Monday, October 3, 2016

Gold World News Flash

Gold World News Flash

Wall Street: The Trump-China Missing Link

Posted: 03 Oct 2016 02:00 AM PDT

Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted op-ed at,

The yuan is about to enter the IMF’s basket of reserve currencies this coming Saturday - alongside the US dollar, pound, euro and yen. This is no less than a geoeconomic earthquake.

Not only does this represent yet another step in China’s irresistible path towards economic primacy; the Chinese currency’s inclusion in the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket will also lead central banks and hyper-wealthy funds – especially from the US – to increasingly buy more Chinese assets.

At the first US presidential debate, Donald Trump took no prisoners, criticizing China’s currency manipulation. This is what he said:

“You look at what China’s doing to our country in terms of making our product, they’re devaluing their currency and there’s nobody in our government to fight them… They’re using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing.”

Well, China is not “making our product”; the manufacturing process is Made in China – then exported to the US. Most of the profits benefit US corporations – everything from design, licensing and royalties to advertising, financing and retail margins. If the mantras manage to spell out a partial truth - the US has lost manufacturing jobs to China, China is the “factory of the world” – they don't spell out the hidden truth that those who profit are essentially major corporations.

China does not “devalue their currency”; the People’s Bank of China periodically adjusts the yuan according to a very narrow band. The major practitioners of quantitative easing (QE) are actually the US, as well as Japan and the European Central Bank (ECB). And the currency of global consumer goods manufacturing continues to be the US dollar, not the yuan.

Beijing also is not “using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China.” This is all about balance of payments. What US consumers spend on Made in China products – many of them delocalized by US corporations – is pumped back to the US as capital inflows that keep interest rates down and help to support the Empire of Chaos’s global hegemony.

Win-win, Wall Street-style

Trump’s attention span is notoriously minimalist. If his advisers managed to imprint – tweet? - a few one-liners on his brain, he would be able to explain to US public opinion how the US-China game is really played, something that all relevant parties in both nations know by heart.

And the – crucial - missing link in the whole game is Wall Street.

This is how it works. A mighty hedge fund approaches a US corporation and/or large company with “an offer you can’t refuse”: Delocalize to China. This necessarily implies that all the company’s assets are re-hypothecated on a double-entry ledger in Wall Street.

Wall Street “wins” both ways; either by financing the delocalization (and corresponding US job extinction) to China, or buying companies that refuse to delocalize.

Then they go for wage arbitrage concerning products that used to be Made in USA and are now Made in China; that concerns the huge wage gap between the US and China, which also factors the exchange rate between the US dollar and the yuan.

China for their part recycles their US dollars buying US Treasury Bills. This, of course, holds bond prices high, and that helps to keep US interest rates low.

Everything in fact is on a high; bond prices, the US dollar perceived value all over the world, the exchange rate. US dollars keep frantically entering the US economy, then – in theory - used to keep frantically buying Made in China products.

Of course the price of a Made in China product in the US is low – and that is “incentive” enough for US companies to essentially keep Main Street USA unemployed. As Steve Jobs once famously proclaimed, “these jobs are not coming back”.

The US dollar exchange rate will continue to be high as long as China – and others - recycle their excess US dollars to buy US Treasury Bills en masse. The crucial point is that these US dollars never enter the real economy. They are sort of “trapped” either in the extremely cozy upper strata of Wall Street casino capitalism or Too Big To Fail rarefied banking. And the Fed wants the game to go on indefinitely, to prevent a rate collapse.

Beijing for its part plays the game with relish; as the prime global export powerhouse, the agenda is to solidify – and expand - manufacturing know how on the way to achieve a status of “moderate income” nation by the start of the next decade.

The bottom line is that to recover US manufacturing jobs – as Trump has been forcefully promising – he will have to stare down the whole Wall Street finance oligarchy.

So no wonder these oligarchs – responsible for shipping all those US manufacturing jobs to Asia and lavishly profiting from bailouts to the 'Too Big To Fail' racket – hate him with all their golden-plated guts.

Hellfiring those Too Big to Fail

For all his incapacity to formulate thoughts above the language skills of a third grader, Trump has been piling up astonishing proposals that resonate wildly, way beyond the “basket of deplorables” spectrum.

He is against Cold War 2.0 and the pivot to Asia, when he says “wouldn’t it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?”

He no less than pre-empted WWIII when he said he would be against a US nuclear first-strike.

He totally abhors global “free trade” – from NAFTA to TPP and TTIP - because it has “hollowed out the lives of American workers”, as US corporations (under Wall Street’s “incentive”) delocalize and then import back into the US tariff-free.

Trump was even open to nationalizing Wall Street banks after the 2008 financial crisis.

So we’re faced with the ultimate surrealist spectacle of a billionaire denouncing corporate globalization, which has been responsible for stripping the US lower middle classes of countless, decent blue-collar jobs and social benefits – not to mention turning them into hostages of rotting public infrastructure. And all that with absolutely no one among the US establishment condemning the most astonishing wealth transfer to the 0.0001% in history.

If in the next two presidential debates Trump points to the crucial missing link in the whole plot – Wall Street - he might as well lock on as a surefire winner.

Why American Military Doctrine Is Doomed For Failure

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 11:00 PM PDT

Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via,

An analysis of US generals’ growing dissatisfaction with the political leadership in Washington sheds new light on the direction in which the American military machine is heading. In particular, it is interesting to observe the military planning for the future of the sea, air, space, cyberspace, and land forces.

