Similar Threads
Whats your best money management method? 52 replies
How to flow with the order flow? 26 replies
Money Management / Risk Management 24 replies
Money management model for multiple strategy trading method 16 replies
Most popular money management method. 7 replies
- Post #6,721
- Quote
- Jun 14, 2019 3:36pm Jun 14, 2019 3:36pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,722
- Quote
- Jun 14, 2019 3:37pm Jun 14, 2019 3:37pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,723
- Quote
- Jun 14, 2019 4:40pm Jun 14, 2019 4:40pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,724
- Quote
- Jun 15, 2019 7:21pm Jun 15, 2019 7:21pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
June 2019 IceCap Global Outlook – “Threading the Needle”
For many, the investment world can be a confusing place. Banks, mutual finds, stocks, bonds, currencies, insurance, inflation, taxes, economies – it’s no wonder the majority have glossed eyes.
And sitting on top of this confusion pie are central banks.
Each country has its own central bank which is responsible for setting overnight interest rates and the amount of money in that country’s financial system.
Yet, there is one central bank that is the most important, sits on top of the world, and all of its actions impact not only their local country, but also every other country in the world.
This central bank is the US Federal Reserve.
In this latest IceCap Global Outlook we share how actions by the US Federal Reserve are always reactive to a crisis which, ironically, it helped create in the first place.
Today’s central banks are once again, trying to thread the financial needle, and rescue us from the crisis that was born from the depths of the 2008-09 Great Financial Crisis.
The crisis is happening, yet there is good news – the crisis is creating opportunities to not only preserve your hard earned savings, but to capitalize too.
Please continue reading.
PDF 2019.06 IceCap Global Outlook
- Post #6,725
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 2:28am Jun 16, 2019 2:28am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,726
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 2:34am Jun 16, 2019 2:34am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post 6,699
- Cleanup
- Quote
- Jun 10, 2019 5:53am | Edited at 6:20am
- https://cdn-assets.faireconomy.media...ar392875_2.gif BenjaminIs
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 5,652 Posts | Online Now
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...DWu6lkYQ-Qa4SQ
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...?itok=LY4e264-
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/09/2019 - 23:30
Authored by Eric Zuesse via Off-Guardian.org,
Every empire is a dictatorship. No nation can be a democracy that’s either heading an empire, or a vassal-state of one. Obviously, in order to be a vassal-state within an empire, that nation is dictated-to by the nation of which it is a colony.
However, even the domestic inhabitants of the colonizing nation cannot be free and living in a democracy, because their services are needed abroad in order to impose the occupying force upon the colony or vassal-nation. This is an important burden upon the ‘citizens’ or actually the subjects of the imperial nation.
Furthermore, they need to finance, via their taxes, this occupying force abroad, to a sufficient extent so as to subdue any resistance by the residents in any colony.
Every empire is imposed, none is really voluntary. Conquest creates an empire, and the constant application of force maintains it.
Every empire is a dictatorship, not only upon its foreign populations (which goes without saying, because otherwise there can’t be any empire), but upon its domestic ones too, upon its own subjects.
Any empire needs weapons-makers, who sell to the government and whose only markets are the imperial government and its vassal-nations or ‘allies’.
By contrast, ’enemy’ nations are ones that the imperial power has placed onto its priority-list of nations that are yet to become conquered.There are two main reasons to conquer a nation.
One is in order to be enabled to extract, from the colony, oil, or gold, or some other valuable commodity.
The other is in order to control it so as to be enabled to use that land as a passageway for exporting, from a vassal-nation, to other nations, that vassal-nation’s products.
International trade is the basis for any empire, and the billionaires who own controlling blocs of stock in a nation’s international corporations are the actual rulers of it, the beneficiaries of empire, the recipients of the wealth that is being extracted from the colonies and from the domestic subjects.
The idea of an empire is that the imperial nation’s rulers, its aristocracy, extract from the colonies their products, and they impose upon their domestic subjects the financial and military burdens of imposing their international dictatorship upon the foreign subjects.
Some authors say that there is a “Deep State” and that it consists of (some undefined elements within) the intelligence services, and of the military, and of the diplomatic corps, of any given dictatorship; but, actually, those employees of the State are merely employees, not the actual governing authority, over that dictatorship.
The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between ‘the private sector’ (the aristocracy’s corporations) and the government.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...orate-flag.jpg
In former times, many of the aristocrats were themselves governing officials (the titled ‘nobility’), but this is no longer common.
Nowadays, the aristocracy are the individuals who own controlling blocs of stock in international corporations (especially weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, because the only markets for those corporations are the corporation’s own government and its vassal states or ‘allies’); and such individuals are usually the nation’s billionaires, and, perhaps, a few of the mere centi-millionaires.
A small number, typically less than 100, of these extremely wealthy individuals, are the biggest donors to politicians, and to think tanks, and to other non-profits (these latter being also tax-write-offs to their donors, and so are tax-drains to the general public) that are involved in the formation of the national government’s policies.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy’s core or most-essential viewpoints to the nation’s subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy’s selected candidates and not for any who oppose the aristocracy.
These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State — the bosses over the dictatorship, the ultimate beneficiaries in any empire.
In order to maintain this system, of international dictatorship or empire, the most essential tool is deceit, of the electorate, by the aristocracy.
The method of control is: the bought agents of the Deep State lie to the public about what their polices will be if they win, in order to be able to win power; and, then, once they have won power, they do the opposite, which is what they have always been paid by the Deep State (the aristocracy) to help them to do.
Thereby, elections aren’t “democratic” but ‘democratic’: they are mere formalities of democracy, without the substance of democracy. All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State’s representatives, and virtually none are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates, none of whom will represent the public if and when elected.
Here are some recent examples of this system — the imperial system, international dictatorship, in action:
During Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, he said:
The approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that. Assad is, you know I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ’cause he’s not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS. … I think, you can’t be fighting two people that are fighting each other, and fighting them together. You have to pick one or the other.”
Assad is allied with Russia against the Sauds (who are the chief ally of the U.S. aristocracy), so the U.S. (in accord with a policy that George Herbert Walker Bush had initiated on 24 February 1990 and which has been carried out by all subsequent U.S. Presidents) was determined to overthrow Assad, but Trump said that he was strongly opposed to that policy.
Months before that, Trump had said:
I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can’t be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS.
We have to do one thing at a time. We can’t go — and I watched Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years. He won’t be able to solve the problem. We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we’ll start thinking about it. But we can’t be fighting Assad. And when you’re fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you’re fighting — you’re fighting a lot of different groups. But we can’t be fighting everybody at one time.”
In that same debate (15 December 2015) he also said:
In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off.
I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have wiped away, and for what?
It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart.”
Did he do that? No. Did he instead intensify what Obama had been trying to do in Syria — overthrow Assad — yes.
As the U.S. President, after having won the 2016 Presidential campaign, has Trump followed through on his criticism there, against the super-hawk, neoconservative, Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? No. Did he instead encircle himself with precisely such super-hawks, such neoconservatives? Yes.
Did he intensify the overthrow-Assad effort as Graham and those others had advocated? Yes. Did America’s war against Syria succeed? No. Did he constantly lie to the voters? Yes, without a doubt.
Should that be grounds for impeaching him? A prior question to that one is actually: Would a President Mike Pence be any different or maybe even worse than Trump? Yes.
So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse. But how likely would the U.S. Senate be to remove Trump from office if the House did impeach Trump?
Two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would need to vote to remove the President in order for a President to be removed after being impeached by the House. A majority of U.S. Senators, 53, are Republicans.
If just 33 of them vote not to convict the President, then Trump won’t be removed. In order to remove him, not only would all 47 of the Democrats and Independents have to vote to convict, but 20 of the 53 Republicans would need to join them. That’s nearly 40% of the Republican Senators. How likely is that? Almost impossible.
What would their voters who had elected them back home think of their doing such a thing? How likely would such Senators face successful re-election challenges that would remove those Senators from office? Would 20 of the 53 be likely to take that personal risk?
Why, then, are so many Democrats in the House pressing for Trump’s impeachment, since Trump’s being forced out of the White House this way is practically impossible and would only install a President Pence, even if it could succeed? Is that Democratic Party initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them?
Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that “democracy”? America’s voters are trapped, by liars, so it’s instead mere ‘democracy’. It’s just the new form of dictatorship. But it’s actually as ancient as is any empire.
There’s nothing new about this — except one thing: the U.S. regime is aiming to be the ultimate, the last, the final, empire, the ruler over the entire world; so, it is trying especially hard, ‘to defend freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the world’, as Big Brother might say.
Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as evil, and just as insincere, as Trump, but only a far more skillful liar, who deceived his voters to think that he would fight corruption, work to improve relations with Russia, provide a public option in his health-insurance plan, and otherwise work to reduce economic inequality, to improve the economic situation for disadvantaged Americans, and to prosecute banksters.
He abandoned each one of those stated objectives as soon as he won against John McCain, on 4 November 2008, and then yet more when he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012. And aren’t some of those promises the same ones that candidate Trump had also advocated and then abandoned as soon as he too was (s)elected?
THE THREAT TO THE EMPIRE
The heroic fighters for the freedom of everyone in the world are the whistleblowers, who report to the public the corruption and evil that they see perpetrated by their superiors, their bosses, and perpetrated by people who are on the public payroll or otherwise obtaining increased income by virtue of being selected by the government to become government contractors to serve an allegedly public function.
All liars with power hate whistleblowers and want to make special examples of any part of the press that publishes their truths, their facts, their stolen documents. These documents are stolen because that’s the only way for them to become public and thereby known to the voters so that the voters can vote on the basis of truths as in a democracy, instead of be deceived as in a dictatorship.
Even if the truth is stolen from the liars, instead of being kept private (“Confidential”) for them, are the whistleblowers doing wrong to steal the truth from the liars? Or, instead, are the whistleblowers heroes: are they the authentic guardians of democracy and the precariously thin wall that separates democracy from dictatorship?
