which they prefer to call “fair trade.” He implies that wise and incorruptible government officials are necessary to ensure that foolish and dishonest buyers and sellers don’t hurt themselves.

But shouldn’t we worry if foreigners subsidize their manufacturers, and disregard U.S. environmental and labor regulations? My answer is: No. It’s wonderful if a foolish, mercantilist government subsidizes U.S. consumers; we’re enriched while they’re impoverished by selling dollar bills for 50 cents. And if the Chinese can make something cheaper than Americans, that’s wonderful. The Americans—who still have the world’s largest pool of capital, technology, and educated labor—are freed to do something more productive.

Anyway, the Haass article is horrible on every level. I’d reprint it here, but it’s too long and too boring. And it would violate the Journal’s reprint policy. But there’s another article, even more egregious, more stupid, and more destructive, that the Journal recently ran, by Kenneth Rogoff, called “The Sinister Side of Cash.” He is, of course, a Harvard “economist.” You’ll have to get hold of it yourself, because of the newspaper’s reprint policy. But I urge you to do so. It lays out—in clear and well-written English—the “elite” rationale for negative interest rates, and the abolition of cash.

It literally beggars belief, and makes me think the author is criminally insane. I mean that literally, in the clinical sense. Criminal because he actively advocates aggression against other’s property, and in effect, their lives. And insane because his thoughts and beliefs are completely delusional and divorced from reality.

All in all, every day there are more indications on every front that the trailing edge of the gigantic financial hurricane we entered in 2007 is going to be very, very ugly.

The Greater Depression is going to be worse than even I thought it would be.

Education giant Pearson’s sales slump soothed by strong dollar

Posted: 17 Oct 2016 12:50 AM PDT

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

"Big Oil" - The Crude Market Is Larger Than All Metals Markets Combined

Posted: 17 Oct 2016 12:00 AM PDT

Ever since the invention of the internal combustion engine, oil has been one of the most crucial commodities on Earth. Without it, modern transportation as we know it would not be possible. Industries such as aviation, aerospace, automobiles, shipping, and the military would look nothing like they do today.

Of course, as we now know, this has all come with some extreme drawbacks from an environmental perspective. And while new green technology and the lithium revolution will aid in eventually reducing the role of oil in transportation, the fact is we still use 94 million barrels per day of crude worldwide.

As a result, Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins details, the energy industry continues to have huge amounts of influence on our lives. Special interest groups with a focus on energy have influence on a domestic level. Meanwhile, from a foreign policy angle, countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia wield additional geopolitical and economic power because of their natural resources. It’s even arguable that everything from the Gulf War to the more recent Middle East interventions in Libya, Syria, and Iraq have been at least partially to do with oil.

This week’s chart of the week aims to help explain the influence that oil has on countries and markets by using a very simple perspective: the size of the crude oil market vs. all metal markets combined.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist



While the amount of uses in one barrel of oil is quite incredible, we still need a mind-boggling amount of the natural resource each year to sustain consumption.

  • Oil production per year: 34 billion barrels
  • Oil market size at current prices: $1.7 trillion per year

To consider how big this actually is, we compare the annual market sizes of all major metals and minerals that are mined throughout the world:

  • Gold: $170 billion
  • Iron: $115 billion
  • Copper: $91 billion
  • Aluminum: $90 billion
  • Zinc: $34 billion
  • Manganese: $30 billion
  • Nickel: $21 billion
  • Silver: $20 billion
  • Other metals: $67 billion (Including platinum, palladium, titanium, tin, moly, uranium, and more)

The total amount works out to $660 billion – just a tiny fraction of the size of the oil market.

Note: we focus on raw, physical materials in this analysis. We leave out things like gold futures, or alloy markets such as steel in this analysis. To get market size numbers, we used the latest price multiplied by 2015 demand in most cases. We left out the smaller markets for many other metals like bismuth, antimony, or rhodium. Exact sources can be seen in the chart itself.

Gold Market in Crisis, Risks Collapse: LBMA

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 11:11 PM PDT

Bullion Vault

Gold Prices Set For Further Losses Amid Rising Rate Hike Likelihood

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 09:11 PM PDT

After briefly crossing back below the critical $1250 per troy ounce level again on Friday, gold are once again poised to experience an extended period of losses on the back of rate hike speculation.  Even though Wall Street was not pleased by the latest jobs figures reported earlier in the month, expectations are for inflation to continue trending higher, adding to the case for the Federal Reserve to raise rates in December.  While there are still significant developments that could derail the possibility between now and November, namely another slowdown in US fundamentals, the external risk factors that emerged over the summer have since tapered.  The US dollar continues to reflect this sentiment, increasing the probability of tighter monetary policy and improving opportunities in fixed income investments, reducing the value of holding gold as a hedge.

Latest Wiki Dump Reveals Heavy Press Collusion Over Hillary's "Excellent Health" Medical Statement

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 07:24 PM PDT

Among the latest, ninth round of Podesta email releases by Wikileaks this morning, is a July 31, 2015 email by Hillary Clinton's National Press Secretary Brian Fallon who lays out the agenda for the day's rollout of Clinton's tax record and, more importantly, Hillary's "excellent health" medical statement, where once again the media, listed as "AP, Politico, WSJ, WaPo, etc" is exposed as coordinating and colluding with the campaign to send a message that Hillary is in great health.

In the email written in the early hours on Friday, Fallon writes that in the "rollout plan" for that same day, the campaign will "Pitch the first round of stories to the travelling press corps (AP, Politico, WSJ, WaPo, etc) with a 2 pm embargo."