At the end of the Cold War, the US armed forces found themselves without any real peer, causing them to gradually alter their strategy and investments in war and conflicts. They transitioned from being a large numerical force geared toward fighting opponents of a similar caliber (the USSR) in accordance with a specific military strategy, to a force focused on hybrid adversaries (regular or militia forces) or foes that were not their equal (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Libya). The US military accordingly proceeded to change its planning and tactics to satisfy the demands of the new tenants in the White House, the notorious Neoconservatives. What resulted was a military doctrine centered on the concept of a unipolar world and aimed at global domination.

Since the early 90s, policy-makers in Washington have had as their objective the utopian goal of global hegemony, and in order to accomplish this the US armed forces had to expand and create new control centers (USAFRICOM, USNORTHCOM), in addition to those already in existence (USEUCOM, USPACOM, USSOUTHCOM, USSOCOM, USSTRATCOM, USTRANSCOM), in every corner of the planet.

This is a typical example of imperial overreach, which has historically been the impetus for the collapse of several kingdoms and empires over the centuries.

The operational capabilities of the US military machine from the 90s to the mid-2000s remained more or less unchanged in every major conflict in which it was involved: Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. These were conflicts in which the defense forces of these nations could not hope to match the attacker's power. Weak air defences were a common denominator for all these nations – a vulnerability that has always been the prerequisite for wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the US ability to attain air superiority and thus subsequently enjoy unchallenged air space.

Carpet bombing, coupled with the use of staggering numbers of cruise missiles, destroyed the anti-aircraft defenses of both countries, paving the way for massive ground or airborne invasions. One example still fresh in everyone’s mind was the intensity of the US strike in the early days of the Iraq war in 2003, which brought unprecedented levels of death and destruction.

Yet despite this advantageous position, the number of dead American and allied soldiers during the years of occupation was enough to shock the American public, perhaps forever changing the perception of the military conflict. The consequences were predictable, with popular pressure forcing a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a significant reduction of the contingent stationed in Afghanistan.

After a 70-year history of warfare, the old strategy of bombing, invading, and occupying a conquered territory had outlived its usefulness.

Time to change. New Goal: World Domination

The pursuit of a new global strategy required changes. A numerically smaller force was now needed, which would could be deployed on short notice to any corner of the world. US military strategists began to develop plans for new operational training methods and procedures, based on rapid-reaction forces and the ability to reach any theater of war with ease. To this end, US special forces, drones used for reconnaissance and attack, and reliance on the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and National Security Agency (NSA) ended up almost totally replacing the previous approach and tactics that had been focused on protecting ground troops.

This organizational change, which allowed the regional command centers a high-degree of strategic and decision-making autonomy, increased the complexity of the American military machine on a devastating scale. The practical results of these transformations could be seen in the control centers’ reduced ability to respond to external threats as a single military power under a single flag.

In less than 10 years the United States had gone from a largely ground force able to invade foreign countries with sizable numbers of troops - thanks to its uncontested mastery of the airspace - to an organized military force compartmentalized into small units, which has rarely been asked to intervene directly in a conflict. Thus there has been less emphasis on a search for means and technologies to protect soldiers on the battlefield.

Instead, air power has continued to be the decisive weapon in the war scenarios for several years, especially in North Africa and the Middle East. In 2011 in Libya, one of its latest demonstrations of air superiority, the power of the USAF, combined with that of its allies, provided the necessary cover allowing ground forces (consisting of terrorists who later invaded Syria and the Sinai Peninsula) to conquer and occupy that territory.

To an attentive observer, all these nations that have found themselves in the US military’s crosshairs in recent years share a common characteristic, namely a pronounced inability to defend their own airspace. Once the skies were conquered, which provided protection for the troops during ground operations, most of the work was already done.

But this is a formula that has not always had a successful impact on the course of the fighting. Ukraine and Syria are proof, despite representing two very different scenarios.

A new situation

For entirely different reasons, the two scenarios have highlighted the shortcomings and the strategic and structural weaknesses of the unified military command. In the case of Syria, the air-defense capabilities of the forces loyal to Damascus, rated among the top ten in the world, forced analysts in Washington in 2013 to develop a strategy based on the need to destroy the air-defense systems with the use of numerous cruise missiles that were launched from their fleet in the Mediterranean. Unless the surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems are disabled, the USAF cannot operate with impunity above Syrian skies and risks heavy losses. Syrian anti-aircraft systems are still quite able to neutralize not only an air attack but also a cruise-missile barrage, making any US assault enormously expensive (each Tomahawk costs about a million dollars), counterproductive, and ineffective. This new situation prompted Obama to seek Moscow's help to avoid a conflict that would have caused more than one headache for the Pentagon.

In the case of Ukraine, control of the airspace was uncontested as the Donbass does not possess an air force that can rival that of the Ukrainian military, and thus the military plan was more focused on effective coordination between ground troops, heavy vehicles, and reconnaissance. The goal was to make tactical advances and to conquer the territories in dispute. Yet despite advisors sent from Washington and the technology offered by the United States (the NSA and NRO), Kiev’s army suffered grim setbacks at the hands of irregular forces far more poorly armed in terms of quality and quantity.

Soon, a series of new situations began to unfold for the United States. Its inability to control the airspace over Syria or gain ground in Ukraine was symptomatic of a deeper malaise affecting the capabilities of the US military and its allies to fight certain battles.

Back to the old school

In the minds of US generals and military advisers, these developments were an unprecedented wake-up call. After 70 years of wars and conflicts, the US found itself for the first time in situations where it could neither afford the luxury of intervening directly (Ukraine) nor be able to provide a concrete solution that would reverse the situation on the battlefield (Syria). This was a cause for concern, forcing American political leaders to rethink their entire approach to military confrontation and to formulate a new strategy to face these new challenges.