They are the latter: they are the heroes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of such heroes are also martyrs — martyrs for truth, against lies. Every dictatorship seeks to destroy its whistleblowers. That’s because any whistleblower constitutes a threat to The System — the system of control.
In all of U.S. history, the two Presidents who pursued whistleblowers and their publishers the most relentlessly have been Trump and Obama. The public are fooled to think that this is being done for ’national security’ reasons instead of to hide the government’s crimes and criminality.
However, not a single one of the Democratic Party’s many U.S. Presidential candidates is bringing this issue, of the U.S. government’s many crimes and constant lying, forward as being the central thing that must be criminalized above all else, as constituting “treason.” None of them is proposing legislation saying that it is treason, against the public — against the nation.
Every aristocracy tries to deceive its public in order to control its public; and every aristocracy uses divide-and-rule in order to do this.
But it’s not only to divide the public against each other (such as between Republicans versus Democrats, both of which are actually controlled by the aristocracy), but also to divide between nations, such as between ‘allies’ versus ‘enemies’ — even when a given ‘enemy’ (such as Iraq in 2003) has never threatened, nor invaded, the United States (or whatever the given imperial ‘us’ may happen to be), and thus clearly this was aggressive war and an international war-crime, though unpunished as such.
The public need to fear and hate some ‘enemy’ which is the ‘other’ or ‘alien’, in order not to fear and loathe the aristocracy itself — the actual source of (and winner from) the systemic exploitation, of the public, by the aristocracy.
The pinnacle of the U.S. regime’s totalitarianism is its ceaseless assault against Julian Assange, who is the uber-whistleblower, the strongest protector for whistleblowers, the safest publisher for the evidence that they steal from their employers and from their employers’ government.
He hides the identity of the whistleblowers even at the risk of his own continued existence. Right now, the U.S. regime is raising to a fever-pitch and twisting beyond recognition not only U.S. laws but the U.S. Constitution, so as to impose its will against him. President Trump is supported in this effort by the corrupt U.S. Congress, to either end Assange’s life, or else lock him up for the rest of his heroic life in a dungeon having no communication with the world outside, until he does finally die, in isolation, punishment for his heroic last-ditch fight for the public’s freedom and for democracy — his fight, actually, against our 1984 regime.
What Jesus of Nazareth was locally for the Roman regime in his region, Assange is for the U.S. regime throughout the world: an example to terrify anyone else who might come forth effectively to challenge the Emperor’s authority.
A key country in this operation is Ecuador, which is ruled by the dictator Lenin Moreno, who stole office by lying to the public and pretending to be a progressive who backed his democratically elected predecessor, Rafael Correa, but then as soon as he won power, he reversed Correa’s progressive initiatives, including, above all, his protection of Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.
On 11 April 2019, RT headlined “Who is Lenin Moreno and why did he hand Assange over to British police?” and reported that:
Following his 2017 election, Moreno quickly moved away from his election platform after taking office. He reversed several key pieces of legislation passed under his predecessor which targeted the wealthy and the banks. He also reversed a referendum decision on indefinite re-election while simultaneously blocking any potential for Correa to return.
He effectively purged many of Correa’s appointments to key positions in Ecuador’s judiciary and National Electoral Council via the CPCCS-T council which boasts supra-constitutional powers.
Moreno has also cozied up to the US, with whom Ecuador had a strained relationship under Correa. Following a visit from Vice President Mike Pence in June 2018,
Ecuador bolstered its security cooperation with the US, including major arms deals, training exercises and intelligence sharing.
Following Assange’s arrest Correa, who granted Assange asylum in the first place, described Moreno as the “greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history”saying he was guilty of a “crime that humanity will never forget.”
Despite his overwhelming power and influence, however, Moreno and his family are the subject of a sweeping corruption probe in the country, as he faces down accusations of money laundering in offshore accounts and shell companies in Panama, including the INA Investment Corp, which is owned by Moreno’s brother.
Damning images, purportedly hacked from Moreno’s phone, have irreparably damaged both his attempts at establishing himself as an anti-corruption champion as well as his relationship with Assange, whom he accused of coordinating the hacking efforts.
On 14 April 2019, Denis Rogatyuk at The Gray Zone headlined: “Sell Out: How Corruption, Voter Fraud and a Neoliberal Turn Led Ecuador’s Lenin to Give Up Assange Desperate to ingratiate his government with Washington and distract the public from his mounting scandals, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno has sacrificed Julian Assange – and his country’s independence”, and he described some of the documentation for the accusations that Moreno is corrupt.
On 12 April 2019, Zero Hedge headlined “Facebook Removes Page Of Ecuador’s Former President On Same Day As Assange’s Arrest”, and opened: “Facebook has unpublished the page of Ecuador’s former president, Rafael Correa, the social media giant confirmed on Thursday, claiming that the popular leftist leader violated the company’s security policies.”
On 16 April 2019, Jonathan Turley bannered “‘He Is Our Property’: The D.C. Establishment Awaits Assange With A Glee And Grudge”, and opened:
They will punish Assange for their sins
The key to prosecuting Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government concealed alleged war crimes and huge civilian losses, the type of disclosures that were made in the famous Pentagon Papers case. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program.
A glimpse of that artificial scope was seen within minutes of the arrest. CNN brought on its national security analyst, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence. CNN never mentioned that Clapper was accused of perjury in denying the existence of the National Security Agency surveillance program and was personally implicated in the scandal that WikiLeaks triggered.
Clapper was asked directly before Congress, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” Later, Clapper said his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make.
That would still make it a lie, of course, but this is Washington and people like Clapper are untouchable.
In the view of the establishment, Assange is the problem.
On 11 April 2019, the YouGov polling organization headlined “53% of Americans say Julian Assange should be extradited to America”.
On 13 April 2019, I headlined “What Public Opinion on Assange Tells Us About the US Government Direction”, and reported the only international poll that had ever been done of opinions about Assange, and its findings demonstrated that, out of the 23 nations which were surveyed, U.S. was the only one where the public are anti-Assange, and that the difference between the U.S. and all of the others was enormous and stark. The report opened:
The only extensive poll of public opinion regarding Julian Assange or Wikileaks was Reuters/Ipsos on 26 April 2011, “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is not a criminal: global poll”, and it sampled around a thousand individuals in each of 23 countries — a total of 18,829 respondents.
The Reuters news-report was vague, and not linked to any detailed presentation of the poll-findings, but it did say that “US respondents had a far more critical view”against Wikileaks than in any other country, and that the view by Americans was 69% “believing Assange should be charged and 61 percent opposing WikiLeaks’ mission.” Buried elsewhere on the Web was this detailed presentation of Ipsos’s findings in that poll:
Oppose Wikileaks:
61% US
38% UK
33% Canada
32% Poland
32% Belgium
31% Saudi Arabia
30% Japan
30% France
27% Indonesia
26% Italy
25% Germany
24% Sweden
24% Australia
22% Hungary
22% Brazil
21% Turkey
21% S. Korea
16% Mexico
16% Argentina
15% Spain
15% Russia
15% India
12% S. Africa
Is the US a democracy if the regime is so effective in gripping the minds of its public as to make them hostile to the strongest fighter for their freedom and democracy?
On 13 April 2019, washingtonsblog headlined “4 Myths About Julian Assange DEBUNKED”, and here was one of them:
Myth #2: Assange Will Get a Fair Trial In the US
14-year CIA officer John Kiriakou notes: Assange has been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia — the so-called “Espionage Court.” That is just what many of us have feared. Remember, no national security defendant has ever been found not guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Eastern District is also known as the “rocket docket” for the swiftness with which cases are heard and decided. Not ready to mount a defense? Need more time? Haven’t received all of your discovery? Tough luck. See you in court.
… I have long predicted that Assange would face Judge Leonie Brinkema were he to be charged in the Eastern District. Brinkema handled my case, as well as CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling’s. She also has reserved the Ed Snowden case for herself. Brinkema is a hanging judge.
On 20 May 2019, former British Ambassador Craig Murray (who had quit so that he could blow the whistle) headlined “The Missing Step”and argued that the only chance that Assange now has is if Sweden refuses to extradite Assange to the US in the event that Britain honors the Swedish request to extradite him to Sweden instead of to the US (The decision on that will now probably be made by the US agent Boris Johnson instead of by the regular Tory Theresa May.)
How can it reasonably be denied that the US is, in fact (though not nominally) a dictatorship? All of its allies are thus vassal-nations in its empire. This means acquiescence (if not joining) in some of the US regime’s frequent foreign coups and invasions; and this means their assisting in the spread of the US regime’s control beyond themselves, to include additional other countries.
It reduces the freedom, and the democracy, throughout the world; it spreads the US dictatorship internationally. That is what is evil about what in America is called “neoconservatism” and in other countries is called simply “imperialism.” Under American reign, it is now a spreading curse, a political plague, to peoples throughout the world. Even an American whistleblower about Ukraine who lives in the former Ukraine is being targeted by the US regime.
This is how the freedom of everyone is severely threatened, by the US empire — the most deceitful empire that the world has ever experienced. The martyrs to its lies are the canaries in its coal mine. They are the first to be eliminated.
Looking again at that rank-ordered list of 23 countries, one sees the US and eight of its main allies (or vassal-nations), in order: US, UK, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, Indonesia. These are countries where the subjects are already well-controlled by the empire. They already are vassals, and so are ordained as being ‘allies’.
At the opposite end, starting with the most anti-US-regime, are: S. Africa, India, Russia, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, S. Korea, Turkey. These are countries where the subjects are not yet well-controlled by the empire, even though the current government in some of them is trying to change its subjects’ minds so that the country will accept US rule.
