Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

My apologies for the delay in response. I don't know why your response did not come to me as notification.
I did not realize you are a commercial member until now. I will read a few pages to see what the game plan is. I am just curious to understand the overall strategy if it is published anywhere on this thread. Unfortunately, I have left SpotFX so if you got something for the Futures market specific to NQ and in regards to money flows in particular at NYSE session open times, that would really interest me and you will have more than an hour of my time :-)

I have traded events in SpotFx across currency baskets for many years so I am fully aware of economic releases and their understanding of impact to global economies. In Futures, I am looking to translate that knowledge into what happens at NYSE session open... but only to get the directional move of the stock market indices as a confirmation.

Looking forward to it. You are right about being free and the value it delivers but there is a flip side to that equation as well.

Hello loveand peace

Thanks for your reply.

Yes I am looking for 3 Forex traders that would like to learn from me FREE of charge for 30 days. All that I ask is for you or three retail Forex traders to INVEST one hour of their trading day with me on this thread.

Step ONE is to open your demo account and post here your user number. You can email me your password to my email account so that I can set up the platform for you. Then you trade it and my GOAL is for you to make a minimum of $2500 US dollars in 30 days.

Let me know if you are interested and off we go and thanks for your kind words.


Benjaminis
BWM

Hello VEEFX

Let us do it and we will see the results in 30 days.

Benjaminis
BWM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ops+to+zero%29

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,
Coming Attractions
“Last night I had a dream. You were in it and I was in it with you….”
— Randy Newman


As in this age of Hollywood sequels and prequels, America prefers to recycle old ideas rather than entertain new ones, so you can see exactly how the 2020 presidential election is shaping up to be a replay of the Great Depression, with Roosevelt-to-rescue! — only this time it’ll be with somebody in the role of Eleanor Roosevelt as chief executive. Donald Trump, of course, being the designated bag-holder for all the financial blunders of the past decade, gets to be Herbert Hoover. As was the case in the original, economic depression will segue into war, with maybe not such a happy ending for us as World War Two was.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1_13-03-47.jpg


There should be no doubt that the money part of the story is on a slow boat to oblivion. The world has been running on loans to such a grotesque degree that it’s managed the impressive feat of bankrupting the future. The collateral for all that debt was the conviction that there were ample amounts of future “growth” up ahead to service that debt. That conviction is now evaporating as car sales plummet, and real estate goes south, and nations twang each other over trade, and global supply lines wither. Globalism is unwinding — and not for the first time, either.


As in the standard Hollywood screenplay format, expect an “all is lost” moment when the “hero” (the USA) faces the existential dread of realizing that there is no more borrowing with the collateral gone. Translation: when the Federal Reserve discovers it can’t cue up yet another round of “Quantitative Easing” (QE) and ZIRP without destroying the value of the dollar — which it might do anyway, since monetary inflation is a great benefit to those who can’t pay back their debts, and the USA is the biggest deadbeat of all. An inflationary depression won’t be the same as the deflationary depression of the 1930s, but remember (cliché alert): history doesn’t exactly repeat, it rhymes. Financialization, it’ll turn out, was just money with its value removed.

Imagine how pissed off the voters will be.
Note: the growth predicament is hugely misunderstood in this land, because the shale oil “miracle” was such a dazzling stunt. America is now producing above 12 million barrels of oil a day, two million higher than what was thought to be the all-time peak of 10 million a day in 1970. That is extraordinary indeed. We are the world’s leader in oil production now, ahead of Saudi Arabia and the wicked Russian bear. What most Americans don’t know is that this stunning feat was accomplished with hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money (debt) that will never be paid back.


The collateral for all that money was the conviction that there was a lot of money to be made in shale oil. But the shale oil industry has had a negative cash flow since it started around 2005. So, we’ve demonstrated that you can produce a lot of something at a big loss for a while, until you can’t. And the moment is approaching when there will be no more loans for the shale oil industry and then, voila, no more shale oil. And the USA will have a whole lot less of its primary energy “input” to the economy. We’ll be back to 2008. The turnaround will be fast and shocking and the American public will feel swindled. And having been already swindled out of all the other comforts and conveniences of what used to be modern life — a job, a home, a car — they will be even more supremely pissed off.


Enter stage left, the first woman president. Take your pick: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand — with AOC as Speaker of the House! The new “Eleanor” will out-do Franklin Roosevelt in “innovative” economic policy. Only this time it won’t be jolly corps of brawny men marching off with pick-axes and shovels to carve trails through the national parks. It will be an orgy of collectivization, led by a gender-fluid army of commissars in an American sequel to the classic film Battleship Potemkin. Madam President will nationalize everything that’s not fastened down with square-head decking screws. Then the show trials will commence, first with the hated One Percenters going to the firing squads and then briskly moving to all the enemies of “intersectional justice.”


None of that will make the USA a better country. And then imagine how pissed off Russia and China will be when Madam President takes up her policy of exporting the New Bolshevism to other lands (because it works so well). Been there, done that, they’ll say. And maybe they’ll have to smack us down to get the point across.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ops+to+zero%29

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via Guerilla-Capitalism.com,
Lately, we’ve suddenly been hearing a lot about Modern Monetary Theory (“MMT”) in the mainstream media. It could be that with the election of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to congress, MMT’s star will rise with hers as she is reportedly an adherent and possibly views MMT as a means to fund her Green New Deal.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1150587686.jpg


As we see below, MMT has been around for some time, having come out of the Chartalism school in the first half of the 1900’s and was made into MMT in the early 90’s by Warren Mosler, apparently after a “long steam” with Donny Rumsfeld, who then referred him to Art Laffer (creator of the Laffer Curve). MMT mostly flew under the radar until around the time of the Global Financial Crisis and is now clearly spiking into public awareness.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...6.25.53-PM.png


To the casual onlooker, MMT may sound a lot like standard-issue Keynesianism, the idea that the Government can and should run deficits to smooth out the business cycle.
The big difference is this: Keynesians believe that the deficits should be run to stimulate our way out of a recession or financial crisis, after which there will be some kind of return to normalcy, when deficits will matter again .