In some public meetings conducted by General Robert Neller (Commandant of the Marine Corps) and General Joseph Dunford (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), both men have highlighted the most important challenge for the future of the United States military. They foresee a transformation, over just 15 years, into a military force capable of fighting not only enemies that are well equipped (as in Syria and Ukraine) but also on par with the US (Russia and China). It is a revolution, or more precisely, a return to the past.

In defining these challenges, Dunford spoke of what is referred to in military jargon as the “4+1,” i.e., the nations that the US Strategic Command sees as posing major challenges over the next 10 years, in other words: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran + Terrorism. In describing this approach, Dunford has outlined a future war scenario mainly involving short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and ICBMs, respectively), anti-ballistic systems (ABMs), cyber attacks, and the ability to deny access or airspace (A2/AD).

What will surprise the reader is the admission by Neller and Dunford that the United States has some operational issues that could easily be exploited by opponents. Rival countries (peer competitors) have made technological strides in the past decade allowing them to almost close the gap with the US military in vital sectors for future war scenarios in many fields, such as the following:

• Fifth-generation aircraft (J-31 and PAK FA) with stealth capabilities.

• Long-range ballistic missiles (R-36M) and short-/medium-range missiles (Iskander).

• ICBMs with supersonic speed (unable to be intercepted by current and future ABMs).

• The ability to produce cybernetic damage with real-world effects.

• Increasingly advanced technology to deny airspace to an opponent either electronically (EW) or mechanically (S-300, S-400, S-500).

In all these challenges we can see America’s advantages being diminished. Another worrying aspect, of which both commanders are aware, is the need to have an Internet/intranet connection in order to operate at full capacity. The interconnection between men and means for the United States is a force multiplier, just as is the need to project power on enemy shores through naval forces. Strategies to deny these advantages are essential components of Russia’s and China’s military doctrines.

The new generation of anti-ship missiles (DF-26BrahMos II, Qader and P-900) offer a clear example of how Beijing and Moscow are reacting to the steady degradation of the frameworks for global peace. If the US Navy is denied a radius of several hundred kilometers, which is needed in order to control ships and aircraft carriers close to an enemy coast, this is a big problem for American military planners. The anti-ship missiles also offer an economic advantage: they cost little but can sink ships worth billions of dollars. They are thus ideal for challenging the US Navy, whose unparalleled power can be seen in its 10 aircraft carriers. Furthering this strategy, Russia and China are working on beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles that, combined with stealth aircraft (J-20 and PAK FA), can deny the United States the essential ability to anticipate a lethal attack on its aircraft carriers that can be launched from a safe distance.

The goal for Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran is always the same: to keep Washington from being able to approach their shores or operate in international waters, in order to prevent the huge American aircraft carriers from being used as a launch pad for military operations.

In terms of strategic security, the protection of the skies is the first priority for any military planner. ABM systems, like Chinese or Russian S-300, S-400, and S-500s, are, as stated, designed with the goal of creating an impenetrable airspace for ICBMs and/or fourth- or fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Without air cover and naval platforms, the functional capabilities of any ground troops are drastically reduced. Add to this SRBMs such as Iskander missiles, which can wipe out whole platoons, and one can easily understand why Dunford is worried that he has already lost his technological and operational edge when faced with a competitor of similar stature.

Certainly the evolution of the American military-industrial complex (MIC) has not facilitated the task of the strategists at the Pentagon. Programs such as the F-35 (fifth-generation stealth aircraft) that were supposed to compete with equivalent Sino-Russian projects have been beset by numerous problems and massive cost overruns, probably the result of a widespread system of corruption, leaving the United States at a disadvantage in future contests for air supremacy.

Even the US nuclear arsenal (nuclear triad) could use some upgrades to keep it on par with Russia’s, and those modernizations are estimated to cost about a trillion dollars over 10 years, a figure the US Treasury does not currently possess (without printing extra money, but that's another story). Recently Moscow conducted a long list of tests of its ballistic missiles that are capable of achieving unprecedented speed (Mach 6-7), able to change direction after launch, and which possess a significantly increased operating range (17,000 kms), making all current and future anti-ballistic systems ineffective and useless.

Closing the gap

Moscow and Beijing have practical considerations (but which are, in a way, almost philosophical) based on the enormous difference in their military spending compared to Washington. This has forced them to aim for inexpensive systems that are nevertheless just as effective.

A perfect example, already fully operational, is the development and use of Kalibr missiles - the Russian response to the US cruise missile. Similar to the American version, its main difference is that it can be fired from small ships. To understand Washington’s level of anxiety, one need only analyze its reaction to the Black Sea launch of the first Kalibr missiles in 2015 toward targets in Syria. The Pentagon declared its surprise at Russia’s “new” ability to launch such missiles at a distance of thousands of kilometers from such small ships (with consequently reduced costs). This inability to recognize an opponent’s capabilities is perhaps symptomatic of underlying problems.

The Kalibr missiles allowed Moscow to gain a tactical advantage, which, according to US military advisers, changed the strategic balance in the Middle East. This was enough to dramatically reduce one of the US’s largest advantages: cruise missiles. Top US advisors panicked, realizing they needed to immediately offer an adequate response to this new situation. Moreover, the strategy of equipping small ships with Kalibr missiles has allowed Moscow to produce a large number of corvettes, vastly expanding the total power of the Russian fleet. Moscow currently has quite a number of these ships, all armed in this way.

The United States prefers the opposite philosophical stance in terms of its projects. Long-term projects are being promoted that offer massive opportunities for price gouging and extra profits for contractors and brokers: stealth ships (USS Zumwalt), mega carriers (Gerald R. Ford class), and the F-35 are just a few examples. Without offering any immediate technological advances, especially in relation to the countermoves of the “4 + 1,” it seems that this is where the moderization efforts of the US armed forces are focused.