Wherever the subjects reject US rule, there exists a strong possibility that the nation will become placed on the US regime’s list of ‘enemies’. Consequently, wherever the residents are the most opposed to US rule, the likelihood of an American coup or invasion is real.
The first step toward a coup or invasion is the imposition of sanctions against the nation. Any such nation that is already subject to them is therefore already in danger. Any such nation that refuses to cooperate with the US regime’s existing sanctions — such as against trading with Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela — is in danger of becoming itself a US-sanctioned nation, and therefore officially an ‘enemy’.
And this is why freedom and democracy are ending.
Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered - either domestically by a second successful American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate a foreign one), or else by a World War III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will - the existing insatiable empire will continue to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet.
- Post #6,727
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 2:41am Jun 16, 2019 2:41am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post 6,633
- Cleanup
- Quote
- May 25, 2019 6:14pm
- https://cdn-assets.faireconomy.media...ar392875_2.gif BenjaminIs
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 5,653 Posts | Online Now
https://www.nysun.com/national/regim...t-rates/90694/
Regime Change For the Fed — Honest Rates
By A Special Correspondent of the Sun | May 19, 2019
217140
https://www.nysun.com/pics/new/118.jpg
James Grant was one of three recipients of the 2019 Bradley Prize. Roger Kimball and Judge Janice Rogers Brown were likewise honored. At the May 7 award ceremonies at Washington, the famed editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer had this to say:
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a blemish on the age that so many of us know the name of the Federal Reserve chairman. In a better world, that government functionary would be as obscure as what’s-his-name, the home plate umpire who got no arguments calling balls and strikes at Yankee Stadium the other night.
Who elected the Greenspans, Bernankes, and Powells to be the arbiters of interest rates, asset prices, the rate of inflation and who knows what else? It wasn’t Alexander Hamilton. Nor was it the Fed’s own founders. If the authors of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act could return to earth to inspect their handiwork, the shock might kill them all over again.
Congress envisioned an institution to function in the context of the international gold standard. This meant a dollar defined as a fixed weight of gold. You should have heard old Carter Glass, the congressional father of the Fed, berate the critics who dared to suggest that he was scheming to replace the gold dollar with a scrap of green paper.
Well, Glass himself is to blame for much of the evil that followed. The legislative preamble to the act that Woodrow Wilson signed describes a bill “to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of discounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States—and for other purposes.”
These other purposes quickly became the principal ones. No sooner did America enter the Great War than the Fed lent a hand to facilitate the government’s borrowing. By the time the system celebrated its 30th birthday, in 1943, the central bank was pegging interest rates to suppress the costs of financing an even greater war.
Jump ahead another generation. In 1971, the dollar became the un-collateralized piece of paper that Glass denied it would ever be. Thus did discretionary monetary management by former tenured economics faculty become the Fed’s new operating technique. The gold standard was out. The Ph.D. standard was in.
Unconstrained by gold, the Fed intervened to clean up after the 1998 failure of Long-Term Capital Management. To ameliorate the 2000 dot-com bust, it pressed down its policy interest rate to 1%. To put out the fires of 2008, it pressed that rate to zero — and held it there for years.
Would Hamilton have been shocked by these radical measures? No more so than John Paul Jones would be at the sight of the USS Ronald Reagan, apologists contend. Ancestor worship is a poor substitute for progress, they say.
Science, though, is one thing, finance another. In science, progress is cumulative — we stand on the shoulders of giants. In finance, progress is cyclical — we keep stepping on the same rake.
It’s not because we never learn. We do learn. We learn to respond to incentives — to the Federal Reserve’s now predictable interventions to support the stock market, for one. And to the opportunities afforded by persistently low interest rates, for another.
Interest rates are probably the most sensitive and consequential prices in capitalism. They balance savings and investment, discount future cash flows, define investment hurdle rates, measure financial risk.
Yet the Fed and its foreign counterparts seek to manipulate or, at least, to influence, interest rates both long-term and short-. They can’t seem to keep their hands off them.
Wall Street raises no protest against these intrusions. The artificially low rates of the past 10 years have advantaged investors, speculators and corporate promoters.
They have deadened the risk sensors of even professional investors. They are 80-proof financial disinhibitors.
The same low rates—by some measures, the lowest in 3,000 years—have penalized savers, incentivized dubious risk-taking, expedited the growth in federal indebtedness, and perpetuated the lives of businesses that would have failed in the absence of easy credit. They have widened the gulf between rich and poor, thrown a spanner into our politics and inflated the cost of retirement.
In 2016, then candidate Trump complained about an “artificial stock market” and a “false economy,” blaming each on the legacy of the Fed’s near-zero percent interest rates. And just because he subsequently hired a new speech writer doesn’t mean he was wrong. He was, indeed, righter than he knew.
The trouble is that the costs of radical monetary policy are dark and prospective; the gifts they bestow are bright and immediate. Those gifts are likewise transitory. Over-encumbered businesses finally fail, inflated asset prices ultimately revert to lower, more reasonable levels. The dividends and the yields that income-needy people have stretched sadly prove illusory. New federal regulations follow hard on the Congressional hearings called to ventilate society’s rage at the bankers — not the central bankers, mind you — who brought down the chaos.
What’s to be done?
An overhaul of the Ph.D. standard, for starters. The 700 doctors of economics on the Fed’s payroll seem not to understand the limitations of economic modeling or the relevance of the financial past. Send them to NASA, which is where they wanted to work in the first place. Replace them with a half dozen historians, a couple of philosophers and a physician. The historians would study the recurring patterns of economic and financial affairs, the philosophers would contemplate the true nature of money and the physician would repeat at intervals, “First do no harm.”
As to interest rates, the new and enlightened Federal Reserve would adopt the policy endorsed long ago by the central banker who pleaded, “Don’t give me a low rate. Give me a true rate, and then I shall know how to keep my house in order.”
The Fed would cast this regime change in language calculated to appeal to the environmentally conscious younger generation. What we need, the new brooms at the central bank would say, are rates discovered in the market, not imposed from on high. In other words, green interest rates. Unprocessed, unpasteurized, un-fluoridated interest rates. Cage-free, cruelty-free, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, gluten-free, grass-fed, heart-healthy, probiotic, non-GMO, non-dairy, free-range, all-natural, sustainable, organic, farm-to-table interest rates.
Not necessarily higher rates. Not necessarily lower rates. But, certainly, truer rates. Ladies and gentlemen: Free interest rates.
________
Image: Drawing by Elliott Banfield, courtesy of the artist.
- Post #6,728
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 2:43am Jun 16, 2019 2:43am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post 6,646
- Cleanup
- Quote
- Jun 1, 2019 6:41pm
- https://cdn-assets.faireconomy.media...ar392875_2.gif BenjaminIs
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 5,654 Posts | Online Now
http://classicalcapital.com/Learning...MCAl3cSwmZh_tU
Learning Curve of Fed
THE LEARNING CURVE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
U.S. Monetary Policy 1965-2005
By Wayne Jett
2005
October 6, 2004, marked the 25th anniversary of the Federal Reserve’s move from an interest rate target to a money growth target as the tool chosen for fighting inflation. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis convened aconference to consider how current U.S. monetary policy is informed by that 1979 milestone, by open market operations with money growth targets, and by 22 years of experience since the Fed abandoned money growth targets in 1982.
Three major papers were presented, plus commentaries on each, and two panels discussed their merits. Were monetary issues not such a crucial weakness in U.S. public policy, and thus a significant global concern, the St. Louis discussions might slide by as an academic exercise.
But they deserve attention. Not because they are clairvoyant or comprehensive – they are neither. In fact, the St. Louis discussions were often politically correct in the academic sense. The commentators were demand-side economists evaluating demand-side policies implemented by the Federal Reserve. Some sins are overstated, some go unnoticed and some are forgiven too quickly.
“Origins of the Great Inflation”
On the other hand, many insights are available, both in what is said and in what is not. Allan H. Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University marks the “Great Inflation” as running from 1965 to 1984, emphasizes Fed conduct in 1965, and concludes that Fed chairman William McChesney Martin “… was in a position to stop…” inflation until January, 1970, but “… failed to do so.”
Meltzer reports that inflation “destroyed” the Bretton Woods protocol for the international monetary system, so the Fed and all other central banks were forced to stabilize their currencies with their own policies and ideas. He concludes that the Fed’s economic theories, despite flaws, were sufficient to defeat inflation, but politics (particularly unwillingness to pay the trade-off of higher unemployment) prevented effective action.
Christina D. Romer of UC Berkeley sees the cause of the Great Inflation somewhat differently. Defective theory involving the “natural rate” of unemployment required to prevent inflation came into use in the mid-1960s giving rise to moderate inflation. Both theory and inflation worsened in the early 1970s, and then improved before turning worse yet into the late ‘70s. During this time, Fed chairman Arthur Burns saw the Fed’s primary role as “managing aggregate demand” to achieve “a return to price stability.” Nevertheless, after “tightening” during recession in 1974, Burns “led rapid monetary expansion in 1977.”
In Romer’s view, ideas began the Great Inflation and ideas ended it. So politics were not entirely to blame, although unwillingness to pay the “natural” unemployment price for low inflation played a role. Romer refines an improved idea from this experience: “inflation can be controlled by aggregate demand policy,” which she credits as the idea that “fueled the Volcker disinflation” and “broke the back of inflation worldwide.”
“The Reform of 1979 – How and Why It Happened”
Other commentators at the St. Louis conference from the Federal Reserve System (Lindsey, Orphanides and Rasche) point out that the Paul Volcker-led Fed on October 6, 1979, conditionally adopted a target for aggregate money growth, not aggregate demand. Volcker led the move to money growth targets from interest rate targets, not as a monetarist, but partly to shield the Fed from public criticism for sharp rises in interest rates.