To MMT-ers there is no return to normalcy, this is the The New Normal. Deficits don’t matter, the Government can’t go broke because they can issue money in any amount required. We’ll look at how they rationalize this below, but suffice it to say now that Keynesians and MMT-ers are not synonymous and even Paul Krugman has had his criticisms of it:
it would be quite likely that the money-financed deficit would lead to hyperinflation.

The point is that there are limits to the amount of real resources that you can extract through seigniorage. When people expect inflation, they become reluctant to hold cash, which drive prices up and means that the government has to print more money to extract a given amount of real resources, which means higher inflation, etc.. Do the math, and it becomes clear that any attempt to extract too much from seigniorage — more than a few percent of GDP, probably — leads to an infinite upward spiral in inflation. In effect, the currency is destroyed. This would not happen, even with the same deficit, if the government can still sell bonds.


We’ll revisit his point that if the government attempts to extract too much from seigniorage that it will ignite an inflationary spiral. For now let’s make sure we know what we are dealing with when it comes to Modern Monetary Theory…
How to Understand Modern Monetary Theory


When I was in high school I had a physics teacher once told me how when he was a kid he thought he should be able to hook up the outputs of a generator and a motor to each other and have himself a perpetual motion machine. For some reason it didn’t work and trying to understand why was what got him into physics.

The more I learned about MMT the more it seemed to be the same thing, in an economic sense and I have frequently made this quip expecrting MMT-ers to call it a strawman or point out some fundamental element that I’m missing but instead they usually confirm that I have it correct in broad strokes.

MMT-ers believe that currency is nothing more than an economic scoreboard or tally, and any government that denominates it’s own currency can never go broke because they can always create more currency. Of course, as Weimar Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia and more recently Zimbabwe and Venezuela have all found out, you have to watch out for hyperinflation.

The MMT magic bullet for this is… taxation. Through taxation the government can drain excess liquidity from the system while printing as much currency as it needs to fund its projects and as long as the total value of currency printed doesn’t exceed the productive capacity of the economy as a whole. Thus:
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1.33.26-AM.png


This diagram is from “Diagrams and Dollars: Modern Money Illustrated” by J.D. Alt. After methodically taking the reader through how the old monetary system works, where the government has this HUGE untenable debt burden and is constrained by budgetary limitations, we arrive here.


The national debt is still present, but it has, through philosophical transmutation, been transformed by Alt into a “Net Spending Achievement” as measured by the “National Savings Clock” (formerly known as the “national debt clock”, or “Doomsday Clock”):
“the difference between what the FG plans to spend in a given budget-year, and what it plans to drain away in taxes, is “Net Spending Achievement”….imagine, for a moment, how our political discourse might change if everyone understood the discussion was no longer about the size of our national “budget deficit” but, instead, was about the concrete goals of our annual “Net Spending Achievement”….

We do NOT want a “balanced” budget—or, even worse, a budget “surplus”! What we want (as long as price inflation is under control) is the largest and most effective “Net Spending Achievement” we can envision.

“Entitlement” and “Discretionary” budgets do NOT have to compete with each other for a fixed pot of Dollars. As long as price inflation is under control, whatever Dollars are necessary can be allocated to the “Net Spending Achievement.”

MMT-ers believe that since our currency is actually comprised of debt obligations that government deficit is required to form net private savings:
Therefore:

1. government spending creates private goods and services
2. taxation drains excess liquidity and controls inflation
3. the government can never go broke

For this to work, it would posit a pretty powerful central planning government that knows all (and if so, why can’t the government control inflation via price controls and eliminate taxes altogether?) and has the inhuman self-discipline not to overissue currency in a crisis (I guess, under MMT, there will be no further financial crises).


Oh, I almost forgot, under MMT there is also the jobs guarantee. So anybody who wants a job would be guaranteed to have one, at a living wage, by the government.

That’s MMT in a nutshell.


It’s ascent into its newfound economic fashionability is simply the latest episode of a long history of the pursuit of alchemy.

The Holy Grail of Government: Unlimited Spending With No Restraint
Government being overwhelmed by debt and constrained as a result is as old as history itself. In the 14th century King Philip of France was so indebted to the Knights Templar, and absent some clever rationalization that would transform his debts to them into money itself; he did the next best thing. He suppressed the order and had their leaders burned them at the stake. His debts were thus cleared but he had also disincentivized future borrowing. Another way would have to be found…
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...-execution.jpg


What governments really want is a way to either A) bribe the populace to keep voting for them or B) as this Epsilon Theory article laments, fund one or another of their incessant wars from an inexhaustible supply of credit or funding:
Modern Monetary Theory – which is neither modern nor a theory – is a post hoc rationalization of political expediency and power-expanding action.


It makes us feel better about all the bad stuff we’ve done with money and debt for the political efficacy of Team Elite.
And all the bad stuff we’re going to do.


At its core, Modern Monetary Theory is an argument that would be wonderfully familiar to every sovereign since the invention of debt. It is essentially the argument that significant sovereign debt is a good thing, not a bad thing, and that budget balancing efforts on a national scale do much more harm than good. Why? Because there’s so much to do and so little time for the right-minded sovereign. Because it is fundamentally unjust for the demands of private lenders to thwart the necessary ends of the sovereign, and it is politically difficult to finance those ends through tax levies on a fickle citizenry.


MMT is the sovereign-friendly justification for deficit spending without end.

Historically, this argument has been used by sovereigns to support wars without end.
(emphasis in original)


When you take a step back and comb through financial and economic history, amongst the wreckage of worthless fiat currencies from our past (note that 100% of all previous fiat currencies became worthless), we find hints and precursors of what is being rebooted as Modern Monetary Theory
Bear in mind that “Net Spending Achievement” neologism as we follow the rise and fall of the Austrian fiat regime in the 1700’s…


Unlimited National Debt?
A new phenomenon was occurring throughout Europe. Royal debt was being transformed into national debt. What had been the personal debt of the monarch was becoming the burden of the nation, payable by the people. And many central banks were created to administer this debt through paper money.