Paradoxically, although the US cannot even deploy a few F-35s, nations such as North Korea and Iran already have strategies in place to use deterrence to nullify the current American operational supremacy. In this sense, despite sanctions and the international climate of hostility, Pyongyang has managed to produce a submarine equipped with nuclear SLBMs – a big step forward that greatly expands its ability to deter the United States and South Korea. In Iran, the mass production of domestically developed weapons (Bavar-373) similar to the S-300 system (and just as effective) have been designed to deny any operational capacity over the skies of the Islamic Republic and its allies (Hezbollah and Syria) in the immediate future.


ALERT: US Real Estate Crash Imminent as Matthew threatens Miami Luxury Market

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 08:43 PM PDT

It isn't often such a clear market signal is painted such as the impending real estate market collapse.  It doesn't take sophistocated algorithms or an MBA from Harvard to add up the math and the data and see that we're on the precipice of a historic real estate asset cliff; and that the market is waiting for an 'event' to tip it over.  That event, it can be Hurricane Matthew.  That means this can all unfold THIS WEEK.  For those of us who have been following this trend for a long time (like, more than 10 years) this isn't news, it's just the obvious result of bad planning and decades of building a foundation on the wrong things (this is an educational metaphor - Real Estate Investors built their knowledge on the wrong ideals, the false axioms, and thus - invested in the wrong markets, on markets build on soft, unstable foundations...).

As we explain in Splitting Pennies - Understanding Forex; the entire world's economy, both micro and macro, can be explained through the prism of monetary policy.  Or in other words, if you master FOREX, you can master any market, because all markets are denominated in Forex.  Or in yet other words, markets are only able to function as a derivative of money markets - which Forex is.  

Bubbles have persisted for years, but this last bubble that caused the 2008 crisis was based on real estate.  For a long time, US real estate prices always went up; until they didn't.  So what changed in 2008?  Enter Quantitative Easing, a program designed by the Fed to create 'liquidity' in the market that was otherwise illiquid.  Starting out buying 'toxic' assets no one wanted, now the Fed has a diversified portfolio of many assets, much of which is real estate.  This is not the only thing propping up the real estate market.  Also, the Fed has given banks and hedge funds HUGE access to cheap capital, or free capital, in large quantities.  Let's take the world's largest, as the best example; Blackstone, with $100 Billion + to invest in real estate:

Blackstone, helmed by global head of real estate Jon Gray, is the largest real estate private equity firm in the world. Since raising their first opportunistic real estate fund in 1997, Blackstone has been a dominant player in the industry with their simplified opportunistic philosophy of "buy it, fix it, sell it". Just this month, Blackstone real estate surpassed a staggering $100 billion in assets under management. As part of a push towards a longer hold, core plus strategy, they recently closed the largest ever PE real estate fund at $15.8 billion. Furthermore, Blackstone recently acquired Chicago's iconic Willis Tower, which they plan to enhance through value add renovations and a repositioning of the tower's retail space.

Well, not all $100 Billion is invested in Real Estate, but remember, they are leveraged, so they don't buy for cash, so it's not known what they're real 'real' estate portfolio is.  Between the Fed buying MBS (Mortage Backed Securities), Hedge Funds & Private Equity Funds like Blackstone, and your typical foreign buyers fleeing corruption or a crashing economy in their own market - real estate is highly inflated.  This is of course, exaggerated in niche areas; Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston, New York, Miami, Greenwich CT, and many, many others.  Just take a look at what you get in Ohio for $4M and what you get in San Francisco for $4M.  Hmm... Something doesn't add up here.  People in CA shocked at non-CA market values.  Hmm... and there's high state taxes in CA, and pollution, a water drought, and fallout from Fukushima irradiating the crops and population, explosion of cancers.  Where do I sign?

Years ago, analysts said that in 50 years Florida will be underwater.  Real Estate investors didn't feel that their feet were wet, so they ignored this.  Well, these analysts were wrong - it's happening much, much, much faster.  Miami-Dade County is going to be hit the hardest.  If you don't know about this issue, read this article here "A Rising Tide" :

"This whole beautiful landscape's going to change," he said. Miami Beach consists of a long, low barrier island accompanied by a scattering of manmade islets. It's one of the lowest-lying municipalities in the country, and its residents are leading the way into the world's wetter future. Along the island's low western side bordering Biscayne Bay, people have come to dread full-moon high tides, when salt water seeps into storm-drain outlets and the porous limestone that provides the island's foundation, forcing water up and out into the streets and sidewalks and threatening buildings and infrastructure. And Miami Beach is just one small part of a region that's in big trouble. If sea levels rise as projected, no major U.S. metropolitan area stands to rack up bigger losses than Miami-Dade County. Almost 60 percent of the county is less than six feet above sea level. Even before swelling of the seas is factored in, Miami has the greatest total value of assets exposed to flooding of any city in the world: more than $400 billion. Once you account for future sea-level rise and continued economic growth, Miami's exposed property will far outstrip that of any other urban area, reaching almost $3.5 trillion by the 2070s. The sea level around the South Florida coast has already risen nine inches over the past century. Among experts, the optimists expect it to edge up another three to seven inches in the next 15 years and nine inches to two feet in the next 45 years. More pessimistic (some say increasingly realistic) predictions say the rise will be much faster. Even the very gradual rise of recent decades will make extensive infrastructure reengineering necessary—Mowry's job. However, according to a report published by the Florida Department of Transportation, it will become difficult, expensive, and maybe impossible for these efforts to keep up with the accelerated sea-level rise that is actually expected. 