These commentators note that, while targeting money quantities in 1980, Volcker lamented the murkiness of any relationship between money quantities and GDP growth, and the arbitrariness of defining and measuring money. The Fed abandoned money aggregate targets in mid-1982, and money aggregates play no role in today’s Fed operations.
Monetary Policy Debate Since 1979
Marvin Goodfriend of the Richmond Fed describes the “consensus model” of monetary theory. Depending on who is using it, the model is sometimes called the New Neoclassical Synthesis Model and other times the New Keynesian Model. The model focuses on managing aggregate demand to optimize unemployment at its “natural rate” where “output equals potential.”
Goodfriend perceives an irony that “monetarists deserve much of the credit” for defeating virulent inflation in the early 1980s, “yet the Fed currently ignores money” quantities. He argues that money quantities ought to be integrated into Fed operations “to some extent.” He further notes that U.S. monetary policy has had no anchor for the dollar since the Bretton Woods international monetary protocol “collapsed in 1973.”
Goodfriend observes that neither Congress nor the Fed has acted to provide a dollar anchor, and concedes that recent developments may make an anchor unnecessary. But he contends the desirability of an anchor “is [at least] debatable” in view of changing Fed membership and U.S. fiscal policy. Nonetheless, Goodfriend sees monetary theory and policy as “revolutionized in the two decades since the Federal Reserve moved in October 1979 to stabilize inflation and bring it down.”
If the views related so far indicate a significant degree of divergence from consensus within demand-side monetary theory, stay tuned. Laurence M. Ball of The Johns Hopkins University reviews Goodfriend’s survey of “current mainstream thought,” asserts no revolution has occurred since 1979, and credits Milton Friedman’s 1968 “precise theory of the Phillips curve” as “still the best simple theory of the unemployment-inflation trade-off.”
Ball questions the usefulness of “rational expectations theory” (nee “credibility” of central banks) for “understanding inflation in the real world” and he finds “little evidence that inflation targeting changes the behavior of output or inflation.” Moreover, Ball examines the “modern consensus model,” describes it as “wildly counterfactual,” and concludes its “absurd predictions make it a poor tool for policy analysis.” He shows that corrections necessary to make the “modern consensus model” useful amount to abandoning it and returning to Friedman’s 1968 re-statement of the Phillips curve theory.
Ball reports that “the Fed has not been unusually successful in reducing inflation” and has, in fact, been “near the middle of the pack” among the world’s central banks. He says reducing inflation is “easy to accomplish … if policy-makers are willing to slow the economy sufficiently.”
Ball credits U.S. unemployment performance as excelling compared to other countries, but dissents “180 degrees” from Goodfriend’s view that the reason is the Fed’s unflinching inflation fight. Ball says U.S. unemployment has been relatively low because the Fed “has not been as single-minded about fighting inflation” as other central banks.
Anna J. Schwartz of the National Bureau of Economic Research, speaking on behalf of monetarists at the St. Louis conference, says the economics profession now embraces the belief that “… there is no long-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment….”
With dissension of this magnitude within its ranks, is criticism from outside the demand-side fraternity really necessary? Of course. With disagreement of such fundamental gravity among those who guide U.S. monetary policy, inquiry into the soundness of the Fed’s theory and practices is urgently needed.
A Classical Critique of Demand-Side Theory
The question above may not seem serious, but the answer requires understanding that demand-side economics and classical (supply-side) economics are not merely two divergent branches of a common intellectual field of inquiry. Demand-side theory is relatively recent in origin, first gaining traction through Depression-era politics of the Franklin Roosevelt presidency.
Young advisors surrounding FDR undertook development of intellectual theories to support federal relief programs. These theorists tended to examine the economy from the viewpoint of the central planner, and from the viewpoints of political constituencies, primarily consumers. The resulting economic ideas were often attributed to the English classical economist, John Maynard Keynes, although he did not participate actively in their development and is known to have dissented from them at times in occasional written comments to FDR.
Given primacy as foundation for federal government programs during five consecutive presidential terms (1932-1952), demand-side economic theory gained firm footholds both in public policy and in academia. By the mid-20th century, demand-side theory was well established in academic institutions alongside classical economics. In the ensuing 50 years, demand-side theory came to dominate the academy so thoroughly (to the exclusion of classical economics) that no institution of higher learning presently offers an accredited degree in classical economics.
Classical economics came through Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton and others who probed conditions that promote individual productivity and prosperity. Classical theory fashioned public policy accordingly. The gestation of classical theory was much longer than demand-side, though the “supply-side” descriptive name for classical economics is more recent.
Classical theory was dubbed “supply-side economics” in the midst of the Great Inflation of the 1970s, partly because classical economics had been wrongly faulted as blameworthy in the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. The case showing serious violations of classical theory as the true culprits, thus exonerating classicists, has been made elsewhere to willing minds. The focus here will remain the merits of current U.S. monetary theory and policy.
The point of this passing reference to the genesis of demand-side theory is that it was born of a political motive to escape classical principles. From the outset, monetary and fiscal principles of classical economic theory were politically troublesome to New Deal policy-makers.
While the U.S. remained ostensibly on the gold standard, FDR devalued the dollar from $20.67 to $35 per ounce of gold in 1934. The dollar devaluation introduced 41 percent inflation into the U.S. economy as the cheaper dollar worked its way through private transactions in ensuing years.
In addition, FDR confiscated privately owned gold, paying the pre-devaluation price of $20.67 with post-devaluation dollars. Combined as it was with dollar devaluation, the gold confiscation amounted to federal seizure of a major portion of private investment capital in the nation.
This federal confiscation of private capital debilitated investment in production and employment, importantly setting back economic recovery. Making matters far worse, legislative “reform” of the Federal Reserve in 1935 gave FDR effective control of the Fed. The FDR-dominated Fed further contracted the private economy by twice radically increasing required bank reserves in 1936-37 after the banks had already safely rebuilt reserves, assuring that banks could make no new loans and would have to call in existing loans.
Another aspect of Roosevelt’s influence deserves acknowledgment in the current debate of U.S. monetary policy. FDR viewed the analyses developed by his aides and called “Keynesian,” not as serious economic theory, but as intellectual cover for his political programs.
The diaries of FDR’s Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, record their discussions of March 5 and 7, 1939, when FDR suggested to Morgenthau greater government spending to off-set the business downturn. Morgenthau countered FDR by proposing tax cuts he assured would produce “… within a month … a boom.”
Roosevelt admonished Morgenthau for bringing him “a Mellon plan of taxation” that would signal a victory by his political foes in business, ridiculed as “very stupid” a small sign (“Does It Contribute to Recovery?”) Morgenthau kept on his desk, instructed “this is a matter of politics,” and shouted as Morgenthau and his undersecretary John W. Hanes departed his office “For God’s sake, don’t be so innocent!”
Innocent or not, academia continues to treat demand-side theory as serious intellectual endeavor, much to the detriment of scholarship and global economic progress. The Federal Reserve Board and staff follow in its thrall. Regardless of guile, no chain of abstractions can achieve price stability while the currency unit value fluctuates unpredictably.
The Bretton Woods Responsibility
Under the Bretton Woods protocol of 1944, the U.S. took upon itself the key role in the international monetary system. The U.S. was obliged to maintain the dollar’s value at $35 per gold ounce, so that every other currency could link its own value to the dollar.
The Bretton Woods protocol did not simply collapse of its own accord, nor fail because it was unworkable, nor was it innocently “destroyed by inflation.” The Bretton Woods protocol was destroyed by the failure of the U.S. Federal Reserve to honor its obligation to maintain the dollar’s value. The Fed knowingly created inflation by issuing excess currency to fund federal debt at below-market interest rates.
The Fed’s practice of accommodating federal debt appeared subtly in the 1950s, reappeared in the mid-60s, and grew each year as demand-side theory became more supportive. The seminal event, going entirely unremarked at the St. Louis conference of 2004, occurred August 15, 1971, when President Nixon closed the gold window to European central banks. By mid-1972, the price of gold doubled and, by Spring 1975 hit $200 per ounce, five times the price four years earlier. (Figure 1)
Why would the noted scholars of St. Louis 2004 avoid mentioning such an obviously pivotal event that unleashed soaring inflation on U.S. and world economies during the following years? The answer is patently obvious. Acknowledgment of the importance of cutting the dollar’s anchor to gold would raise questions whether that was the central error, and whether it should be reversed.
Gold Bullion Price-New York (US$/Ounce) (Symbol: __XAU_D)
http://classicalcapital.com/images/g..._1986_ktxu.bmp
Figure 1.
Sadly, to sidestep the same subject, the esteemed outgoing chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, testified to Congress on July 21, 2005, that no advantage exists in returning U.S. monetary policy to the gold standard. Why? “Because we’re acting as though we were there.” From an eminently educated economist who witnessed the gold price move unpredictably between $250 and $480 per ounce during his last ten years in office, this testimony is difficult to fathom.
http://classicalcapital.com/images/ten_year_gold.bmp
Figure 2.
Admirers of Chaos
When the gold standard rule was lifted in 1971, discretionary power was conferred upon the Fed chairman that no incumbent has been willing to yield. This power includes use of currency creation to resolve crises encountered - a discretion quite attractive to private banks wishing assistance on occasion. Another faction loving the status quo floating dollar is the foreign exchange investment community, which presently invests more funds in currencies than are invested in corporate stocks and bonds.
The Fed could choose, as chairman Greenspan says it has, to behave as if it is on the gold standard. The Fed could adopt a price target for gold and create only the number of dollars required to hit the target. The benefits of a stable dollar to the U.S. economy, to other G8 economies and to emerging economies would be very significant. Of course, a stable dollar would be much less interesting to forex speculators.
This may not be as apparent to those guiding the Fed as it should be. Demand-side theory is deeply embedded in the thought processes of Fed policy-makers. Economic theory can misguide attention, confuse thinking and produce counter-productive actions despite good intentions.