Austria provides one of the best examples of this new way of thinking. The First Bank of Austria was founded in 1703, with the express purpose of funding public debt by issuing paper money in exchange for deposits. With too few deposits, and too many notes, the bank and its currency failed.


In 1759, Count Sinzendorff, a prominent Austrian official and renowned financier, went a step further and suggested that government debt be brought to all the people, not just the depositors. He issued Austria’s first paper notes for general circulation, as a loan instrument with interest coupons attached. The new money was well received. Impressed by the expansion of commerce when more credit was made available, the government authorized a second issue of paper bills in 1769, and a third in 1771. Yet this prosperity did not last long. As excessive new issues were printed, they provoked a panic in 1797. The next decade was no better. Austria became embroiled in wars, spent heavily and ended up with a currency that lost over 90% of its value.


— (from Fiat Paper Money by Ralph T. Foster, emphasis added)

The idea that money is nothing more than an economic scoreboard or tally was advanced by John Law when he was trying to devise a method for Scotland to stave off bankruptcy, which he expounded upon in his book “Money and Trade” (“Money is the Measure by which Goods are Valued, the Value by which goods are Exchanged, and in which Contracts are made payable” – quoted in Fiat Paper Money).


Scotland never adopted Law’s ideas, and in their own currency machinations went bankrupt and ceased to be an independent country 1707 (ibid). Law moved onto France, continuing to promote his monetary theories, at one point declaring to an astonished room of aristocrats that he had discovered the secret of alchemy: “I can tell you my secret. It is to make gold out of paper” (ibid).


Even the MMT proposal to use taxation to control inflation is nothing new and was tried in New York in the late 1700’s, stability seemingly achieved by the New York Assembly having strict laws on their books limiting the amount of paper notes that could be issued. It’s not really clear what happened to this currency as it overlaps with the period when British laws were barring the colonies from issuing their own paper currencies and the subsequent segue into the revolutionary war, and the advent of the Continental (which eventually collapsed in a hyperinflation).


The Ascent of the MMT Narrative Today
I first became of aware of MMT when I used to read Business Insider back around 2010 or so and Joe Weisenthal, one of the most vigorous proponents of Cullen Roche’s “Pragmatic Capitalist” site, and he would unfailingly repackage anything Roche wrote on BI. Fast forward to today, and Roche seems to have backed off his MMT evangelism, or is at least a lot more nuanced and rigorous in his examination of it.

The next time I came across MMT was in David Golumbia’s book “The Politics of Bitcoin”, wherein he seemed to think that what we have today is MMT. I can see why people would make that mistake, and Roche notes that as well in the article I just linked. Golumbia’s book (which I deconstructed in detail here) also criticizes the economic truism that inflation erodes purchasing power as wrong, and an example of right-wing conspiracy theory.


I mention that here because that is an idea that Weisenthal also glommed onto back in his BI days, and while it isn’t yet, I fully expect this notion to be embraced by MMT adherents as this ideology is relentlessly pushed mainstream (the TL,DR of this idea is that a dollar doesn’t lose purchasing power when you issue more dollars if you put it into a bank account and earn interest on it. I debunked this thoroughly in my review of PoB. It’s one of those “not even wrong” notions in that it’s economically incoherent).

Now that Modern Monetary Theory and Democratic Socialism have found each other, we have to look at why it’s such a dangerous combination.
The Problems with Modern Monetary Theory

Most of the articles I’ve seen decrying MMT hone in on it being inflationary, full stop. Which is true. No government has the discipline to not bribe the populous with either other people’s moneyor “made up” pixie dust that they convince everybody to pretend is money.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...ng-unicorn.jpg


Beyond that, there are numerous failings with MMT including the fact that calling debt something else, like “national spending achievement” doesn’t make it not debt, but does lose sight of what debt actually is.

When you think about it, all debt is the pulling of future value into the present. If it wasn’t, if you had present value on hand and the willingness to trade it for what was desired, there would be no debt incurred.


As I observed recently, when you rack up debt you are either borrowing or stealing from the future. The difference is whether you plan to pay off the debt (borrowing) or if you plan to perpetually roll it over (stealing). MMT is structurally and by design, the latter.


MMT says debt (err, sorry, National Spending Achievement) can expand perpetually and inflation will not occur provided it doesn’t expand faster than the value in the private economy (which assumes central planners can actually measure that accurately ) and any excess liquidity is drained off via taxation.
Like all fiat monetary schemes, you can make a theoretical case for it working. I once called MMT the elevation of circular reasoning to an art form, and Austrian economist Bob Murphyemphasizes that MMT relies upon “accounting tautologies”.


In practice, governments will always promise entitlements today at the expense of consequences tomorrow, so the monetary base will always expand and as each crisis is postponed, over time this dynamic will accelerate. If the monetary base happens to be credit (read: “debt as money”) then remember what we said debt is: future value, consumed today.


Under MMT however, when things go bad, they will get very bad. Here’s why:
Money started as hard currency, so it was near impossible to lose faith in it, and it would only happen as coinage was debased or replaced with fractionally backed paper notes.


After Bretton Woods, money, or the worlds reserve currency was “backed by the full faith and credit of the US government” and for a few decades at least, that seemed “good enough”. Although there have been panics and the overall trend is toward less confidence in the current monetary regime and the USD as world reserve currency is openly acknowledged to be in its waning days. It’s a matter of “when” not “if” even in polite company.