Miami is spending $500 Million building walls and drainage to address this problem.  Read the 2012 Presentation in PDF here.  But will it be enough?  And what about Hurricanes?  A Category 5 hurricane can have a storm surge of 20 - 30 feet, such as Camille in 1969.  Storm Surge is when the water rises, completely - that means the ocean will rise 24 feet (Read about it here).  Matthew, if it struck Florida, would really be Biblical.  Billions of Dollars in damage would occur, just from the storm.  

The other info that you need to know, since the early 90's, the US Government manipulates the weather.  If you're not up to date on this topic, you can read about it here in this groundbreaking book Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth.  Then, why would they allow a hurricane to smash into South Florida?  Who knows, but if you want to look at the strange correlation between military events and Hurricanes, take a deeper look at 911 and Hurrican Erin - This book Black 911 is a great start.

Matthew is now heading toward Jamaica, at which point it may settle down; Jamaica has mountains which Hurricanes don't like.  But Florida is being warned.  

Traders, tomorrow's trade is easy; put in your buy limits above the MAs on HD, LOW, and get ready to short homebuilders, and other South Florida real estate companies.  This week is going to be a wild ride for real estate, regardless if Matthew hits FL or not.

The market now is quiet, sales are down 80% in some areas, but the panic selling hasn't started yet.  An event such as a Hurricane in FL, or a big Earthquake in CA, can be the tipping point that starts it.

This will hit the rent market too - as values collapse, rents will too.  Not only that, but a bad economy will put pressure on renters and their ability to pay.  This recent bubble, in both housing values, rent prices, and other assets - is just that.  A bubble.  It will pop.  And as we saw in 2008, each time the bubble bursts, the drawdown is a little deeper.  But real estate in particular recovered with the help of the Fed and numerous Fed players, as this was a political victory as well as an economic one.  It was seen as helping Main St. as well as Wall St.

There's other investments, other ways to make money than real estate, such as Forex algorithms.  But it seems that as usual, investors will need to have a huge loss before learning this lesson.  

Pain - is the only real teacher!

To learn more about the financial markets, checkout Splitting Pennies - Understanding Forex - your pocket guide to make you a Forex genius!  Or visit Fortress Capital Forex, and broaden your horizons.

Donald Trump "Hillary Thinks Bernie Sanders Supporters Are HOPELESS AND IGNORANT BASEMENT DWELLERS!"

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 07:16 PM PDT

Donald Trump "Hillary Thinks Bernie Sanders Supporters Are HOPELESS AND IGNORANT BASEMENT DWELLERS!" 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 or for full links, other content, and more! ]]

"I'm A Bernie Sanders Voter.. Here's Why I'll Vote Trump"

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 07:15 PM PDT

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

Sometimes, things in politics are the opposite of the way they seem. The Presidential contest between the ‘liberal’ Hillary Clinton’ and the ‘conservative’ Donald Trump is perhaps the most extreme example of this — for ten reasons that will be documented here.

I have never voted Republican in my life, starting with my first vote in the 1960s. I’ve consistently supported Bernie Sanders for President (even before he entered the contest). The reason for that support is his record in public office, regarding especially these ten key issues, where Sanders’s actions in public office contrast sharply against Hillary Clinton’s actions in public office. (Her policy-words lie often; but her policy-actions never have lied — actions speak the truth.) Trump has no record at all in public office. Even if he’s as bad as he sometimes projects to be, he’s not as bad as Hillary’s policy-record already is. But his clear superiority over her isn’t merely his lack of any record in public office; because, as will be demonstrated here, his words on some of the crucial public-policy issues have been consistently far more progressive than her actions on those same issues have been (and sometimes more progressive than her words on these issues have been) — and, in Donald Trump’s case, words are all that we have to go by, because his record as a businessman displays nothing about his authentic views about public policy, but only about his self-interest. Both of these two candidates are liars, and any intelligent voter knows it by now.

First, here, will be stated these ten key issues, on each of which issues Bernie and Hillary are opposites, and then Trump’s stated position regarding each of the ten will be presented.

At the end will be presented the reason I won’t vote for Jill Stein.

Here are the ten key issues:

1:  Sanders favors “breaking up the big banks.” Hillary Clinton opposes that.


2:  Sanders has fought consistently against Obama’s mega-‘trade’ deals. Hillary consistently favored them.


3:  Sanders favors working with Russia against jihadists in Syria. Hillary opposes that.


4:  Sanders says jihadists are America’s top foe. Hillary says both jihadists and Russia are equally anti-American, equally dangerous to America. Hillary is simply a neoconservative; Sanders isn’t. Her having voted to invade Iraq was no mistake on her part; it was consistent with her entire international outlook, all of which is neoconservative, like invading Libya, Syria, etcetera. Bernie’s vote against invading Iraq was likewise consistent with his international outlook.


5:  Sanders has been consistently opposed to fossil fuels. Hillary has aggressively supported them.


6:  Sanders says that the system is rigged. Hillary says that it’s not.


7:  Sanders says the system is rigged specifically against the poor. Hillary says the problem that keeps people poor is instead individual bigots — against Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, etc. Not the system itself. She is proud to represent the system. She’s not against it. She’s for it.


8:  Sanders’s political career has been financed by small-dollar donations. Hillary’s has been financed by mega-donations.


9:  Sanders favors every possible means of reducing the influence big-money donations to politicians has over politics. Hillary opposes that idea.