He goes on to say that for these stories "we will provide the full text of HRC's physician's letter, summarizing that she is in excellent health and is medically fit to perform the duties of President. We will push that she is the FIRST presidential candidate to release this info."

In further evidence of the prepared media narrative, Fallon points out that "we expect the stories that pop at 2 pm to have headlines such as "CLINTON IN 'EXCELLENT HEALTH,' MEDICAL RECORDS SAY" … "CLINTON RELEASES HEALTH REPORT."

Fallon also plans how to approach the "friendly" press in an attempt to "one-up" Jeb Bush, who at the time was seen as her biggest challenger, in terms of financial disclosures, and specifically her tax filings.

In describing that the tax returns are forthcoming, we will stress that the  amount of our disclosure will better Jeb's in three key ways:

  • TOTAL YEARS OF RETURNS: Jeb made a big deal of releasing 33 years of returns, a record for a presidential candidate.  Today we are posting the Clintons' returns from 2007-2014 on our website.  The returns for '92-2006 were already available online, and 1977-1991 were reported on extensively when they were made available.  Today's release means that Hillary Clinton has made 38 years of returns available to the press over the course of her career.
  • SPEECH INCOME: In addition to her returns, Hillary Clinton is releasing itemized income amounts for each speech delivered by her and President in 2013. (She has already done it for 2014 and the early part of 2015). Jeb did not do this.
  • INCOME SOURCES THAT PASSED THROUGH LLC: HRC will also itemize the income that went through her and the President's LLC entities. Jeb has refused to disclose the clients from whom he derived income that passed through his LLC known as Jeb Bush and Associates.

As Fallon explains, "the lede of most of these stories will be the health records since they are being released in full, but the lower paragraphs of the stories will focus on how the campaign says it will improve upon Jeb Bush's level of disclosure when the tax returns emerge."

He then goes on to list the further sequence of events that will be revealed in collaboration with the press:

At 3 PM: We will provide the travelers list with the toplines of Clinton's 2014 tax returns, emphasizing their effective tax rates (both federal and state-federal, combined). We will also provide advance text of the statement from HRC about how the wealthy – a category in which she includes herself – ought to pay their fair share, not seek to shrink or shirk their obligations.  We will provide these materials on embargo until 4 pm. We expect the headlines from this round to include: "CLINTONS PAID xx% RATE IN 2014" … "CLINTON, RELEASING RETURNS, SAYS WEALTHY SHOULD PAY MORE."

The collaboration with the press continues as follows:


From this point on, reporters will dig into specific details in search of negative storylines, and re-write the Round 1 and Round 2 stories to reflect the additional detail. Among the storylines we expect reporters to zero in on once they dive into the full returns:

  • The actual income amounts (to the dollar) reported by the Clintons for 2014, and cumulatively for the eight years reported. (Previously, their incomes only needed to be stated as a range under the Personal Financial Disclosure Form). Using this figure, reporters will dwell on the Clintons' sheer wealth.
  • The fact of HRC's LLC entity. Again, we will try to put the focus on how we are going beyond what Jeb did in disclosing all the income sources for this LLC, but the fact of it will be new to reporters.
  • The actual income amount earned by WJC from his consulting contracts, especially Laureate.

Of particular interest is Fallon's own admission that "reporters will also scrutinize the 2013 speech list for overlap between speech hosts and campaign/Foundation donors that could fuel "pay-to-play" storylines." To be sure, he was right, however even subsequent reporting on alleged ethical violations, as Reuters did over the weekend, has failed to provoke any branch of government to ask even one probing question of the candidate officially backed and supported by the current US president.

Fallon concludes that "despite these inevitable angles, based on the framing performed in the earlier rounds of stories, we will have given ourselves the best possible, "fighting" chance of promoting the most helpful storylines (i.e., the superlative of being the first candidate to release her health records, the Clintons' high effective tax rate, their call for a more progressive tax code that asks wealthy individuals like themselves to pay more, the heightened transparency of HRC's tax returns as compared to Jeb's, etc)."

* * *

The above takes places several months after a March 2015 email exchange in which campaign manager Mook wrote Podesta, asking if he had talked to Hillary "about her taxes and health:, admitting that both topics are "hypersensitive" to her, yet adding that "both are better dealt with very early so we control them--rather than responding to calls for transparency."

* * *

And that is how Hillary's well-greased organization maintained the lid on her health narrative from day one, and prevented it from sliding out of control in an undesired direction by coordinating with the "friendly press." Of course, it was unable to do so for too long, as we noted over the summer; at that point the Clinton campaign would simply smear those non-compliant press as "alt-right" elements, or as has been the case recently, invoke "Russian-support" elements and suggest it is one vast conspiracy, at least until a video of Hillary collapsing on September 11 emerged and confirmed it was all just "conspiracy fact."

Tinfoil: It's Getting Harder To Leave Home Without It

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 07:20 PM PDT

Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

It used to be when someone mentioned the term “tinfoil cap wearing,” “conspiracy theorist,” “lunatic fringe,” etc, etc., it was usually in reference to a subset of individuals or groups that resided in some dark corners or basements believing “mind control” went far beyond just propaganda. i.e., It was actually the government (or aliens!) sending out undetectable frequencies directly into the minds of the masses. And, the only protection was: tinfoil. With it’s best use fashioned and adorned as a cap. It’s been a running joke (as it should be) longer than most can remember.