Under MMT there is no more pretence that the currency has any intrinsic value – it’s an economic scorecard and nothing more. The system would work as long as confidence held for the system itself, not any faith in the currency. If any cracks appeared in the system, i.e. inflation accelerated or taxation crept too high, I submit that any speed-wobble in confidence would lead to a dramatic and sudden, disorderly reassessment. A panic. It would be a genuine “life imitates The Onion” moment.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...M-1024x830.png


Were an MMT system inevitably go awry, the outward manifestation would be of course manifest as inflation, so central planners would of course try to get ahead of it by draining more liquidity, faster, by increasing taxes. As this fed on itself and accelerated, the populace, as if being swept up in a hyperinflation isn’t bad enough, would be sandwiched between hyperinflation and hypertaxation!.


Think of an MMT crisis as an economic black hole sucking all value from further and further future generations into a gravitational vortex of the present moment, where all value collapses in on itself and disappears forever.


People seem on board with OAC’s 70% marginal tax rate on highest earners but in a failing MMT regime the hypertaxation effect would occur through the highest marginal tax rate threshold coming down.

People don’t mind Dwayne Johnson paying 70% on his income over 10M, but how will they feel when they’re paying 70% on any income over 300,000? 100,000? 40,000? How about an 80% tax rate on income over $20,000/year and a loaf of bread costs $250 today and $3,500 in a week? (When your marginal tax rate is then 92% on all income over $1,000/minute?)


That’s what a nightmare MMT scenario looks like. At least in Venezuela they’re only getting squeezed on one side of the vice, and their central planners are trying to go the other direction than MMT-ers, attempting to tie their currency to something tangible (failure of execution however, is hampering this).
Compared to what I see as the inevitable “dual death spirals of MMT”, letting all those banksters fry in 2008 looks a lot more palatable in retrospect. David Stockman’s Great Deformation shows how the economy would have fully recovered by 2010 or 2011 instead of being where we are now: trapped at the Zero bound and headed toward democratic socialism and MMT.


COMMENTS FROM BENJAMINIS: YOU need to understand all the issues FACTS to be able to UNDERSTAND the Rules Of The Game.

BWM

Good Evening ... My work never ends as it is about hard work and DISCIPLINE and for me I LOVE what I do so it is more FUN than WORK !!!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ops+to+zero%29

Federal officials announced in September the indictment and arrest of a Baltimore man, involved in the most massive Ponzi scheme ever in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area.

With his accounts frozen, Kevin B. Merrill, the mastermind behind the fraud, allegedly wrote a prison note to his wife telling her to hide their assets.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...ll%20ponzi.jpg

The note was found in Merrill's sock by prison guards as he faces charges of defrauding investors of $364 million.

“Have your dad take my golf clubs,” he allegedly wrote. “Hide cash or checks … drink good wine in sub zero’s, replace with sh-- wine in basement.”
“F--- them. They have taken enough! Get stuff out,” he allegedly wrote.

Federal prosecutors revealed the note in criminal charges filed last month against Amanda Merrill, the young wife of the mastermind fraudster. She was charged with conspiracy, obstruction, disobeying a court order and removing property to prevent its seizure.

US Attorney Robert Hur said Merrill swindled family offices and investors around the country. He called it the largest Ponzi scheme in Maryland's history.
Federal agents arrested Merrill in September and raided his multi-million dollar home in Ruxton-Riderwood, Maryland.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...n%20estate.jpg

He and his business partner, Jay Ledford, 54, of Texas, have been indicted on federal charges of wire fraud, identity theft, and money laundering.
Investors in the scheme believed they were buying “consumer debt portfolios,” tranches of credit card debt, car loans, and student loans. Instead, Merrill shifted the money from new investors to old investors, prosecutors say.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...ages/ponzi.jpg

Merrill spent investors' money on dozens of luxury cars, including a million dollar Bugatti Veyron. Prosecutors say he spent $37,500 on designer watches and jewelry, $50,000 on private flights and $100,000 at Las Vegas casinos. They even say he decorated his mansions with the fine art of the mustached Monopoly character Rich Uncle Pennybags.

A federal judge issued a restraining order stopping Merrill and Ledford from selling their assets.
Federal officials have filed documents with the courts to instruct Sotheby’s International Realty to sell a dozen mansions the men owned in Maryland, Florida, Texas and Nevada, collectively worth $20 million or more.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...26%20homes.jpg

Officials are also ready to sell off the fleet of 34 exotic cars, motorcycles and boats.
Both individuals have pleaded not guilty. Their trials have not yet been scheduled.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ops+to+zero%29

As we explained last weekend, it's not the Fed tightening - and curve flattening - that is the recession catalyst: it is when the Fed begins cutting rates, sending the yield curve sharply higher, that one should be worriedas all three prior recessions followed within 3 months of the first rate cut after a hiking cycle:
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...0recession.jpg


This is a critical distinction at a time when the Fed is contemplating not only ending its rate hike cycle - and thus curve flattening impulse - but potentially cutting rates, at least if it agrees with the market, so soon as late 2019, which in turn would prompt a sharp spike in the yield curve and, as we argued in our post explaining why the Fed is trapped, catalyze the next recession.

To be sure, nothing is set in stone, and as Goldman strategist Ian Wright writes, much focus remains on the state of US growth, the ongoing US-China trader war, the US government shutdown, and Brexit, each of which could tip the Fed's hand. And yet, amid this uncertain backdrop, recent weeks have been good for risky assets. Oil has risen sharply, with GSCI Energy now up 16% on the year. Credit has also rallied - especially on a risk-adjusted basis - and undone almost all of its December spread widening, in both IG and HY, and USD and EUR markets. Last but not least, the S&P 500 is up 14% since the Steve Mnuchin called the Plunge Protection team on December 24 (and since the government shutdown).

Sarcasm aside, the recent risk was largely the result of Powell's abrupt dovish reversal and has been supported by the abatement of concerns about central banks hiking rates. In the past month, markets have priced both the Fed and ECB more dovishly in the coming year, with no hikes priced for the Fed in 2019 and a first ECB hike priced only in 2020 (notably, 10-year yields have risen amid the recent risk-on, as the correlation between stocks and bonds which recently shocked market watchers when it inverted, appears to be normalizing somewhat).