10:  Sanders favors socialized health insurance, like exists in the European nations that spend per-capita half what America does but have higher life-expectancy than America does. Hillary opposes that — she favors the existing profit-based system of health-care, and opposes the European system where basic healthcare is a right, no privilege (that’s based only on ability-to-pay).
*  *  *
I support Sanders not because his rhetoric on these matters is correct in my view, but because his record on them is correct: he has voted in Congress consistently in the ways that his rhetoric has said he believes — and I agree with his record, and thus too with his rhetoric (since it’s the same as his rhetoric). Hillary has instead contradicted herself frequently — and even voted in Congress, and acted as the U.S. Secretary of State — in ways that directly contradict her mealy-mouthed progressive statements. Her record shows that she’s actually the anti-Bernie, the opposite of Bernie. Trump (as I shall document here) is definitely not that (despite his frequent appeals to conservatives for their votes). This article will document the reasons why any reasonable and well-informed progressive will vote for Donald Trump.
*  *  *
Here are the positions of Trump and of Clinton on these ten key issues:

1:  Sanders favors “breaking up the big banks.” Hillary Clinton opposes that.

The real meaning of “breaking up the big banks” is separating investment banks from commercial banks: it has nothing actually to do with a bank’s size. It has to do with a bank’s function. It’s structural, not an issue of mere size (which Bernie’s opponents pretend it to be). 
As Morning Consult reported on 18 July 2016, Bernie Sanders required as a precondition in order for him to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, the inclusion in the Democratic Party platform of a recommendation that the FDR-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated investment banking (stock-brokerage) from commercial banking (checking and savings accounts), be restored. Bill Clinton had killed Glass-Steagall, and that’s one big reason why Wall Street heavily funds the Clintons. The elimination of Glass-Steagall returned the U.S. in 2000 to the structure that had produced the Great Depression, in which billionaires were gambling with the money of depositors — gambling with depositors’ checking accounts and savings accounts. That ending of Glass-Steagall set the groundwork for building the bubble which ended with the 2008 economic crash. Both Clintons have been against restoring Glass-Steagall, but Sanders forced this into the platform, even though a party’s platform is pure PR, no real policy-statement. This was purely Bernie’s statement, not at all Hillary’s. (In fact, at the very same time she did this merely nominal act, she selected as her VP pick Senator Tim Kaine, who is a longtime agent for Wall Street and international corporations, and who just before she selected him, was the subject of an article by Zach Carter at Huffington Post, on July 20th, headlined “Tim Kaine Calls To Deregulate Banks As He Campaigns To Be Clinton’s VP”. Kaine also had provided one of the 60 votes to pass Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, the enabling act for ultimate passage of Obama’s TPP, which will give international corporations unprecedented power if passed. Fast Track needed 60 votes in order to pass, and that’s exactly what it got; each of those 60 votes, including Tim Kaine’s, was essential for it. Hillary supported Fast Track. Clearly, she also will deregulate further the financial firms; what her husband did in 1999 wasn’t bad enough to suit her. With this VP pick, she was stabbing Sanders in the back, right at the start of the Democratic National Convention.)
When Bill Clinton ended Glass-Steagall, it was by his signing a piece of legislation titled the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and all three of those names attached to it were Republicans — this was the fulfillment, the very culmination, of a longtime Republican Party effort to end Glass-Steagall. Bill Clinton was a right-wing Democrat (though not as far-right as Hillary) who, by moving the Democratic Party to the right, forced the Republican Party even farther to the right than it had been, in order for Republican candidates to be able to continue to attract conservative voters. Barack Obama has perfected this strategy (of moving America’s political center toward the right) even further. Hillary Clinton would carry it much farther still. The congressional vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley occurred near the end of Bill Clinton’s Presidency, by which time, there was almost as high a percentage of congressional Democrats who voted to repeal that Democratic Party (FDR) milestone law as there was of Republicans who voted to repeal it, but only Republicans would attach their names to this far-right bill. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a sell-out to Wall Street. Hillary Clinton always supported strongly that sell-out; Bernie forced her now to nominally oppose it.
That same Morning Consult article also reported that, “Paul Manafort, campaign chairman of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, told reporters in Cleveland today that the Republican platform will include language calling for the reinstatement of the law that was repealed in 1999.” That was shocking news. 
When Donald Trump forced into the Republican platform a restoration of the Democratic Glass-Steagall Act, this was his statement, not something that somebody else forced upon him. He knew that doing this would antagonize Wall Street, but he did it anyway. Trump actually wants to ‘break up the big banks’. He would allow the traditional Republican lower-class voter-base favorites of banning abortions, etc. (he needs those people’s votes in order to win), but he wouldn’t allow Gramm-Leach-Bliley to continue (he apparently doesn’t think he’ll need those people’s money in order to win).
On 9 August 2016, the far-right American Enterprise Institute headlined “How Can Trump Support Deregulation and Glass-Steagall?” and opened by saying, “The Republican platform’s proposal to reinstate Glass-Steagall is hard to understand, even in the confused policy mishmash created by Donald Trump. The best interpretation is that it’s an awkward outreach to the disappointed ‘progressive’ supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The worst is that it calls into question whether Donald Trump really supports financial deregulation. The key problem for those Republicans who are now warily supporting their presidential nominee is that it is not clear where he will lead the party in this election — and the country — if he wins.” That’s precisely true. Conservatives view this with alarm. By contrast, few progressives have yet been equally smart, to even recognize that it exists — the fact that Donald Trump is, perhaps, as much of a closeted progressive, as Hillary Clinton is a closeted fascist (servant of international corporations, their chosen government dictator).
The AEI article continued: “But how can we believe any of this [Trump’s anti-regulatory statements]? More than anything else, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall suggests that the government, and not private decision-making, should determine the structure of the economy. One can’t believe in the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and still believe in the repeal or significant modification of Dodd-Frank. It’s like saying free markets work, but price controls can help.” 
The answer to that is: Trump recognizes “that the government, and not private decision-making, should determine the structure of the economy,” and that this is one of the fundamental reasons government even exists — to establish “the rules of the road” for the economy.
On 28 January 2016, Chris Arnade headlined in Britain’s Guardian, “I worked on Wall Street. I am skeptical Hillary Clinton will rein it in”, and he wrote: "Ask anyone who has spent the last two decades on Wall Street which politicians have worked for them the hardest and most will grudgingly admit it’s the Clintons.” Those millions of dollars didn’t come from Occupy Wall Street — they came from Wall Street.
Any really well-informed progressive knows that Dodd-Frank was largely a sell-out to the mega-corporations, which competitively gain, from the enormously complex Dodd-Frank Act, a huge advantage against the smaller firms, because the more complex a regulatory law is, the more that the required paperwork to comply with it will cripple small firms and so provide added competitive advantage to large firms (for which such paperwork is inevitably a far smaller percentage of their total costs of doing business). Dodd-Frank is a Wall Street monstrosity, and AEI knows it, but they’re appalled that the Republican Presidential nominee stands against the mega-firms that pay AEI’s bills. This is not something that AEI is accustomed to, from a Republican Presidential nominee. After all: the Dodd-Frank Act was Barack Obama’s law he wanted to pass in order to placate Democrats who were demanding restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act. It’s not something that a progressive would support. It was the way to avoid doing what progressives wanted to be done — restoring Glass-Steagall. (Similarly: Obamacare was the way for Obama to avoid pushing a single-payer health insurance plan, such as by opening Medicare to everyone.) 
The AEI commentary closed: “The Trump proposal to reinstate Glass-Steagall — only a technical idea of no particular consequence to most American voters — has major implications for the credibility of the candidate in whom so many Republicans have now placed their trust. Like the canary in the coal mine, it’s small but significant.” They know that though the public don’t pay attention to such things (the things that are important), the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is an enormous threat to the ability of America’s billionaires to gamble with the money in the public’s checking accounts and savings accounts — their ability to take the gambling-profits and to leave the government holding the bag in the event that those aristocrats’ gambles don’t pay off (like the Wall Street bailouts in 2008). They favor ‘socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor’. So does the Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton; and, thus, AEI is part of the Republican Party elite’s move away from Trump, toward Hillary. They’re increasingly recognizing such “canaries in the coal mines,” from Trump. Progressive Democratic voters should recognize it too, before they help elect Wall Street’s favorite candidate by not voting for Trump.