New Reality Show: 1979-1982
The October 6, 1979, Fed meeting provides a case in point. Commentators in St. Louis 25 years later unanimously credited that meeting as a turning point in the fight against inflation. No one acknowledged that inflation skyrocketed after the meeting and as a result of the actions taken.
In adopting a new target for money growth, the Fed misjudged the appropriate limits on money quantities and actually added substantial new liquidity to the economy. In response, the price of gold (which had been $240 in the Spring and below $300 in August of 1979) spiked to $890 per ounce in February, 1980. During 1980, the gold price fell to $500, and then rose again to $750 before ending the year above $600. (Figure 3.)
After the 1980 election of President Reagan raised prospects of significant cuts in marginal tax rates, demand for dollars increased and the dollar’s value recovered sharply. With economic growth absorbing excess monetary liquidity, the gold price ended 1981 near $400.
The gold price fall (dollar appreciation) continued in early 1982, slipping $10 on St. Patrick’s Day to $310, and commodity prices adjusted to the deflated dollar as they must. Classical economists Robert A. Mundell of Columbia University and Jude Wanniski alerted Fed chairman Volcker that dollar deflation below $300 gold would cause severe distress in financial institutions and commodity-based industries. Regardless, the Fed remained attentive to the views of monetarists who insisted addition of liquidity would re-ignite inflation and collapse the bond market.
In August, 1982, Mexico notified U.S. banks of its impending default on loans collateralized by oil, since the oil price had fallen $5 below the “tipping point” of $36 needed to repay the loans. The Fed had no choice but to abandon monetarist advice and monetize $3 billion in Mexican bonds to avoid the default endangering U.S. banks.
Gold Bullion Price-New York (US$/Ounce) (Symbol: __XAU_D)
http://classicalcapital.com/images/g..._1979_1987.bmp
Figure 3.
On this news, the gold price moved higher, but interest rates did not follow. Instead, the bond market rallied strongly and equity markets surged (DJIA from 790 to 1100 and NASDAQ from 150 to 250 at year-end). Economic growth had strengthened the dollar but required a stable dollar (meaning sufficient liquidity) in order to continue at rates permitted by the cuts in marginal tax rates.
One will not find these facts and analysis examined, much less expressed as consensus, in the St. Louis proceedings. Demand-side commentators acknowledge that the Fed abandoned money quantity targets in 1982, but are far too lenient in explaining why monetarism theory failed in practice.
Selection of the appropriate measure of money, current gauging of money growth, estimate of liquidity requirements – each of these proved to be beyond the capability of Fed planners in 1979. Moreover, the crucial “velocity” factor assumed by monetarist theory to be very stable (as Friedman concluded it had been during the gold standard) turned out otherwise. In short, the monetarism experiment begun by the Fed October 6, 1979, failed miserably and was near disaster from beginning to end.
Today’s Demand-Side: A Bankrupt Central Tenet
On June 6, 2003, the Financial Times of London reported Milton Friedman’s concession that his theory of money quantities had failed. The St. Louis commentators made no such concession, and continue to honor as a central tenet of their economic model Friedman’s theory describing inflation as a trade-off for employment.
Another central tenet of demand-side theory credited to Professor Friedman is “… inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Of the two tenets contributed by Friedman, demand-side theorists should recognize, but apparently do not, that they must choose which to believe is valid. Both cannot be true.
Classical economists have no difficulty making the choice. A monetary phenomenon is one exhibited by the currency managed by the central bank. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, and thus is a creature that lives and dies by the hand of the central banker.
This being the case, then who could believe that inflation is caused when the employment level rises above a “natural” rate? Apparently the demand-siders who guide the Fed believe it. So they choose as the Fed’s only inflation-fighting “tool” an interest rate target that provides no prospect of stabilizing the dollar’s value. The Fed actually wields the funds rate target as an instrument of fiscal policy to raise and lower the government-imposed cost of doing business, much as tax laws do.
As reflected in the St. Louis proceedings, the Fed uses the funds rate target to manage “aggregate demand.” By raising the funds rate target to reduce aggregate demand, the Fed aims to slow production, thereby increasing unemployment so wage-push inflationary pressures will be subdued.
Often Fed actions run directly contrary to congressional or executive branch fiscal policy. Demand-siders view this as a benefit of the “independent” Fed, so that expert economic planners are empowered to offset fiscal “excesses” of the elected branches of government.
Let’s be clear about why inflation is a monetary phenomenon and why inflation is not caused by employment. Inflation (or deflation) is a change in value of the monetary unit. Any such deterioration in monetary unit value must be worked through the entire pricing system of the economy to preserve the value of property, goods and services. The Fed can control the unit value of its currency; workers cannot control or affect the unit value of currency received as pay.
By treating the employment level as a purveyor of inflation, the Fed robs the labor market of the benefits of supply and demand signals. Oil, e.g., needs a trustworthy signal of a higher oil price to justify investment in more production. When labor is in short supply, the signal of higher wages will attract more workers. Meanwhile, workers who can provide the desired services during the shortage are entitled to gain from their market advantage. This does nothing to produce inflation. If workers are not permitted to gain in periods of labor shortage, the market will not work to supplement and replenish supply.
By slowing economic growth to produce higher unemployment, the Fed reduces demand for dollars in the productive economy without removing dollars from the system. This results in greater excess liquidity and more inflation. The Fed could hardly design a more counter-productive way of conducting itself.
As it produces inflation through creation of excess liquidity, the Fed impedes the validity of market price signals. Untrustworthy currency undercuts the supply message given by higher wages or prices. Labor is handicapped by bad money in this manner, as are all other goods and services. But labor is dealt a doubly damaging blow by the Fed’s erroneous embrace of Phillips curve theory, even as refined by Friedman. The Fed beats down any employment rate above what is perceived as “natural” by Phillips curve theorists.
Thus, the U.S. market for human services is furnished a deteriorating currency by the Fed. The Fed then acts to prevent the workers from adjusting to the changed currency value. Workers might choose to work more, or require more members of the household to work, to restore purchasing power. Regardless, the Fed acts with its funds rate target “tool” to slow economic growth and reduce employment opportunities.
This is unwise management of the most important central bank in the world, and a great disservice to all workers. The labor markets of the world cannot function fairly or efficiently under such irrational handicaps imposed by central planning.
When the unit value of the dollar is changing, the Fed cannot achieve price stability by managing the output gap by managing aggregate demand by managing the funds rate target. This chain of abstractions strung together by demand-side theorists to guide Fed practices ignores reality, without escaping it. When the dollar changes value, prices measured in dollars must be adjusted to maintain accurate, fair value in transactions.
The market supply/demand mechanism works best when the currency unit value does not change. To achieve currency value stability, the central bank must target the desired value and act directly to achieve it. Here, theoretical simplicity is to be admired, and will be rewarded with greater prosperity around the world.
The roundabout demand-side theory now dominant at the Fed and other central banks will not work. Flaws in use of the funds rate target itself are only part of the problem, but are significant. Here are the most significant flaws:
• The funds rate is not a controlling variable in the dollar’s value, so changing the funds rate produces no predictable change in the dollar’s value.
• Under Fed practices, raising the funds rate target does not actually “tighten” flow or quantity of dollar liquidity; it merely raises the cost of capital.
• The Fed cannot really control the funds rate target, since market pressures force the Fed to change the target against its wishes.
• The Fed’s attempts to control the funds rate cause market conditions to change in ways they would not otherwise, thereby destabilizing the dollar’s unit value.
The monetarist Anna Schwartz reported at St. Louis a consensus that “… there is no long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation….” Indeed, demand-side economists do use this statement uniformly. Yet Goodfriend and Ball showcase the existing consensus supporting Friedman’s definition of the Phillips curve trade-off between unemployment and inflation.
Thus, denial of any long-run link between unemployment and inflation merely serves to mask the Fed’s practice of targeting a higher funds rate to reduce aggregate demand, slow economic growth and raise unemployment in the short-run to reduce inflation. One presently out of work would remind demand-siders, as Keynes did long ago, that “in the long-run we are all dead.”
Demand-side monetary theory is bankrupt, having no essentially valid core. The Phillips curve inflation-unemployment “trade-off” is theoretically absurd, and its effects are diabolical on workers at every income level. The Fed’s manipulation of the funds rate target destabilizes other market variables affecting the dollar’s value, so isolation of employment as inflation’s controlling variable is both logically indefensible and morally repugnant.
There being no true inflation-unemployment trade-off, the entire demand-side theory chain that aims to slow the economy is misconceived. There is no point to slowing the economy, since no theoretically sound reason exists to raise unemployment.
Though debate of monetary policy may seem esoteric to some, misery flowing from the errors discussed has many human faces. Service as the reserve currency of the world carries with it grave moral responsibilities. The standard of living of many societies – American, Mexican, Brazilian, Argentine, Korean, Thai, Chinese, Russian, African - has suffered greatly from the U.S. Federal Reserve’s failure to meet its duty to provide honest currency. The Fed’s use of complex oratory does not hide the inadequacy of its policy, nor does it meet America’s moral obligation to act uprightly as a nation.
The Fed’s management of the dollar has fallen short of American standards. Demand-side theory ought to be cast out of the Fed’s operations immediately, freeing central banks worldwide to follow sound monetary principles. What ought to replace it is a simple rule targeting the desired value of the dollar relative to gold. If the Fed will not do so, the President or the Congress should provide leadership. ~
- Post #6,729
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 9:36am Jun 16, 2019 9:36am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,730
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 3:23pm Jun 16, 2019 3:23pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
Legal and financial expert Wayne Jett says, “No one in history has ever stood up to the secret cabal running America the way President Trump has.” Signs abound in the mainstream media they are freaking out. Jett says, “They are freaking out because the noose is slipping over the heads of some of them in terms of the prospects of their being tried for treason or for some other heinous crime.