Meanwhile, as the Goldman strategist writes, even as the bank's economists’ view remains that the Fed will hike again in June, followed by December, the bank's clients have asked "if the Fed is done with its hiking cycle"... and, if so, what the implications for asset prices would be.

And while we know that the first rate cut following a hiking cycle has been a clear signal for an imminent recession in the last three contractions, the question is what happens to risk assets once the Fed stops hiking. Here the answer is a little more nebulous.

Looking at the end of the past four Fed hiking cycles (1989, 1995, 2000 and 2006), Goldman finds US equities have tended to do relatively well in the year following the Fed’s last hike (Exhibit 1).

The exception to this was in 2000, when the tech bubble burst, while equities did exceptionally well in 1995, which however was the only time the last hike was not followed by a recession in the coming years. It is also worth noting that while there was no immediate bear market in the year following the last rate hike in June 2006, everyone knows what happened shortly thereafter.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...hiking%201.jpg


The average result, Goldman notes, may be surprising because growth expectations (measured by the ISM manufacturing) also tend to fall into and after the Fed’s last hike in a cycle (Exhibit 2).
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...hiking%202.jpg


What about rates? Here Goldman finds that 10-year Treasuries tend to rally strongly following the last Fed hike (Exhibit 3) hence the sharp steepening in the yield curve noted above just before a recession.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...hiking%203.jpg


The fact that the Fed has not cut rates soon after ending hikes, but rather held rates high, could explain these findings.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...hiking%204.jpg


In other words, equities may benefit from the reprieve in rates rising further, without recession concerns rising immediately (which would drive cuts). However, the bond market prices the end of hikes and future rate cuts over a long window, creating an interplay whereby the Fed's actions force a sharp curve steepening, which in turn is interpreted by the market as a recession onset and in turn results in a bear market for equities.


Finally, Goldman notes that these results could be different from what happens should the Fed pause in its hiking cycle, something Powell may be actively considering as he decides whether to keep hiking or capitulate, and cut rates, catalyzing the next recession.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...cked-way-comes

Brexit, EU, Germany, China and Yellow Vests In 2019 – Something Wicked This Way Comes


- "Something wicked this way comes" warns John Mauldin
- Shaky China: Chinese landing could be harder than expected
- Brexit and EU Breakage: "I have long thought the EU will eventually fall apart"
- Helpless Europe: If Germany sneezes, their banks & the rest of continent catches cold
- We may see "yellow vests" spread globally: Economics is about to get interesting ...
by John Mauldin via Thoughts from the Frontline
https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...ermany-gdp.png


Source: TradingEconomics.com
For a couple of years now, the economic narrative has shown a comparatively strong US against weakness in Europe and some of Asia (NOT China). The US, we are told, will stay on top. I agree with that, as far as it goes... but I’m not convinced the “top” will be so great.

Americans like to think we are insulated from the world. We have big oceans on either side of us. Geopolitically, they serve as buffers. But economically they connect us to other important markets that are critical to many US businesses. Problems in those markets are ultimately problems for the US, too.
Last week I gave you my Year of Living Dangerously 2019 US forecast, but I didn’t discuss important events overseas. Summarizing last week quickly, I think the base case is that the United States economy slows down but avoids recession in 2019. That said, there are significant risks to that forecast, mostly to the downside.

https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...A-1.jpg?x64374

Today we’ll make another literary metaphor to frame our discussion. “Something Wicked This Way Comes” is a 1962 Ray Bradbury novel about two boys and their horrifying encounter with a travelling circus. Later it was a movie.
In our case, something wicked most certainly is coming this way. Several somethings, in fact, approaching from all directions. The real question is how much damage this circus will do before it leaves town.


Shaky China
Many of our risks emanate from China, and as I wrote this section, I realized it deserves a longer treatment. I will do that in next week’s letter. For now, let’s touch on the big picture.

By most measures, the US and China are the world’s largest and second-largest economies. They are also entwined with each other in so many ways that it can be hard to know where one stops and the other starts. Some call it “Chimerica,” which may be an apt description. That’s basically good, in my view. International trade promotes peace and prosperity for all, albeit not always smoothly, evenly distributed, or without issues. Such is the nature of great entanglements. But seen over decades? China’s growth has made the world better. Literally billions of people globally have been lifted out of poverty and destitution.

All that said, the US and China are also separate nations with separate interests. We compete as well as cooperate so differences naturally arise. While we need to resolve them, the Trump administration’s methods aren’t helping. They seem not to grasp that intentionally weakening an economy so tied to our own risks weakening the US as well.

The US is demanding (rightly, in my opinion) that China respect intellectual property rights and let foreign companies compete fairly, just as we let Chinese companies operate here. But achieving that isn’t like flipping a switch. Entire regions and industries are now optimized for a model we want to change. The change, however necessary, will cause problems if it’s not managed well.

Worse, China’s economy is already on shaky ground. Its unique blend of “communism” (whatever that now means in China) and capitalism, along with sheer size, has produced enviable growth rates and I think will keep doing so, but a slowdown is inevitable. China is still subject to the law of large numbers. They can’t maintain 6% or higher GDP growth indefinitely.
The gap between US and China GDP growth has been shrinking over the last decade.
https://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazon...90111_TFTF.png


Source: Financial Times
It now appears the eventual Chinese landing could be harder than expected. We’ve seen hints in the data for some time now and they’re starting to add up. Automotive sales are rolling over, for instance. That’s partly because ride-sharing services like Didi Chuxing (similar to Uber or Lyft) are gaining popularity, but it also suggests the Chinese middle class is no longer gaining prosperity at the rates it had been. It’s also a result of “front-loading” auto sales for the previous few years. When you pull future demand forward, the future eventually demands repayment.


This isn’t just a Chinese problem. US and European automakers export vehicles to China and own factories within China. It is one reason General Motors closed several US and Canadian plants and laid off thousands of workers last year. Then you probably heard Apple’s revenue warning, in which it blamed a nasty surprise on weakening conditions in China.