Yet, with all that said, it’s getting harder to be out amongst the public as an informed person and not feel as if there isn’t something to all the “lunacy.” For if you speak to nearly anyone these days be it family, friends, coworkers, or the occasional overheard conversations of strangers. You can’t help wondering: how can so many be so clueless? Or worse: how is it they can argue some form of righteous stance about this, or that, all the while they are “knee-deep” themselves in the same (if not worse) muck they say is being slung from the other side?

It’s moved so far beyond ridiculous I’m now starting to believe there is something in the water. However, is it in the tap or, is it in the bottled? For the people able to afford bottled, as opposed to plain tap, seem to have some of the more “crazy” arguments I’ve heard in quite some time. And that’s saying something. It’s the only thing that explains it.

(Note: “informed” would include you dear reader, for the mere act of you reading this, whether you agree or disagree, proves ipso facto that you are searching out information as to draw your own conclusions. And to that – I tip my hat too you.)

So now that you’ve read this far, let’s both don a silvery chapeau and contemplate what might be one of the scariest propositions (if found true) that could change everything (and I do mean everything) as we know it. e.g., “WWIII”

(C’mon, what’s a good conspiracy theory without an apocalyptic conclusion as part of the deal? For if you’re going to go there – just go there is all I’ll say, yes?)

In the U.S. we are currently in the final stages (within 30 days) of the election process where we’ll vote for the next president. And in you were an alien just landed from some distant galaxy you would be hard pressed to not assume Vladimir Putin wasn’t running on the ballot in third-party status. For he’s been mentioned and garnered more free electoral press as it pertains to the campaign than the actual third-party candidate has received – including ad buys. Hence, this is where things get down right loony.

Say what you want about “Russian hackers” infiltrating private email servers and the like. Proving that it’s actually state sponsored, which state (i.e., Russia, China, N.Korea, etc.) is quite another. For it can also be just the garden variety hack (i.e., basement dwelling protesters) or, it could be the sophisticated type, i.e., Anonymous, etc. It’s a guessing game based on circumstantial evidence sprinkled with very suspect actual at best.

However, you know what can’t be denied and is pure evidence based for all the world to see, on purpose?

Military troop movements, missile deployments, a calling home to all diplomats and their children, multi-national communist allied war gaming (e.g. Russian and Chinese navy) on the open sea, all while instructing the Russian population to take part in “live nuclear bombing drills” for the first time since the cold war ended.

That’s what’s been taking place (and a whole lot more) over the last 30 days in the real world. Have you heard, read, or seen anything about it in the main-stream media?

Sorry, trick question. Of course not. Have you heard about the Kardashian’s latest escapades? Again, trick question – you can’t turn on a TV, radio, or go to the grocery store without seeing another version of the same headline. They’re everywhere.

Yet, here is the real question: Can you think of another time when something even resembling the above as it pertains to war, or even the drums of it wouldn’t be the only thing reported this close to an election previously? The silence is so deafening it boggles the mind. For along with this “radio silence” comes forth that other silence – nobody’s taking about it because: nobody knows.

As for proof? As I iterated earlier: just ask someone about it, then watch for the blank stare.

So, as I like to do, let’s not think “outside-the-box” and limit ourselves. Let’s delve more into what I like to call “there is no box” hypothesizing. Where we can let our conspiracy theorist inner person loose and argue assertions and plausibilities without constraints. For remember: facts sometimes prove out that far more lunacy exists in the real world – than the fictional. It’s in the inability to contemplate or, to ” the-getting-there” that blindside most from ever seeing the possibilities that exist. So let’s proceed. And don’t forget your hat….

What if the U.S. drops the “nuclear” option in December? No, not some ICBM. But rather: Raises interest rates.

And not by .25 basis points, but rather, say 50. e.g., 1/2 of 1%.

I know, this is crazy talk (but that’s why we have the tinfoil, no?) But let’s play this through taking the “crazy” view as a possibility. Can it make sense of what we already deem as “crazy?” Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. But you’ll never know unless you try.

Back in May of this year I penned an article titled: “Was The Fed Just Given The Launch Codes?” In it I made some observations as it pertained to “the elites” or “Ivory Tower” type thinking. It was a follow-up from a previous in October where I hypothesized another perilous possibility: “Weaponizing The Fed.

With all that was happening at that time, along with what has happened since, it’s getting harder to push these ideas away, more than it is to embrace the possibilities. And that, in-and-of itself, is causing me more concern with each passing day. Especially when combined with the realities taking place in real-time today.

So what type of “conspiracy” laden scenario can I hypothesize using what we know to be factual, and, what we can conceptualize happening based on what has happened previous? Warning: it might be time to check for any possible tears, or cracks in your metallic helmet, and repair or reapply as much “tinfoil” as one feels appropriate. With that said, let’s continue.

Have you noticed as of late that the more “serious” the Fed. is intoning hawkish tones – the more its Chair Janet Yellen is suggesting monetary lunacy? e.g., “Yellen Says Fed Buying Stocks Is “A Good Thing To Think About

Square this circle if you can: In the U.S. even the idea of negative rates alone is almost too much to handle or contemplate based on capitalistic principles and fundamentals. The backlash and furor alone in just the discussion all but holds it at bay. The finger-pointing at the Fed. currently, along with their trying to defend against “too easy for too long” critics has pushed many Fed. members (even those considered to be doves) to intone hawkish language whenever possible in public as of late to keep the pitchforks and torches at bay.