2:  Sanders has fought consistently against Obama’s mega-‘trade’ deals. Hillary consistently favored them.

Hillary Clinton was instrumental in getting the “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” law approved by congressional Democrats, and that’s the enabling law which now makes likely the ability of Obama to get his TPP ‘trade’ treaty with Pacific countries passed into lawduring the upcoming “lame duck” session of Congress, November 9th through January 3rd. She was a part of it, and she has always acted behind the scenes to push for passage of such treaties, including her own husband’s NAFTA.
Like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump has passionately condemned those treaties, and is urging members of Congress to vote against TPP if and when Obama tries to get it passed into law right after the November 8th elections (which is when members of Congress are maximally willing to do what their funders want and their voters oppose).
Hillary's 2003 Living History (p. 182) actually bragged about her husband’s having passed NAFTA, and she said: “Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our country was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization.” This was one of, supposedly, her proudest achievements, which were (p. 231) “Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.” But Hillary in her 2008 primary campaign against Obama was demanding that he apologise for his campaign flyer’s having said: “Only Barack Obama fought NAFTA and other bad trade deals.” That statement was just a fact. (Only after Obama started his second Presidential term in 2012 did he staff-up for, and start an operation to institute, mega-‘trade’ agreements that are much bigger, and much worse, even than NAFTA. For that purpose, he hired Michael Froman, who had been the Clinton-operative and longtime Obama friend who had personally introduced Obama in 2004 to the top people on Wall Street who had financed the Clintons’ political careers.) 
On 20 March 2008, the day after Hillary finally released her schedule during her White House years, The Nation’s John Nichols blogged “Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy”, and he said: “Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that [the] former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; ... now that we know she was in the thick of the maneuvering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement; ... now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that ‘her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA’ and that ‘there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time’; ... what should we make of Clinton’s campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs?”
The next day, Jennifer Parker at Jake Tapper’s “Political Punch” blog, headlined “From the Fact Check Desk: The Clinton Campaign Misrepresents Clinton NAFTA Meeting”, and she reported: “I have now talked to three former Clinton Administration officials whom I trust who tell me that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton opposed the idea of introducing NAFTA before health care, but expressed no reservations in public or private about the substance of NAFTA. Yet the Clinton campaign continues to propagate this myth that she fought NAFTA.” Hillary continued this lie even after it had been repeatedly and soundly exposed to be a lie. Her behavior in this

Nationwide Campaign to Expose Clinton Sex Crimes Launched

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 06:00 PM PDT

from Infowars:

A man shouted "Bill Clinton is a rapist" during a live Fox News segment early Saturday morning less than 24 hours after Infowars launched a campaign to expose Bill Clinton's alleged sex crimes.

The contest, first announced Friday on the Alex Jones Show, offers a $1,000 dollar reward to anyone who can get an Infowars "Bill Clinton Rape" shirt on television for at least 5 seconds or a $5,000 reward to anyone who can be vocally heard mentioning sexual allegations against the former president.

The contest will continue through the election or until $100,000 in prizes have been given out.

"Anyone that gets on national TV with the shirt clearly, for more than five seconds, gets $1,000. That means behind cameras, you name it," Alex Jones said Friday. "Anyone that gets it on air on national TV and gets the words out 'Bill Clinton is a rapist,' or things along that line, with a bullhorn — I could go to this right now, $5,000."

A second contest set to be announced this week, which will include the use of posters to expose the crimes of the Clinton family, will also offer a reward as well.