The uncomfortable fact is that a great deal of world growth is directly tied to Chinese growth. And not just absolute current growth, but expected future growth. Business has built 6% Chinese growth, compounded forever, into its models. It’s baked into the forecasts and expectations that keep shareholders happy. And when that growth doesn’t meet expectations, we get surprises. Apple is just the first of many.

Yes, the US has a trade deficit with China. That doesn’t mean China buys nothing from us. They most certainly do and certain segments of our economy depend heavily on Chinese customers. Here’s a chart of China’s importance to top US semiconductor companies.
https://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazon...90111_TFTF.png

We never share your email with third parties.

Note this is the percentage of sales, not earnings. We see here five major public companies that got a third or more of their 2017 sales from China. It would not take much change to wipe out all or most of their profits.

Similarly, lots of smaller US companies depend on China for components that have no US alternatives. Rising costs, whether due to tariffs or anything else, hit their bottom lines, too.

A significant part of US growth last year came from a rise in US inventories. In a somewhat arcane accounting methodology, building inventories is what counts for GDP, not actual sales. Many businesses that depend on Chinese materials built inventory ahead of what was feared to be a significant tariff at the end of 2018. Those inventories are going to be sold in 2019 and often not replaced. A large part of the slowing economy in 2019 will simply be a reduction of inventories. The apparent robust growth of the last half of 2018 was essentially pulling production forward from 2019.


China has its own problems, too, namely enormous debt and increasingly strapped consumers. I’ll discuss those next week. The point to remember now is that economic weakness and falling markets in China are going to hurt the US, too. And they will weigh just as heavily on Europe and especially Germany. Which brings us to the next wicked thing that may be coming.


Full Thoughts from the Frontline letter on MauldinEconomics.com

https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...1-1024x576.png

Watch Our Latest Video Updates On YouTube Here


News and Commentary
Gold firms as rising risk appetite offsets Fed pause views (CNBC.com)
Theresa May Gives Up on Cross-Party Talks to Fix Brexit, Sources Say (Bloomberg.com)
Russia becomes world's fifth biggest gold holder after sanctions (Reuters.com)
Gold, silver and platinum now printed directly onto fabrics (Minig.com)
UK House Prices Fall Sharply - Up To 25% Fall In Some of UK's Wealthiest Areas (TheGuardian.com)
Why investors are starting to pay attention to the government shutdown (MarketWatch.com)
Why Gold and Gold Mining Stocks Are an Unalloyed Bargain (Barrons.com)
Gold is entering a 'golden cross' and one technician sees an even bigger bounce ahead (CNBC.com)
Billionaire Sam Zell Buys Gold: Right Move, Wrong Reason (MoneyMaven.io)
Davos Billionaires Keep Getting Richer (Bloomberg.com)
China’s Economy Slows to the Weakest Pace Since 2009 (Bloomberg.com)
Listen on SoundCloud , Blubrry & iTunes. Watch on YouTube below
https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont.../bannerA-1.jpg


Gold Prices (LBMA PM)
18 Jan: USD 1,285.05, GBP 993.34 & EUR 1,126.86 per ounce
17 Jan: USD 1,294.00, GBP 1,004.92 & EUR 1,135.87 per ounce
16 Jan: USD 1,290.50, GBP 1,002.46 & EUR 1,130.99 per ounce
15 Jan: USD 1,289.35, GBP 1,002.99 & EUR 1,127.67 per ounce
14 Jan: USD 1,293.70, GBP 1,007.02 & EUR 1,129.27 per ounce
11 Jan: USD 1,298.80, GBP 1,012.91 & EUR 1,123.96 per ounce
10 Jan: USD 1,292.40, GBP 1,012.98 & EUR 1,121.54 per ounce
Silver Prices (LBMA)
18 Jan: USD 15.47, GBP 11.96 & EUR 13.56 per ounce
17 Jan: USD 15.57, GBP 12.08 & EUR 13.66 per ounce
16 Jan: USD 15.54, GBP 12.09 & EUR 13.66 per ounce
15 Jan: USD 15.60, GBP 12.13 & EUR 13.65 per ounce
14 Jan: USD 15.61, GBP 12.13 & EUR 13.61 per ounce
11 Jan: USD 15.68, GBP 12.23 & EUR 13.60 per ounce
10 Jan: USD 15.70, GBP 12.33 & EUR 13.63 per ounce
Recent Market Updates
- Three Reasons Gold May Embark On An Extended Rally
- Political Turmoil in UK & US Sees Gold Hit 2 Week High
- Gold Holds Steady Over €1,100/oz – Increased Possibility Of A Disorderly Brexit
- Turbulence and Brexit Make Safer Options Like Gold and Cash Essential
- Where Will The “Pending” Financial Crisis Originate?
- Gold and Silver Prices To Rise To $1,650 and $30 By 2020? Video Update
- Gold Outlook 2019: Uncertainty Makes Gold A “Valuable Strategic Asset” – WGC
- Blackrock Say Gold Will Be A “Valuable Portfolio Hedge” In 2019
- Financial Advice In 2019: Own Gold To Hedge $250 Trillion Global Debt Bubble – GoldCore In Irish Times
- China Adds 320,000 Ounces To Gold Reserves – First Central Bank Purchase Since October 2016
- Gold At 6 Month High At $1,300 and All Time Record Highs In Australian Dollars Over $1,870
- Gold Hedges Stock Market Falls In 2018 – Gains 2.7% In Euros and 3.8% In Pounds
- Hope For Best In 2019 But Prepare For Worst by Increased Allocations to Gold and Silver – Outlook 2019 Podcast
https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...banner-B-1.jpg
Business Finance

After 30 days, what comes next?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...suds-network-0

Via Disobedient Media,
In April last year, Disobedient Media broke coverage of the British involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, asking why All Russiagate Roads Lead To London, via the quasi-scholar Joseph Mifsud and others.