And yet – the Fed. Chair is publicly affirming (remember: this is only 2 weeks ago) that the idea of openly, and directly buying stocks is something that should be contemplated? Something here just doesn’t add up. Even when using Princeton math. Unless…

What if we were to hypothesize that for whatever the reason, December would be the ultimate time to send the financial world into a tailspin for a desired (“desired” by globalists, or elitists that is) outcome? Many (“many” being common sensical thinkers) would never entertain the idea because of the election in Nov. However, what if there was precedent of, and for, navigating turmoil and instituting the unthinkable precisely at that time? Hint: The interval between the actual election and the swearing-in. e.g., Nov. – Jan.)

One of the most curious things I remember about the financial crisis was the way, then, outgoing president Bush was seemingly instantaneously replaced with the then “president-elect” Obama.

Never before to my recollection had I ever seen a “president-elect” giving speeches or press conferences (especially in times of crisis when there was a live sitting president) equipped with podiums, lecterns, and more in precisely the same configuration, backdrops, and all including presidential seal. You would have thought Obama took over in Nov. rather than January if you didn’t look closely to read the term “president-elect” in the same space reserved for “president” on the presidential seal. Nobody seems to remember that but me when I ask. Yet, if you look back to press clippings from that time, or videos with today’s eye – you can’t miss it.

So now let’s really get into the weeds: What if “elites” or whatever term you want to use for people who think they know what is best for the rest of society, rather, than leaving that up to society itself, and have concluded no matter who wins the election, this whole charade of market stability is about ready to collapse upon itself like a house of cards at any time?

And any time is weeks, or months, not years. What would one do? Wait, and try to deal with the fallout in real-time? Or, bring it down of your own volition and have it fall in some type of controlled demolition experiment of one’s choosing?

I think when it comes to “elites” they believe they can control anything if they are the one’s that initiate it. So, I would go with the latter. And if so, what does that look like? Well, consider this….

Let’s say the candidate of choice for the “elites” wins. How could you employ the triggers with near immediacy that would devastate, or wreak the most havoc on an adversary lest dropping real ordinance? Hint: A release via the monetary equivalent by raising interest rates causing a market meltdown, but in-particular, causing a capital outflow of inordinate proportions out of your adversary, seeking refuge in not only the $dollar, but $dollar denominated securities, and more.

That is – while the $dollar is, still remains/considered “safe haven” status. It doesn’t sound all that crazy when put in those terms does it?

During the most assuredly ensuing period of absolute financial turmoil you (once again e.g. Paulson and Bernanke-esque) convince both the congress, as well as the business community that “Radical action is needed now! Or we all go down in flames.” All the while the current president (much like Bush) steps off to the sidelines where the new (much like Obama did) “president-elect” calls for much of the same, echoing the most assuredly chants of fire and brimstone if “Decisive action is implemented immediately!” No matter how radical or unnerving it may be to commonsense at the time.

You could have a scenario where the wind (as little as there would be except for the bloviating of politicians) of capital flight would be in the desired direction of your choosing, along with the ability to once again push through laws, or just allow for further take over, or more intervention by the Fed. or others in ways never dreamed possible before in a capitalistic society.

All the ground work has already been plowed. Both in some precedents, as well as open rhetoric of the possibilities of going where no modern society has gone before with its capital markets. (Think current Fed. communications)

As for your adversaries? You’d be doing this before they had real-time to test newly formed alliances of monetary trading or swaps in crisis mode. And during a crisis? Money seeks known safety first – not speculative. And the U.S. $dollar, along with its equity markets, as perverted as they are, are still the cleanest shirt in a dirty laundry.

The absolute havoc, devastation, financial destruction, and a whole lot more is almost near unconscionable to even contemplate. Yet, what you have to always remember is this: Elites, or those controlling the power, never think about the destruction happening to them. They always think in terms of “It won’t be us who has to live with our decisions. That’s for others to deal with.”

And if there is any doubt you may have to that last thought. Let me remind you of another story you may not have heard about, and the resulting aftermath when “elites” think “good ideas” that the people must live with and beside – not them.

Welcome to Paris “Scenes From The Apocalypse” circa this month.

A lot of people there once thought “They would never allow that to happen!” Maybe they would like to re-think that again, no?

No tinfoil required.

Western Hypocrisy, And Why It Makes The World A Dangerous Place

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 07:10 PM PDT

Submitted by Michael Jabara Carley via,

The West has always been a great trembling hive of hypocrisy, portraying itself as liberal, progressive, civilised and democratic. You know the descriptors; the list is very long. Take the United States, for example, it is the «shining house upon the hill»: just, altruistic, democratic, with a «mission to extend individual liberties throughout the world».

«Our cause has been the cause of all mankind», Lyndon Johnson declared during the 1964 presidential election campaign. To reinforce his argument Johnson cited President Woodrow Wilson, who had similar things to say about American virtue. Nothing has changed: listen to Barack Obama talk about the altruism of the United States. ‘We are the «exceptional nation»,’ he often says.

These western and especially US virtues are mobilised to justify policies, wars, covert activities which are not virtuous at all. Let’s start with Wilson. He is best known for the «Fourteen Points», national self-determination, «democracy», open agreements, and so on. «Do as I say, not as I do,» Wilson might have cautioned in the backroom. He did not, for example, anticipate «self-determination» for the Philippines, a US colony, or closer to home, for American «Negros».

You see, Wilson was a segregationist and supporter of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. We need the KKK, Wilson believed, to keep «colored folks» in line, especially those who came back from France having served in the US armed forces. They might think they were entitled to the same rights as white people. As American blacks were to be subject to Jim Crow, so Bolsheviks in Russia were to be subjected to Entente military intervention to put an end to their socialist revolution.