There are many of them. The network, I am sorry to say, goes far and deep throughout our society. . . .
Many of them are doing all they can to make sure this comes to an end as soon as possible. We have a President who is actually a declared enemy of the forces that have put our Presidents in office or killed them generation after generation well back into the 19th century.”
Jett calls this a “fight to the death” between team Trump and the cabal. Jett says, “This is a death match no question about it, and I am encouraged. Compared to today and where we were in 2012 and 2016. . . . I had considerable confidence that President Trump was going to prevail. I didn’t care what the polls said. . . . There are too just too many indications that our press lies to us in whatever ways are necessary to support the ruling elite because they, in fact, are instruments of the ruling elite. . . .
I can’t see how you could have a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton, but Joe Biden may be it. . . . I am optimistic.”
Jett is also an expert on the Federal Reserve. He wrote the popular book called “The Fruits of Graft,” about the Great Depression, that he says was engineered by the cabal on purpose. Jett says they will do it again because the Fed owes way more than it can ever repay. That means the dollar, at some point in the not-so-distant future, will be worthless.
Jett explains, “It’s not even on the same meter. It (the Fed) is completely a sham operation, and just like every other fiat currency in history, the dollar as presently designed, is designed to fail. It’s designed to go to zero, and that’s what’s coming. What I think the President is doing is putting that off as much as he can, keeping the Fed from doing that and keeping it rolling until he can get this current account deficit down so we can come out with a gold backed currency. As soon as we get current account deficit more or less in balance, we can have a reset to a gold backed currency that is actually stable and actually designed to deliver value into the pockets of the people.”
So, how does the little guy play this? Jett says, “The key to your financial stability between this side of the chasm and the other side of the chasm is owning metals, owning gold and silver. These are most likely the types of things that will hold their real value. Therefore, on the other side of the chaos of this chasm, when you declare the present currency system has ended . . .I think the President is trying to make the period of uncertainty as short as possible between the time when the old currency dies and the new currency is in place.”
When is this going to happen? Is it before or after the 2020 Election? Jett predicts, “I think it is before the 2020 Election. I don’t think we can make it that long, especially with the global cabal trying to start a world war or trying to have a currency failure right now.”
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Wayne Jett, founder of ClassicalCapital.com.
(To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here)
After the Interview:
https://usawatchdog.com/wp-content/u...s-of-Graft.jpgThere is free information and original articles written by Wayne Jett on ClassicalCapital.com.
To get a copy of his 550 page book called “The Fruits of Graft,”click here.
This segment is sponsored by Discount Gold and Silver Trading.Ask for Melody Cedarstrom, the owner, at 1-800-375-4188.
- Post #6,731
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 3:35pm Jun 16, 2019 3:35pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
Make America Capitalist Again
MAKE AMERICA CAPITALIST AGAIN!
Liberate US From Mercantilism
By Wayne Jett June 7, 2019
Select any important aspect of American life: finance, banking, economic policy, politics, environmental policy, religion, education, communications media or entertainment. Examine and you will find it is dominated by the vastly powerful global cabal which seeks the near-term end of every nation. This does not describe a capitalist society. It describes the medieval system of social domination called mercantilism – the mortal enemy of capitalism – as it has existed across much of the world for the past 400+ years.
Counter-Offensive In Progress
The “powerful pecuniary force,” as Henry George described the global cabal in 1880, has aggressively pursued written plans since 1901 to exterminate all self-sufficient people (the “middle class”) and all “people of the abyss” worldwide. We must proceed apace, as President Donald Trump is doing, with other like-minded nations in an all-out counter-offensive against those who so long have been aggressors against us.
Americans cannot live in a national constitutional republic unless and until the global cabal is destroyed in a comprehensive campaign waged to a final conclusion. Such a campaign is presently underway. It is led by President Donald Trump and federal officials of the military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and justice agencies. Victory is to be achieved using a top-down and bottom-up pincer strategy.
The top-down actions against the global cabal are aimed at neutralizing and recovering vast stores of wealth corruptly gained by the cabal, since their access to that wealth is essential to the cabal’s continued exercise of power. Simultaneously, actions to roll-up the bottom functionaries can be highly beneficial in gathering evidence against higher parts of the power structure and in inhibiting execution of cabal orders.
Targets of Opportunity
Here is a representative list of instruments of mercantilist power in America presently which will or should be terminated or substantially reformed to perform beneficial roles consistent with equal justice under law.
1. Federal Reserve
2. Internal Revenue Service and Income Tax
3. Securities & Exchange Commission
4. Major Media (including major platforms of Alternative Media)
5. Public Education
6. Political Parties and Campaigns
7. Every Federal Executive Department
8. Armed Services Administration
9. Intelligence Services Administration
10. Federal Law Enforcement
Progress in defeating the global cabal and recovering as much of their loot as possible will enable much greater success in reforming the ground floor levels of cabalist operations. Victory will not come overnight, and the battles are not being televised, but we have some indications that progress is being made.
Details will come in time. The important thing presently is to see and understand the big picture. The political scene is likely to change dramatically before the elections of November, 2020, though they are only 18 months from now.
Keynesians, Austrians and Mercantilists
Keynesian economists can find little good to say about the economic turn in America which began in 2017. But why should they? Their work is political influence using hyper-technical arguments designed to confuse and to obfuscate, and to do so in ways which assist the mercantilist cabal. If the cabal is deposed, Keynesians face the happy prospect of re-learning economic analysis by classical principles - an outcome that can benefit them and the rest of us.
Keynesian analytics were designed to achieve mercantilist ends while pretending the recommended policies are all for the good of the common people. The acknowledged expert on mercantilism, Eli Heckscher of Sweden, said nearly as much in 1946 while the debate was still fresh. That was before cabal influence and money swept classical economic analysis out the doors of American academic institutions.
Our friends in the Austrian school of economics do considerably better than Keynesians in applying classical economic analysis to issues involving monetary policy and fiscal policy. However, the Austrian school seems to put blinders on when they explain major events including the Crash of 1929, the Great Depression and other economic crises such as the Tech Crash of 2000-2002 and the financial events of 2008. Economists of the Austrian school rely solely upon “wave theory” to explain why the Great Depression occurred, for example, and reason similarly regarding other economic crises.
“Waves” Of What?
If Austrian school wave theory has any basis in reality, the question ought to be asked whether that reality is connected with reported occult practices of the global cabal. The cabal has allegedly placed great emphasis upon numbers in calendar dates and other such reasons for choosing their timing of planned actions, including such matters as wars, catastrophes and financial crashes. Would such motives and actions explain economically significant events fitting a particular “wave” pattern?
Charting a wave pattern to record anticipated timing of the next antisocial action can be beneficial if the “wave” can be explained by connecting it with conspiratorial human conduct. If, indeed, that is the case, then it seems to call for identifying in advance those motives, actions and actors causing the cataclysmic event. This would give some opportunity for preventing, punishing and ending the wrong-doing.
Perhaps the best way to conclude this discussion of Austrian wave theory is with a question. If the global cabal is finally defeated and its past crimes exposed and punished, will economic “waves” persist, or will they come to an abrupt end?
- Post #6,732
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 7:43pm Jun 16, 2019 7:43pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,733
- Quote
- Jun 16, 2019 7:45pm Jun 16, 2019 7:45pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
June 16, 2019
Kremlin Ponders American Threat To Attack “Unhackable” Russian Power Grid
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A worrisome new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today confirming Ambassador Anatoly Antonov’s assessment that improvement of Russian-United States relations requires efforts on combating Russophobia, states that this racist anti-Russia “mental disorder” permeating America is displaying itself once again via a New York Times article claiming that US defense-intelligence agencies have planted some kind of computer code into Russia’s electrical grid to bring it down—an “act of war” if true, but stands against the fact that this grid is impervious to any kind of hacking as it operates solely on non-computer analogue electronics and electromechanical control systems—and was a propaganda incitement screed so devoid of truth, even President Donald Trump himself railed against it a few hours ago by stating: “Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!” [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/power1.jpg
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/power2.jpg
According to this report, once the United States unilaterally withdrew from the P-5+1 Iran Nuclear Agreement, wherein Iran agreed to send its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, the ending of this treaty resulted in Russia shipping all of this enriched uranium back to the Iranians—thus giving the Iranians everything they needed to build nuclear weapons if they so chose to—and greatly complicating anyone’s plan to attack them.
So angered were “certain elements” within the United States about Iran getting back their enriched uranium, this report notes, they’ve maintained a steady and aggressive military stance against Russia—but never “crossing the line to war”—that is until earlier today when the New York Times published their article titled “U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid”—wherein they cited numerous unnamed US defense and intelligence officials giving exact details on how they had planted malicious computer codes in the Russian electrical grid to bring it down—an “act of war” whose details of released to the New York Times amount to outright treason against the United States for those revealing their nation’s top secrets—and whose consequence of allows Russia to legally retaliate by any means necessary to protect itself.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/power4.jpg
The “fatal flaw” in this New York Times propaganda screed, though, this report continues, is the fact that the Russian Federation National Energy Grid relies solely on non-computer analogue electronics and electromechanical control systems for all of its electrical transmission functions making them impervious to any kind of computer virus and/or hacking—and that, also, sees all control rooms and transmission centers being equipped with the Russian made computer operating system Astra Linux[English], as no Western technology of any kind is permitted to be used.