The issue was also raised by WikiLeaks's Julian Assange, just days before the Ecuadorian government silenced him last March. Assange's Twitter thread cited research by Chris Blackburn, who spoke with Disobedient Media on multiple occasions covering Joseph Mifsud's ties to British intelligence figures and organizations, as well as his links to Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, the FBI, CIA and the private cyber-security firm Crowdstrike.

We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, toplace the final nail in the coffin of the Trump-Russia collusion charade.Blackburn's insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members of Mueller's investigation. What we are left with is an indication of collusion between factions of the US and UK intelligence community in fabricating evidence of Trump-Russia collusion: a scandal that would have rocked the legacy press to its core, if Western establishment-backed media had a spine.

In Disobedient Media's previous coverage of Blackburn's work, he described his experience in intelligence:
“I’ve been involved in numerous investigations that involve counter-intelligence techniques in the past. I used to work for the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, one of the biggest tort actions in American history. I helped build a profile of Osama bin Laden’s financial and political network, which was slightly different to the one that had been built by the CIA’s Alec Station, a dedicated task force which was focused on Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Alec Station designed its profile to hunt Osama bin Laden and disrupt his network. I thought it was flawed. It had failed to take into account Osama’s historical links to Pakistan’s main political parties or that he was the figurehead for a couple of organizations, not just Al-Qaeda.”

“I also ran a few conferences for US intelligence leaders during the Bush administration. After the 9/11 Commission published its report into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon it created a public outreach program. The US National Intelligence Conference and Exposition (Intelcon) was one of the avenues it used. I was responsible for creating the ‘View from Abroad’ track. We had guidance from former Senator Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick, who both sat on the 9/11 Commission. We got leaders such as Sir John Chilcot and Baroness Pauline Neville Jones to come and help share their experiences on how the US would be able to heal the rifts after 9/11.”

“The US intelligence community was suffering from severe turf wars and firewalls, which were hampering counter-terrorism efforts. They were concentrating on undermining each other rather than tackling terrorism. I had mainly concentrated on the Middle East, but in 2003 I switched my focus to terrorism in South Asia.”

Counter Terrorism, Not Counter Intelligence, Sparked Probe
In an article published by The Telegraph last November, the paper acknowledged the following:
"It forces the spotlight on whether the UK played a role in the FBI's investigation launched before the 2016 presidential election into Trump campaign ties to the Kremlin... Mr. Trump’s allies and former advisers are raising questions about the UK’s role in the start of the probe, given many of the key figures and meetings were located in Britain... One former top White House adviser to Mr. Trump made similar insinuations, telling this newspaper: “You know the Brits are up to their neck." The source added on the Page wiretap application: “I think that stuff is going to implicate MI5 and MI6 in a bunch of activities they don't want to be implicated in, along with FBI, counter-terrorism and the CIA." [Emphasis Added]

The article cites George Papadopoulos, who asked why the "British intelligence apparatus was weaponized against Trump and his advisers." Papadopoulos has also addressed the issue at length via Twitter. In response to the Telegraph's coverage of the issue, Chris Blackburn wrote via Twitter:
"The Telegraph story on Trump Russia acknowledges that activities involving counter-terrorism are at the heart of the scandal...not counter-intelligence. If the [London Centre for International Law Practice] was British state, not private, some Commonwealth countries are going to be seriously pissed off."
Blackburn spoke with Disobedient Media, saying:
"If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is pretty clear something rather strange happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with people who have intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice. A recent article in The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6, and CIA using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations, doing counter-terrorism work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe that their intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal." [Emphasis Added]


Blackburn discussed this differentiation with Disobedient Media:
"Counter-terrorism is obviously involved in more kinetic, violent political actions-concerning mass casualty events, bombings, assassinations, poisonings, and hacking. But, the lines are blurring between them. Counter-intelligence cases have been known to stretch for decades- often relying on nothing more than paranoia and suspicion to fuel investigations. Counter-terrorism is also a broader discipline as it involves tactical elements like hostage rescue, crime scene investigations, and explosive specialists. Counter-Terrorism is a collaborative effort with counter-terrorism officers working closely with local and regional police forces and civic organizations. There is also a wider academic field around countering violent, and radical ideology which promotes terrorism and insurgencies. Cybersecurity has become the third major discipline in intelligence. The London Center of International Law Practice, the mysterious intelligence company that employed both Papadopoulos and Mifsud, had also been working in that area."


Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the starting point of the investigation, saying: "It shows that there is a high probability that intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos' activities look like they were something else. As counter-terrorism and counterintelligence are close in tactics and methods, it would seem that they were used because they share the same skill sets - covert evidence gathering and deception. It's basically sleight of hand. A piece of theatre would be more precise. However, we don't know if the FBI knew it was real or make-believe. It's more likely that the CIA played the FBI with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of a Trump presidency."


Mueller's Team And Joseph Mifsud
Zainab Ahmad, a member of Mueller's legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn, Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter:
"Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She's a GCCS consultant."


Blackburn told this author:
"Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia."
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1_11-03-10.jpg


Zainab Ahmad (AHMAD). Image via the Combatting Terrorism Center, West Point
"Richard Barrett, the Former Chief of Counter-Terrorism at MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence department traveled with Mifsud to Saudi Arabia to give a talk on terrorism in 2017. Ex-CIA officers, US Defense, and US Treasury officials were also there. The London Centre of International Law Practice's relationship to the Global Center had been established in 2014. The Global Center on Cooperative Security made Martin Polaine and Arvinder Sambei consultants, they then became directors at the London Centre of International Law Practice."


"The Global Center on Cooperative Security's first major UK conference was at Joseph Mifsud's London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD). Mifsud then followed Arvinder Sambei and Nagi Idris over to the London Centre of International Law Practice. Sources have told me that Mifsud was moonlighting as a specialist on counter-terrorism and Islamism while working at LAD which explains why he went to work in counter-terrorism after LAD folded."