Then of course there was World War II. It is during this war that the United States and Great Britain got into the habit of destroying cities and civilian infrastructure, and killing large numbers of civilians. It is true that Nazi Germany set the precedent for targeting civilians, and few people questioned the destruction of German cities and the mass killing of civilians in Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin and other places.

The «krauts» had it coming. So did the Japanese, most of their cities were burned to the ground. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed with the first atomic bombs. «Military targets,» said accidental President Harry Truman, «we had to do it to save the lives of American soldiers». He lied. The American government knew very well that Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. The United States wanted to intimidate Iosif Stalin, with atomic bombs the USSR did not yet have. Did the Americans truly believe they could intimidate Marshal Stalin?

The end of World War II led to the resumption of the Cold War, Act II (Act I having started in 1917). With Great Britain reduced to the status of a vassal state, the United States took the lead in defending «free» peoples against the menace of communism. Unfortunately, there was a chasm between the image and the reality. The US government unleashed the CIA to buy politicians and elections and overthrow governments it did not like. Iran, Guatemala, Cuba were early examples. That was the fate reserved for Vietnam too, except there, Washington bit off more than it could chew.

The United States sabotaged Vietnamese elections in 1956 because, according to US president Dwight Eisenhower, the communist leader Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote. Not much respect for democracy there: it turns out that the United States was only comfortable with «democracy» when their clients won. When they couldn’t win, elections were rigged, bought with CIA money, or sabotaged. «Leftists, communists, eccentrics, not wanted here,» was a sign America might have hung out on the doors of its embassies worldwide.

In Vietnam the United States hijacked the south and ran it through puppets. A terrible war ensued: the World War II pattern of targeting cities and civilians was repeated. The US government declared that it was not bombing North Vietnamese cities, but Toronto Star correspondent Michael Maclear drove up from the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone to Hanoi and found just about every city and town along the way had been flattened or badly damaged by American bombing. Civilians were fair game, US claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Estimates range from 2 to 6 civilians killed for every Vietnamese combatant. These figures are certainly on the low side given US carpet bombing and use of napalm and chemical defoliants.

It is true that most of the Vietnamese people were united with their armed forces in resisting US aggression. So the distinction between civilian and soldier was necessarily blurred, much to the frustration of US authorities. Then there was the My Lai massacre in March 1968 when nearly five hundred men, women and children were gunned down by American soldiers. The massacre made the pages of Life magazine, not good publicity for the American war of aggression in Southeast Asia.

The United States lost that war because of the remarkable resistance of the Vietnamese people, though they paid a high price for driving out the American invader. Defeat however did not long chasten US authorities. In 1973 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende. A neo-fascist took his place, which was fine with Washington. In the 1980s the United States backed Islamist fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the USSR. «They’re sons of bitches», Americans might have agreed in a rare moment of candour, but «they are our sons of bitches».

The point is that the American claims of altruism and promotion of democracy were bogus. As long as the USSR existed, the United States could not run completely amuck although the US rampage in Southeast Asia was bad enough. After the collapse and dismemberment of the USSR, the United States felt the last restraints on its power fall away. NATO was expanded up to Russia’s western frontiers. Yugoslavia was destroyed and dismembered without any reference to international law. The United States and its NATO vassals backed Islamist terrorists and gangsters in Bosnia and Kosovo, following the Afghan pattern. «They’re our terrorists and gangsters,» the Americans might have said, «and therefore we’re alright». Serbia was bombed, its infrastructure destroyed, civilians were killed. Not even crocodile tears were shed in the west over the dead Serbian civilians.

Since the destruction of Yugoslavia, the list of US and western covert or overt wars of aggression is long. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen have all been destroyed or are being destroyed by the United States and its NATO or regional vassals in the name of «responsibility to protect» (R2P) and «democracy» proselytization. The west’s allies are Wahhabi terrorists (again), Daesh, Nusra, Al-Qaeda and various iterations of them, as well as fascists in the Ukraine. It is an extraordinary American rogues’ gallery, like a long police line-up of felons. But «not to worry», the Americans would no doubt repeat, «they’re our Islamists and our fascists, and working for us, which makes everything alright».

Everywhere the United States leaves its footprints, along with those of the British and French depending on location, you will find ruins and victims. Iraq and Libya are in chaos and infested with Al-Qaeda terrorists. War drags on in Afghanistan after fifteen years. In the Ukraine the US-backed fascist coup d’├ętat has only partially succeeded and a crisis there could irrupt at any time. In Yemen a Saudi invasion has butted into formidable resistance.

In Syria the US and Anglo-French-led attempt to overthrow the Syrian government has failed. Not only did the United States run up against a formidable Syrian resistance inspired by Syrian president Bashar el-Assad, but it has run up against the Russian Federation, Iran, and Hezbollah. They are allied with the Syrian government against the invasion of US and western supported Islamist mercenaries, armed, financed, trained, and sheltered by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Apartheid Israel.

Russia has played the principal role in checking the US-led war of aggression against Syria. Of course, President Vladimir Putin has tried to finesse the United States into abandoning its terrorist allies and joining a coalition to destroy the Wahhabi invaders. As I write these lines, the Russian effort has failed; as well it might, since the United States is addicted to subversion and wars of aggression as a drug user is addicted to narcotics. But Russia had to try, and I suppose, will continue to try, to persuade the United States to go cold turkey.