So concerned has Russia been about Western computer viruses and hacking, in fact, this report says, the Ministry of Defense has been rapidly changing all of its computer systems from Windows systems to Astra Linux, too—with it further to be noted that the Federal Service for Technical and Export Control granted Astra Linux the security clearance “Of Special Importance”, which means this operating system can now be used to handle Russian government information of the highest degree of secrecy—with the exception of some Russian intelligence services who still use “unhackable” typewriters.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/power5.jpg
With the Russian government having published new rules [English] mandating that all foreign communications satellite operators pass their transmissions through gateway ground stations monitored by computer intelligence experts, this report further notes, these absurd claims made by the New York Times become even more improbable to believe—but which may be the true point of this article, as its chilling subtext riding beneath this outrageous claim of shutting down Russia’s power grid describes a USmilitary and intelligence establishment operating out of the control of President Trump—as evidenced by its saying such things as “Trump was not briefed in detail on the program out of fear that he would spill secrets to Russians as he did with classified information to the Russian ambassador and foreign minister during an Oval Office meeting in 2017”—and—“the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new legal authorities, slipped into the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer...and under this law, those actions can now be authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval”.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/power3.jpg
To any nation in the world contemplating, like the New York Times asserts, that President Trump is not in full control of his military and intelligence services, this report concludes, explains why Trump cried out against the “Global Effort to Take Trump Down” forces by declaring about them “They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”—and whom one can only hope Trumpcan defeat with the largest campaign war chest ever amassed in US presidential history that now tops over $100 million—that stands opposed to the miniscule $11 million raised by Obama for his re-election bid and the paltry $2.4 million raised by Bush for his at the exact same time in their presidencies that Trump is at now.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/power6.jpg
June 16, 2019 EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
[Note: Many governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagree with in believing that it is every human being’s right to know the truth. Due to our mission’s conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit us, and others like us, that is exampled in numerous places, including HERE.]
[Note: The WhatDoesItMean.com website was created for and donated to the Sisters of Sorcha Faal in 2003 by a small group of American computer experts led by the late global technology guru Wayne Green(1922-2013) to counter the propaganda being used by the West to promote their illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.]
[Note: The word Kremlin (fortress inside a city) as used in this report refers to Russian citadels, including in Moscow, having cathedrals wherein female Schema monks (Orthodox nuns) reside, many of whom are devoted to the mission of the Sisters of Sorcha Faal.]
Trump Races Global Nuclear War To Finish Line As World Holds Breath
The Epistle of Saint Helena: The Most Feared Book Of The Bible That Ignited World War II
America Is Tearing Itself Apart Because Of Two Historians They Don’t Even Know The Names Of
Return To Main Page
- Post #6,734
- Quote
- Edited 8:11pm Jun 16, 2019 7:56pm | Edited 8:11pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
President Trump has hurled the dire charge of "Treason" at the New York Times for its lengthy investigative piece alleging US intelligence has stepped up systematic cyber attacks on Russia's power grid. “This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country…” Trump tweeted Saturday evening in response to the story which ran hours earlier.
He then hastily added in a follow-up tweet in all caps, "ALSO, NOT TRUE!" — as if only then realizing his initial tweet seemed to actually vouch for the story. The follow-up further excoriated the Times for their reporting with "not even the slightest thought of consequence!"
Whether this means the president is outraged that a true and verified report could be detrimental to US credibility and national security, or that fake news could hurt the US and invite unnecessary cyber retaliation is still not fully evident, but Trump's impulsive Saturday evening tweets appear to back the former.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9JrX6PX...jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...nEK_normal.jpg
NYTimes Communications✔@NYTimesPR
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Accusing the press of treason is dangerous.
We described the article to the government before publication. As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns. https://nyti.ms/2FdpKV1
20.5K
11:00 PM - Jun 15, 2019
7,232 people are talking about this
The NYT report outlines an alleged ongoing US operation to infiltrate and implant malware in Russia’s power grid as preparation for any potential major cyber warfare operation in the future, and further as "a warning" to the Kremlin. However, the story is light on details and heavy on the usual anonymous "current and former officials".
According to the Times, “officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid and other targets.” The officials described that “it has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” and that they are “doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.” Though US operations hadn't reached the level of specific attacks, the malware constitutes what's described as a “persistent presence” within Russia’s infrastructure.
The report casts the latest ramped up cyber efforts targeting Russia as part of a broader campaign to clandestinely probe the country’s electrical grid going back to 2012 — efforts whichgrew following alleged Russian hacking and election meddling connected with the 2016 election.
Crucially, as CNN describes of the NYT report, "Two administration officials told the Times they believed President Donald Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the US computer code being implanted inside the Russian grid."
And further, the story is outright suggesting the White House's own intelligence briefers are actually withholding vital national security information from the president:
Pentagon and intelligence officials describe to the Times "broad hesitation" to tell Trump about the details of the operations against Russia. They tell the Times there was concern over how Trump would react, and the possibility that Trump might reverse the operations or discuss it with foreign officials.
So there it is - assuming the report has merit - essentially a major "clandestine military activity" is being run by US defense and intelligence commanders but while intentionally circumventing the White House's lawful civilian oversight?
Indeed, perhaps Trump is right to have word "treason" as his first thought — though it wouldn't be on the part of the Times reportingbut on the part of those seeking to hide the operation from the president himself.
- Post #6,735
- Quote
- Edited Jun 17, 2019 2:22am Jun 16, 2019 8:22pm | Edited Jun 17, 2019 2:22am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
CrowdStrike's report made its way into a joint FBI/DHS report on an Russia's "Grizzly Steppe", which concluded Russia hacked the DNC's servers. At the time, Crowdstrike's claim drew much scrutiny from cybersecurity experts according to former Breitbart reporter Lee Stranahan.
Now, thanks to a new court filing by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone requesting the full Crowdstrike analysis, we find out that the US government was given a redacted version of the report marked "Draft," as reported by the Conservative Treehouse.
What makes the whole thing even more hokey is a footnote admitting that "counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced."
And as the Conservative Treehouse notes: "This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor."
The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it…
…and used the claim therein as an official position….
…which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.
Think about that for a few minutes. -Conservative Treehouse
Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.
In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged “80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners,” Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs that the said information is incorrect.
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources. Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)
Amazing...
- Post #6,736
- Quote
- Edited 2:28am Jun 17, 2019 2:18am | Edited 2:28am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
The New York Times has published an anonymously sourced report titled “U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid” about the “placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before” which could potentially “plunge Russia into darkness or cripple its military,” with one anonymous official reporting that “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.”
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...FElapfMUrw.png
Obviously this is yet another serious escalation in the continually mounting series of steps that have been taken into a new cold war between the planet’s two nuclear superpowers. Had a report been leaked to Russian media from anonymous Kremlin officials that Moscow was escalating its cyber-aggressions against America’s energy grid, this would doubtless be labeled an act of war by the political/media class of the US and its allies with demands for immediate retaliation.
To put this in perspective, The New York Times reported last year that the Pentagon was pushing for the US Nuclear Posture Review to include the strategy of retaliating against serious Russian cyberattacks on American power grids with nuclear weapons.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...wNKZ2wvsF6.jpg
So that’s scary enough. What’s even scarier is the information that the Timesburied way down in the 21st to 23rd paragraphs of its report:
“Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place ‘implants’ — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid.
“Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.
“Because the new law defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in the air or at sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added.”
People rarely take time to deeply reflect on the uniquely important fact that our species came within a hair’s breadth of total annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis. We learned long after it was all over that the only reason a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine didn’t discharge its payload on the US Navy and set off a full-scale nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR was because one of the three men in the sub needed to authorize the weapon’s use stood against the other two and refused. That man’s name was Vasili Arkhipov, and he’s responsible for the fact that you and everyone you love exists today. There’s a good PBS documentary about the event on YouTube if you’re curious.
President Kennedy was constantly going back and forth in communication with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, and any number of things could have gone cataclysmically wrong during that exchange had Kennedy not made certain concessions at certain times and known when to hold back instead of pressing forward.
He made a series of diplomatic moves that would not be possible in this current paranoid, leak-prone climate, including secretly recalling the USA’s Jupiter missiles from their position in Turkey at Khrushchev’s request.
For all the outrage that liberals display whenever a high-profile Republican utters the phrase “deep state”, it sure is interesting that the Commander-in-Chief has found himself in a situation where he is at the whim of a collective of warmongers who are advancing pre-existing agendas against a nation they perceive as a geostrategic threat to US hegemony. It begs the question, who is really in charge?
The US war machine is the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, and the alliance of nations that it upholds is functionally the most powerful empire that the world has ever seen. Because so much power depends on the behavior of this gargantuan war engine, it is seen by those with real power as too important to be left to the will of the electorate, and too important to be left to the will of the elected Commander-in-Chief. This is why Americans are the most propagandized people in the world, this is why Russia hysteria has been blasted into their psyches for three years, and this is why we are all at an ever-increasing risk of dying in a nuclear holocaust.
- Post #6,737
- Quote
- Jun 17, 2019 2:33am Jun 17, 2019 2:33am
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
- Post #6,738
- Quote
- Edited 10:03pm Jun 17, 2019 9:49pm | Edited 10:03pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
Authored by Graham Noble via Liberty Nation,
Apparently, anything is permissible until it benefits the president, at which point it becomes a crime...
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...te-doxxing.jpg
Politicians of all stripes quickly learn how to avoid giving straight answers to questions. Donald Trump is the first president in living memory who is not a politician, though, and he has not mastered the art of evasion. Either that or he simply prefers to take questions head-on. This tactic does not always serve him well, and his answer to a recent interview question opened the door for his detractors to pile on. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former CIA Director John Brennan were both resurrected by the media to respond to Trump’s recent remarks regarding foreign influence in U.S. elections.
When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether his son, Donald Trump Jr., should have contacted the FBI after being invited in 2016 to meet with a Russian national who allegedly offered dirt on Hillary Clinton, the president answered, “Give me a break – life doesn’t work that way.”
The ensuing exchange led Stephanopoulos to ask the president: “Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?” Trump responded that, perhaps, the person in question should do both; look at the information being offered and notify the FBI. Stephanopoulos suggested this amounts to foreign interference in an American election, to which Trump responded: “It’s not an interference [sic]. They have information – I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI – if I thought there was something wrong.”
The wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed this interview prompted the anti-Trump cable networks to bring in two men who were embroiled in the Russia collusion hoax. One of these men, Andrew McCabe, was fired from the FBI and is fortunate not to have yet been charged with multiple counts of lying to federal investigators. The other is hysterical Trump critic Brennan, who is almost certainly a subject of the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the genesis of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
McCabe’s Clinton Excuses
McCabe feigned horror at the idea that the president would be open to receiving information on a potential election opponent from a foreign source. At the same time, however, he dismissed the idea that the Hillary Clinton campaign had done anything wrong in 2016 when it paid for Russian-sourced and unverified information to use against Trump.
When asked by CNN’s Chris Cuomo about a possible analogy between the two situations, the former FBI official said: “There’s no equivalence between those two examples … For a campaign to hire a law firm, an American law firm who then turns around and hires an American research company that then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal.”
It is nothing short of alarming that a former deputy director of the FBI either does not understand the relevant laws or is deliberately misinterpreting them. In fact, it is illegal for a political campaign to “solicit, accept or receive” anything of value from a foreign national in connection to an election. The Clinton campaign certainly did solicit foreign-sourced information about her election opponent.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...-2-768x432.jpg
Andrew McCabe
Regardless of how a political campaign obtains research on an opponent, if that information comes from an overseas source, it means the election has been opened to foreign influence. McCabe is trying to argue, though, that foreign influence is acceptable if the campaign in question used a U.S.-based intermediary to obtain the information.
However, there is a question about the interpretation of the relevant statute. What constitutes “something of value”? Does it refer to material goods, or does it encompass such things as vacations, invitations to events, promised favors in kind, and information? There is some dispute over this. Either way, the Trump campaign did not, after all is said and done, receive anything at all from the Russians that aided its cause, while the Clinton campaign did.
Brennan Is “Concerned”
John Brennan, meanwhile, resumed his farcical attacks on the president even as the DOJ investigation into the surveillance of the Trump campaign homes in on the agency he led – or, perhaps, because of that.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...17-768x509.jpg
John Brennan
Brennan is now a contributor to MSNBC, a clear indication of where his political preferences lie.
“I’m concerned about the upcoming presidential elections,” he told the struggling network’s Chris Matthews.
“It’s clear that the Russians interfered to help Mr. Trump in 2016. Is Mr. Trump turning a blind eye because he doesn’t mind if the Russians involve themselves again to try to enhance his prospects for reelection?”
The very fact that Brennan cannot bring himself to address Trump as the president of the United States speaks volumes about how he feels – and about how he obviously felt during the 2016 election campaign. More disturbing, however, is the fact that a former CIA director routinely indulges in paranoid hypotheticals. This says a lot about how that agency was run during the Obama years.
Deep State A Law Unto Itself
Real liberals have always been concerned with the prospect of the federal government exerting unchecked power. There are extremely few true liberals in the ranks of the modern American political left, though. Former government officials like McCabe and Brennan prove, with every statement they make, that a “deep state,” which considers itself above both the law and the will of the American people, does indeed exist and does not tolerate interference from outsiders such as Donald Trump.
These deep state officials are aided and abetted by their lapdogs in the legacy media. That may be because the latter fear how much information the former has on them or it may be more of a symbiotic relationship, where the establishment media preserves its deep state sources by not rocking the boat.
A clear example of this was the recent suggestion by CNN’s crime and justice reporter, Shimon Prokupecz, that the CIA should be above scrutiny and, by extension, above the law. Speaking of the DOJ’s inquiries into CIA involvement in the Russia collusion hoax, Prokupecz said, “It’s troubling because it’s not … you don’t do this. The CIA kind of operates in their own world.”
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...-subpoenas.jpg
The CIA is immune to oversight and foreign powers can influence U.S. elections so long as they funnel information through private American firms. This is the mentality of President Trump’s opponents. Since Trump’s inauguration, the narrative has been that anything is permissible until it benefits the president, at which point it becomes a crime.
The very idea of a “deep state” would evoke cynical laughter in the past. Nevertheless, it is alive and well, and few serious political observers would now deny it. Only through prosecutions and prison sentences will it be rolled back. Will such measures finally be taken? We have yet to see, but the next 18 months or so will reveal whether political leaders have the will to fight it. We will also find out whether the Department of Justice is merely a part of the deep state, or willing to apply the oft-repeated mantra that no one is above the law.
- Post #6,739
- Quote
- Jun 17, 2019 10:14pm Jun 17, 2019 10:14pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts
https://www.oftwominds.com/25-25.gifhttps://www.oftwominds.com/CHSbanner2d.png
Musings My Books Archives Books/Films
How Much of Your "Wealth" Is Hostage to Bubbles and Impossible Promises?
June 17, 2019
All asset "wealth" in credit-asset bubble dependent economies is contingent and ephemeral.
A funny thing happens to "wealth" in a bubble economy: it only remains "wealth" if the owner sells at the top of the bubble and invests the proceeds in an asset which isn't losing purchasing power.
Transferring "wealth" to another asset bubble that is also deflating doesn't preserve the "wealth" from evaporation.
All the ironclad promises made in bubble economies ultimately depend on credit-asset bubbles never popping--but sadly, all credit-asset bubbles pop.
So all the promises--which are of course politically impossible to revoke--will be broken as all the credit-asset bubbles that created the "wealth" that was to be redistributed--pensions, retirement benefits, etc.--deflate.
Consider the Case-Shiller housing index chart below. Housing is an asset that has reached the apex of a second bubble. (Stocks are reaching the apex of a third bubble.)
It is widely viewed as "impossible" for the housing market to lose 50% to 75% of its value. It is equally widely viewed as "impossible" for the stock market to lose 50% to 75% of its value.
Yet all credit-asset bubbles pop and lose 50% to 75% of their value--or even more. What's "impossible" isn't the bubbles popping--what's impossible is for bubbles to inflate forever and never pop.
Yet this impossibility is the foundation of all pensions and other promises:the pensions are only payable if all the credit-asset bubbles keep on expanding and never pop. They're also equally dependent on marginal borrowers never defaulting, marginal companies never going belly-up, and marginal speculations never going bust.
But this is precisely what marginal borrowers, companies and speculative ventures do--they blow up and default, delivering neutron-bomb like losses to the lenders: the physical assets remain, but the the "wealth" has been utterly destroyed.
Meanwhile, back at the government ranch, the vast majority of tax revenues are also dependent on credit-asset bubbles never popping. Most of the capital gains taxes reaped in bubbles dry up and blow away, high-earners who pay most of the income taxes lose their jobs or bonuses, and absurdly overvalued real estate that generated outlandish property taxes loses half its value, slashing property tax valuations.
Two retracement levels beckon on the Case-Shiller Home Price Index: a retrace to the previous Bubble #1 lows--a roughly 33% decline--or a full retrace back to pre-Bubble #1 levels, about a 60% drop from current levels.
In bubblicious regions that have seen decaying bungalows on postage-stamp lots rise 10-fold from $100,000 to $1 million, an 80% drop would be expected if history is any guide. This will be quite a shock to buyers who assumed that their home "wealth" would double from $1 million to $2 million.
https://www.oftwominds.com/photos201...hiller2-19.png
All asset "wealth" in credit-asset bubble dependent economies is contingent and ephemeral. "Sure things" become less sure when credit bubbles pop and self-reinforcing defaults topple an ever widening circle of dominoes.
How much of your "wealth" is tied up in bubbles and impossible-to-keep promises? Only those who sell at the top before the herd panics and move their "wealth" into the few assets that are maintaining or gaining their purchasing power will still have their "wealth" after the conflagration turns credit-bubble "wealth"into ashes.
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format.
My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format.
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.
https://www.oftwominds.com/covers/POD-250.jpg(Kindle ebook $6.95, print $12, $13.08 audiobook)
America teeters on the precipice: our government is now captive to special interests and big money, twin cancers that threaten our democracy. This accelerating crisis is exacerbated by a toxic social media-fueled tribalism that has replaced “what do you think?” with “which side are you on?”
Our crisis isn’t just political—it’s structural: as the pace of change explodes from gradual to non-linear, the organizations that dominate our economy—centralized corporations and government—become destined to fail. We see this failure in both the soaring inequality that has hollowed out the American Dream as well as in the rising tide of social and political disunity.
To prevent the fall of our democratic republic, we must transform our economy and society from the ground up. As we enter a new era of rapid, unprecedented tumult, it is we citizens who will need to save our democracy. For our political and financial elites will cling to their centralized power, doing more of what’s failed, even as civil society unravels.
All is not lost--yet. Our way forward starts with understanding the fatal flaws of our brittle, self-serving status quo and embracing this basic truth: better options are available if we’re willing to explore.
To pathfind our way to a better destiny, we must create new localized structures optimized for resilience and adaptability—a flexible, decentralized, sustainable, democratic, opportunity-for-all nation.
Read the first section for free in PDF format.
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic (ebook $6.95, print $12)
Recent entries:
How Much of Your "Wealth" Is Hostage to Bubbles and Impossible Promises? June 17, 2019
Misplaced Pride: Most of the "Middle Class" Is Actually Working Class June 14, 2019
The Self-Destructive Trajectory of Overly Successful Empires June 12, 2019
A Stock Market Crash Scenario June 10, 2019
What Would It Take to Spark a Rural/Small-Town Revival? June 7, 2019
Is the Tech Bubble Bursting? June 5, 2019
A Quiet Revolution Is Brewing June 3, 2019
May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018
Archives 2005-2018
- Post #6,740
- Quote
- Jun 18, 2019 2:14pm Jun 18, 2019 2:14pm
- | Commercial Member | Joined Dec 2014 | 11,597 Posts