In order to qualify participants must follow the contest rules as well as any applicable laws – both local and federal.

Tune into the Alex Jones Show today from 4-6PM CDT and on Monday from 11AM-2PM CDT to learn more.

Read More @

Commentaries by Leeb and von Greyerz at King World News

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 05:49 PM PDT

8:51p ET Sunday, October 2, 2016

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

King World News this weekend has commentaries by fund manager Stephen Leeb, who cautions that China is seeking control of both the world financial system and the internet --

-- and Swiss gold fund manager Egon von Greyerz, who mocks the chairman of the European Central Bank, the premier of China, the premier of Japan, and the chairwoman of the Federal Reserve:

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


K92 Mining Shows What 'Fast Track' Really Means

Company Announcement
By Kevin Silva
Market One Media, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
via Business News Network, Toronto
September 18, 2016

"Fast-tracking" is an overused phrase in the mining sector. But K92 Mining Inc. (TSX.V: KNT) has demonstrated exactly what that concept means.

Less than four months after going public on May 25, the company has completed additional financings totaling $18.5 million. It also refurbished the mill and mine facilities with enhanced processing capacity and has two drills turning onsite. With all this accomplished, production looks to be just days away.

"The technical team on site has done an excellent job with the production restart, and we are on schedule and on budget," says Director and Chief Operating Officer John Lewins. "With that focus on track, and with the enhanced financial flexibility resulting from our recent financings, we are now looking to target a resource expansion that we believe exists."

K92 has under-promised and over-delivered. ...

... 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:

Sean Corrigan: Flow my tears, the policeman said

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 05:27 PM PDT

8:25p ET Sunday, October 2, 2016

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

In his novel "1984" George Orwell wrote that "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever." Sean Corrigan, an economist of the Austrian school, has just imagined the economic specifics of such a future, a future with increasingly comprehensive "financial repression" by government. Corrigan's commentary is headlined "Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said" and it's posted at his Internet site, "True Sinews," here:

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


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:

DONALD TRUMP WILL BE THE PRESIDENT | Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj | Prophecy | 2016

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 12:19 PM PDT

 Lancaster Prophetic Conference | 2016Session 10 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 or for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Ronan Manly: LBMA's new 'independent' chairman really isn't independent at all

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 10:16 AM PDT

1:16p ET Sunday, October 2, 2016

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Gold researcher Ronan Manly elaborates today on the recent appointment of the former head of the Bank of England's foreign exchange office, Paul Fisher, as the supposedly "independent" chairman of the board of the London Bullion Market Association. Given the Bank of England's longstanding close relationship with the LBMA, Manly writes, Fisher really isn't "independent" at all. Manly's report is headlined "From Bank of England to LBMA: The 'Independent' Chair of the LBMA Board" and it's posted at Bullion Star here:

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


NewCastle Gold's New CEO, Gerald Panneton, Hits the Ground Running

By Tommy Humphreys
Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Mining entrepreneur Gerald Panneton took a few years off after building one of Canada's largest gold miners, Detour Gold. He raced performance cars in his down time, and conducted due diligence on various mining assets to potentially back.

This summer, the geologist set his sights on NewCastle Gold (TSXV:NCA), owner of a past-producing gold mine in California with similarities to Detour Gold in its early days. ...

... For the remainder of the report:

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:

China's yuan joins IMF reserves in first revision since 1999

Posted: 02 Oct 2016 07:04 AM PDT

By Robin Ganguly
Bloomberg News
Saturday, October 1, 2016

The yuan took on the mantle of a global reserve currency Saturday, a milestone that is seen breathing life into China's bond markets by prompting estimated inflows of as much as $1 trillion over the next five years.

The currency's entry into the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights -- alongside the dollar, euro, pound, and the yen -- comes amid China's efforts to boost its international usage and ambitions of providing an alternative to the dollar. Describing the inclusion as a "historic milestone," IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a statement Friday that it reflects the progress that the Asian country has made in reforming its financial systems and liberalizing markets.

"SDR entry will pave the way for closer interaction between China's capital market and that of the rest of the world,' Tommy Xie, an economist at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. in Singapore, said on Saturday. "The first impact will be on the yuan, which the authorities are likely to keep stable for the next few weeks as any sudden volatility spike will damp the yuan's image." ...

... For the remainder of the report:


Gold Standard Continues to Expand North Dark Star High-Grade Deposit

Company Announcement
Wednesday, September 14, 2016

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Canada -- Gold Standard Ventures Corp. (TSXV: GSV; NYSE MKT:GSV) today announced assay results from two holes, DS16-21 and DS16-04, at the recently discovered North Dark Star oxide gold deposit on its fully-owned and controlled Railroad-Pinion Project in Nevada's Carlin Trend. Results from DS16-21 have increased the width of the deposit and, more importantly, have confirmed that higher-grade oxide mineralization projects up-dip to more shallow depths to the east of DS16-08.

The primary objective of this year's drill program at North Dark Star was to expand the high-grade zone discovered in core hole DS15-13 (15.4 meters of 1.85 gold grams per tonne and 97 meters of 1.61 gold grams per tonne) at the end of last year's drill program. ...

...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:

Breaking News And Best Of The Web

Posted: 01 Oct 2016 05:37 PM PDT

US GDP revised slightly higher, consumer spending softens. OPEC agrees to output cut, oil price jumps. US stocks recover on calming words from Deutsche CEO. Commerzbank to cut 9,600 jobs, suspend dividend. Wells Fargo draws abuse for consumer fraud. China’s debt crisis has gone from inevitable to imminent. Gold ends down for Q3, is now […]

The post Breaking News And Best Of The Web appeared first on

No comments:

Post a Comment