In the meantime its French and British vassals accuse Russia and Syria of war crimes, fulminate about the surrounded, victimized Wahhabi terrorists in Aleppo. The very same who have made films showing their decapitation of Syrian POWs and officials, Christians and any others who don’t embrace their practice of Islam. Further forms of cruelty include execution by drowning or being burned alive in cages, or crushed by tanks. Women are raped, and stoned if they don’t submit; refugees seeking to escape Al-Qaeda authority are flogged, crucified, decapitated, buried alive, or shot (the latter form of execution being for the Wahhabis a rather banal, merciful way of killing victims).

It is these terrorists who the United States and its vassals support in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria. They have abandoned the argument about the Wahhabis being «our terrorists» for another to the effect that they are «our moderates». This line is just as preposterous and bogus as all the other US justifications for war, though President Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have played along trying to persuade the United States to see reason. The Russian strategy has failed, as its other peace strategies have failed, because, inter alia, there are no Islamist «moderates» to separate from the so-called genuine terrorists. «Our moderates» is a fiction and a US cover for its support of Al-Qaeda and its various allies, largely foreign mercenaries fighting against the secular, legitimate government of Syria.

The only result, so far, of Russian efforts is that US generals threaten «to beat» Russia as never before. The French president threatens Russia and Syria with war crimes indictments, and various British politicians, including the Foreign Secretary, fulminate about Nazi-like bombardments of poor, innocent «moderates» who in fact use Aleppo civilians in their diminishing zone of occupation as human shields, summarily executing those who attempt to escape. In the much larger part of Aleppo which the «moderates» do not control, they deliberately target civilians.

Will there ever be an end to the hypocrisy and double standards? From Wilson to Johnson, to Obama, we have been subjected to a pack of lies. The US and western narrative about Syria, as elsewhere, is false to the last syllable. The «shining house upon the hill» is a myth. A dark charnel house filled to the ceiling with victims of US and European neo-colonialism would better represent the reality. But don’t expect any western governments to look inside that house. «Collateral damage,» the Americans would say, «and a price worth paying». Myths and lies conceal the real foreign conduct of the United States and its vassals, but that unfortunately is nothing new. The question now is whether Americans, Europeans and Canadians are willing to risk a gratuitous war with Russia for a pack of lies, in defence of the US-led Al-Qaeda invasion of Syria. We, all of us, need to decide quickly, before it is too late.



Posted: 16 Oct 2016 06:19 PM PDT

Dear CIGAs, This link was sent to us yesterday. It will take you well more than one hour to read it. DO NOT skim this, reading it more than once is highly advised. Call it the ultimate “TRUTH BOMB” if you will. GATA and their work is mentioned several times as “gold” was a very... Read more »

The post THE MOST IMPORTANT "TRUTH BOMB" YOU MAY EVER READ!!! appeared first on Jim Sinclair's Mineset.

ICE will start gold futures for clearing London's daily auction

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 06:13 PM PDT

By Eddie Van Der Walt and Ranjeetha Pakiam
Bloomberg News
Sunday, October 16, 2016

Intercontinental Exchange Inc., which runs the daily London gold auction, will start a futures contract for the metal in the United States in February, jumping the gun on the London Metal Exchange, which is also working on a London-focused product.

The contract, subject to regulatory approval, will be for bullion held in London and traded on ICE Futures U.S. in New York. Each contract will be for 100 troy ounces of metal and will be used to clear the London gold auction, starting in March. The London Metal Exchange is scheduled to begin its own futures contracts in the first half of next year. ...

... For the remainder of the report:


Sandspring Resources Commences 2016 Exploration Campaign

Company Announcement
August 17, 2016

Sandspring Resources Ltd. (TSX VENTURE:SSP, US OTC: SSPXF) is pleased to announce commencement of the 2016 exploration campaign at its Toroparu Gold Project in Guyana, South America.

In 2015 the company completed a 3,700-meter diamond drilling program on the promising Sona Hill Prospect, located 5 kilometers southeast of the main Toroparu deposit. Sona Hill is the easternmost gold anomaly in a cluster of 10 gold features located within a 20-by-7-kilometer hydrothermal alteration halo around Toroparu. Drilling at Sona Hill in 2012 and in 2015 intercepted high-grade mineralization in both saprolite and bedrock, and confirmed the continuity and grade potential of the Sona Hill mineralization.

For the remainder of the announcement and highlights of the 2015 drill program:

Join GATA here:

New Orleans Investment Conference
Wednesday-Saturday, October 26-29, 2016
Hilton New Orleans Riverside
New Orleans, Louisiana

Help GATA by purchasing DVDs of GATA's London conference in August 2011 or GATA's Dawson City conference in August 2006:

Or by purchasing a colorful poster of GATA's full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2009:

Help keep GATA going

GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at:

To contribute to GATA, please visit:

Gold is actually doing great, von Greyerz tells King World News

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 06:02 PM PDT

9p ET Sunday, October 16, 2016

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Gold lately has been doing spectacularly in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, Swiss gold fund manager Egon von Greyerz tells King World News tonight, and in the long term has been doing spectacularly against the dollar too. He thinks the short term is starting to turn against the dollar as well. Von Greyerz's remarks are posted at KWN here:

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.


K92 Mining Begins Gold Production at Kainantu Mine

Company Announcement
Wednesday, October 5, 2016

K92 Mining Inc. is pleased to announce that gold production has commenced from the Irumafimpa gold deposit.

Ian Stalker, K92 Chief Executive Officer, says: "This milestone is highly significant for our company, and for this region of Papua New Guinea. A great deal of thanks goes to the entire team on site in PNG in achieving production ahead of schedule and on budget. The rehabilitation of the Irumafimpa gold mine, process plant, and associated infrastructure commenced in late March and is now complete. As an enhancement of the processing facility, we are also pleased to note that the installation of a new drum scrubber is also nearing completion and commissioning of this will be completed by the end of the month. ..."

...For the remainder of the announcement:

Join GATA here:

New Orleans Investment Conference
Wednesday-Saturday, October 26-29, 2016
Hilton New Orleans Riverside
New Orleans, Louisiana

Help GATA by purchasing DVDs of GATA's London conference in August 2011 or GATA's Dawson City conference in August 2006:

Or by purchasing a colorful poster of GATA's full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2009:

Help keep GATA going

GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at:

To contribute to GATA, please visit:

The Fed, Like The BOJ, Is Now In The Curve Steepening Business: What That Means For Markets

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 05:38 PM PDT

Following Janet Yellen's strange speech from Friday, titled "The Elusive 'Great' Recovery" in which a seemingly perturbed Yellen not only admitted that the Fed may have hit peak confusion and that 7 years after unleashing a global, multi-trillion asset reflation experiment, it has not only failed to reflate non-market assets (at least both bonds and stocks are near all time highs on central bank buying), but in which the Fed chair also admitted the Fed is not even sure it understands the phenomenon of inflation any more, and in which Yellen's reference to stoking a "high-pressure economy" and the lack of a mention of raising interest rates (coupled with her suggestion that the Fed "may want to aim at being more accommodative" during recoveries) was initially seen as a dovish sign, the just as confused market first rose, then fell after it reintrepreted her comments not so much as dovish, but as refering "financial stability", something that Eric Rosengren explained earlier on Friday refers to steepening the yield curve, which in effect is a tapering of long-end purchases, or - as we first dubbed it when previewing the BOJ's similar operation - a reverse Operation Twist.

The result was a prompt jump in 10Y and 30Y TSY yields to session highs on Friday after Yellen's speech discussing "plausible ways" to reverse adverse supply-side effects by temporarily running a "high-pressure economy", but more importantly the 5s30s steepened. Indeed, the selloff in long end saw 30Y yields rise by more than 7bp, topping 2.55% for 1st time since June 23 Brexit vote, the 10Y yield was higher by 5bp at 1.791%, above closing levels since June 2, while the short end barely budged.

But the steepening mood started not with Yellen but with Eric Rosengren, the president of the Boston Fed President, who dissented from the FOMC's decision to hold rates steady at its September meeting, and who said is perplexed by historically low 10-year Treasury yields, which "haven't rebounded as in other recoveries, with investors willing to accept a vanishingly small premium over their inflation expectations to hold them." 

Perhaps the reason for that is that despite the endless rhetoric, there hasn't actually been a, you know, "recovery."

As Bloomberg's Daniel Kruger observed, Rosengren cited the Fed's extensive holdings of 10-year Treasuries as a reason, but speculated that there's a more likely and enduring cause: safety, in the wake of the financial crisis, is more expensive than it used to be. "It's a global phenomenon. In 2006 a 10-year Treasury buyer received 2.3 percentage points more in interest than the market's 10-year inflation forecast. That's fallen to 0.2 percentage points this year. Spreads have narrowed in Japan and Germany, as well. Buyers of 10-year JGBs now get 0.4 percentage point less, and in Germany it's an 0.8 percentage point less."

So, not surprisingly, just like the BOJ before it, Rosengren suggested to use the Fed's balance sheet to steepen the yield curve. The gap between five- and 30-year debt has widened 0.24 percentage point from the 20-month low of 1.03 percentage points in August. And with about one-fourth of the Fed's $2.46 trillion in Treasuries matures in 2027 or later, selling a portion would certainly widens the curve even more. However, it will most certainly backfire should investors sell risk assets in order to fund purchases of long-term Treasuries at suddenly higher yields, which as we explained just over a month ago, is the dreaded VaR shock scenario where a rapid selloff in bonds promptly migrates to other risk assets courtesy of risk-parity deleveraging, which in turn forces a scramble for "safety", i.e., the very same long-maturity securities, whose selloff prompted the panic in the first place.

Indeed, as Kruger points out, removing stimulus from the long-end of the bond market isn't going to boost risk appetite in broader financial markets or stimulate growth. In other words, it will lead to more selling, something which US equity futures appear to be doing right this very moment.

* * *

The Fed is not the only one suddenly expecting a notably steeper yield curve. Over the weekend, Deutsche Bank's Dominic Konstam who until recently expected the 10Y to drop as low as 1.25%, has also changed his mind and now expects the long end to rise due to the market's expectations of further steepening.

But it won't all be song and games, because as Dalio and Goldman have both warned, should rates move too high, too fast, MTM losses will become so great that the move itself will provoke a scramble right back into fixed income, and other deflationary, assets.

This is what Konstam said in his Credit Weekly publication:

If we are right and yields continue to rise with the curve steeper, there will inevitably be concern for risk assets and perhaps for the economic "recovery". For this reason we think investors should view the moves as more tactical rather than structural and, importantly, consistent with easier policy at the front end. In the extreme the BoJ and ECB can ease still further to underwrite the steeper yield curve while the Fed can delay hikes for longer. While many investors have been lulled into a sense of low long rates are desirable, we continue to think that the central banks are shifting gears whereby steeper yields curves per se are more desirable for helping to stabilize bank profits and higher long yields per se for the entitlement industry as well as to soften the hunt for yield that may be driving excessively low risk premia in risk assets.  The BoJ target for zero 10s is clearly in this framework – although as we argued two weeks ago the logic must be a dramatic decline in short rates to support 1s5s JGB curve steepening AND 5s10s JGB curve flattening so that 5y5y can fall or at least be stable relative to the US especially, despite sticky 10 year JGB yields. In turn, this will allow for a weaker yen. A weaker yen is critical to raise inflation expectations – it is about the only thing that matters for Japanese inflation. As of now note there has been a decent steepening in 1s5s (5 bps over 2 weeks vs. recent low of just 7 bps) while 5s10s has been stable to slightly flatter although overall 5y5y is slightly higher.


Rosengren's statement that…"[I]f one were concerned about the historically low 10-year Treasury and commercial real estate capitalization rates, perhaps because of potential financial stability concerns, the balance sheet composition could be adjusted to steepen the yield curve" After the Great recession. A Not-So-Great Recovery FRB Boston, October 14, 2016, we think is an important new augmented angle from the Fed that fits well with our thesis. Below we look at options that the Fed might take in the event that it also wanted to steepen the yield curve.


As an illustration of the sorts of financial stability concerns we have been highlighting the richness of the SPX in relation to real yields and breakevens and specifically how this richness has been achieved via specific sectors that have performed increasingly well even as breakeven yields have fallen – the coefficients have effectively flipped since 2013 for sectors like healthcare, utilities, staples. This shows up as a compression of earnings yields to (falling) nominal yields via lower real yields and stable to lower breakevens. Restoring risk premia in the bond market therefore will at least forestall a further richening in risk assets but may also allow for some reversal. To the extent that breakevens recover with real yields still relatively low should at least though limit the risk asset correction – a pause that refreshes rather than a tantrum. Again the idea is that this is tactical not structural. There is an important distinction to make versus late last year when the fed was not just hiking but threatening to hike every quarter so real yields themselves had a full on tantrum as the dollar soared. This is exactly what needs to be avoided and we expect it to be avoided in the context of the current ongoing policy re-jig.


Twist Reversal?


Treasury curve steepened on Rosengren's comments about adjusting Fed's balance sheet to steepen the yield curve on financial stability concerns. The change in Fed's balance sheet composition could steepen the yield curve similar to how Twist flattened the curve in 2011 and 2012. Fed portfolio extension during Twist was worth about 45-50bp in 5s-30s based on our model.


We fit 5s-30s curve to Fed funds to 2s and Fed portfolio average maturity from November 2010 to December 2012 to capture Twist effect. The original intension was to extend our ten-year bootstrap fair value model, which uses Fed funds to 2s and Fed funds target as input variables, to curve slope by adding the Fed portfolio maturity variable. As Fed funds target was unchanged during that period, that variable becomes irrelevant. Note that the Fed portfolio average maturity dominates in the regression with a -4.4 t-stats and a six-month lag. Twist contributed 50bp to the 5s-30s flattening during that period.


The coefficient on the Fed portfolio average maturity is about -0.014 per month. A one-year change Fed portfolio average maturity is worth about 17bp in 5s-30s.


To change the portfolio composition, the Fed can stop reinvestments of maturity coupon debt at 10- and 30-year auctions. Treasury then needs to borrow more from the market in the long end, steepening the curve. Alternatively, the Fed can stop reinvestments of maturity coupon debt at all auctions and use the proceeds to buy short dated coupon debt in open market operations while keeping the balance sheet stable.



One final warning: it was Rosengren's comments, together with the hint that the BOJ would proceed will full blown curve steepening, in the week of September 5 that spooked markets which not only ultimately led to a dramatic steepening in the JGB curve, but also to the sharpest drop in the S&P since Brexit. Now, one month later, we have another set of even more vocal Rosengren comments and this time it is not the BOJ but the Fed which is suggesting the next big monetary move will be not more easing but implicit tightening via Reverse Twist. Meanwhile Libor is soaring and pressuring everyone who has floating exposure, while the rising long end is about to put an end to any housing "recovery." As such, keep a close eye on risk assets not just overnight but in the next few days, as a "deja vu all over again" moment is increasingly likely, especially if the Ray Dalio's of the world decide they would rather sit this one out...


Risk Parity

Is Obama Juicing US Government Spending To Get Hillary Clinton Elected?

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 12:14 PM PDT

During the last year of his reign of error, our beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama ran out of government accounting gimmicks to falsely proclaim Federal deficits have been falling. His legacy of debt accumulation will go down in history as the last dying gasps of a crumbling empire built upon Keynesian delusions, political corruption, and a Deep State establishment hellbent upon retaining power at the cost of global war and financial collapse.

Seek Your Independence: Anything Else Will Destroy You

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 12:05 PM PDT

Many people think The Dollar Vigilante is a fear mongering, pessimistic blog. If you only read our headlines, then I can see how you would feel that way.  But things are getting so bad that all we are doing is acknowledging the current state of affairs. The truth hurts. After we began to analyze Shemitah and then Jubilee timelines, we became even more pessimistic because it was clear that even the deepest economic and military disasters were planned in advance.

More Good News For Gold Bugs: The Bottom Is Getting Closer

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 08:59 AM PDT

In the latest gold and silver commitment of traders (COT) report (click here for an explanation of what this report involves), paper players made big strides in bringing the market back into balance — and setting the stage for an eventual rebound.

Euro 'house of cards' to collapse, warns ECB prophet

Posted: 16 Oct 2016 08:51 AM PDT

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

No comments:

Post a Comment