"I don't think it's a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected to various elements that popped up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on Mueller's team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as special counsel is also troubling."
Days ago, The Hill reported on Congressional testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic and linked to the Clintons. Critically, The Hill writes:
"Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ’s fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ’s international operations, and Zainab Ahmad, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor. Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe." [Emphasis Added]


This point is essential, as it not only describes Ahmad's role in Mueller's team but places her at a crucial pre-investigation meeting.
Last year, Blackburn noted the connection between Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei, writing: "LCILP director and FBI counsel, works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud's London Academy. Sambei then brought Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with Aussies, UK and US State too."


Sambei has been described elsewhere as a "Former practising barrister, Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service of England & Wales, and Legal Adviser at the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), Ministry of Defence." [British spelling has been retained]
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1_11-05-18.jpg


Arvinder Sambei. Image via the Public International Law Advisory Group
That Sambei has been so thoroughly linked to organizations where Mifsud was a central figure is yet another cause of suspicion regarding allegations that Joseph Mifsud was a shadowy, unknown Russian agent until the summer of 2016. She is also a direct link between Robert Mueller and Mifsud.



Blackburn wrote via Twitter: "Arvinder Sambei helped to organize LCILP's counter-terrorism and corruption events. She used her contacts in the US to bring in Middle Eastern government officials that were seen to be vulnerable to graft.Lisa Osofsky, former FBI Deputy General Counsel, was working with her." Below, Arvinder is pictured at a London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP) event.


https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1_11-08-33.jpg

Arvinder Sambei, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
As Chris Blackburn told this author:
"Mifsud and Papadopoulos's co-director Arvinder Sambei was also the former FBI British counsel working 9/11 cases for Robert Mueller. She also runs a consultancy which deals with Special Investigative Measure (SIMs) which is just a posh description for covert espionage and evidence gathering. She has worked for major intelligence and national law agencies in the past. She wore two hats as a director of London Centre and a consultant for the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), a counter-terrorism think tank which is sponsored by the Australia, Canada, UK and US governments. Alexander Downer's former Chief of Staff while at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade now works for the Global Center. Mifsud was also due to meet with Australian private intelligence figures in Adelaide in March 2016. So. Australia is certainly a major focus for the investigation." [Emphasis Added]
Below, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Lisa Osofsky is pictured at a London Centre for International Law Practice event. Osofsky also served as the Money Laundering Reporting Officer with Goldman Sachs International. Since 2018, she has served as the Director of the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...1_11-10-00.jpg


Lisa Osofsky, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
An Embarrassment For John Brennan?
Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share ‘director-to-director’ level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that "The Guardian reported Hannigan's announcement that he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017. Jane Mayer, in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan had flown to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing “deemed so sensitive it was handled at director-level” is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers at the NSA, GCHQ’s Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner."
Blackburn told Disobedient Media:
"Former Congressman Trey Gowdy, who has seen most of the information gathered by Congress from the intelligence community concerning the Russia investigation, said that if President Trump were to declassify files and present the truth to the American public, it would "embarrass John Brennan." I think that is pretty concrete for me, but it's not definitive. I know the polarization and spin in Washington has become perverse, but that statement is pretty specific for me. If Brennan is involved, it is most probably through Papadopoulos who sparked off the 'official' investigation at the FBI. He also made sure the Steele dossier was spread through the US government."



Blackburn added: "Chris Steele was also working on FIFA projects, and a source has told me that he was working to investigate the Russian and Qatari World Cup bids. The London Centre of International Law Practice has been working with Majed Garoub, the former Saudi legal representative of FIFA, the world governing body for soccer. He's also been working against the Qatari bid. Steele likes to get paid twice for his investigations."

"Mifsud has also been associated with Prince Turki the former Saudi intelligence chief, Mifsud and the London Academy of Diplomacy used to train Saudi diplomats and intelligence figures while Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to London. Turki is a close friend of Bill Clinton and John Brennan. Nawaf Obaid was also courting Mifsud and tried to get him a cushy job working with CNN's Freedom Project at Link Campus in Rome. He also knows John Brennan. Intelligence agencies like to give out professional gifts like this plum academic position for completing missions. In the US, it is widely known that intelligence agencies gift the children of assets to get them into prestigious Ivy League schools."

At minimum, we can surmise that Mifsud was not a Russian agent, but was an asset of Western intelligence agencies. We are left with the impression that the Mifsud saga served as a ploy, whether he participated knowingly or not. It seems reasonable to conclude that the gambit was initially developed with participation of John Brennan and UK intelligence. Following this, Mueller inherited and developed the Mifsud narrative thread into the collusion soap opera we know today.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b...r%20mifsud.jpg



Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power.

Your Forex Trading Should Improve by 50% by learning my strategy that works 100%...

Time for some sleep now for a few hours. Good Evening.


Benjaminis
BWM

Good Morning

We start today in Davos with RISK OFF and I do not see as of now too many real positive things on the immediate Horizon. However that can change if the Senate passes the new vote on the Border WALL.

I sincerely hope that three of you will open your FXCM UK Demo account and stay around every day for 30 days and let me show you how to improve your Forex and other types of trading that you do.

I will soon open another FXCM UK Demo account and make my user name and password available to three of you so you can watch my Forex trades in real time just as I watch your Forex Trades.

Let US work together and see your results. The KEY is to make a minimum of 5% Return on Investment over the next 30 days.


Benjaminis
BWM

https://www.fxcm.com/

https://www.fxcm.com/ca/free-forex-t...7636302H85PE5x

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2...n/#more-158775



The Anglo-American Establishment’s useful and expendable pawn








Philosophy of Metrics

https://philosophyofmetrics.com/wp-c...-Logo-Horz.png


North Korea and the Anglo-American Establishment




Jcollins September 10, 2017 FREEPOM, Geopolitical
https://philosophyofmetrics.com/wp-c...ea-846x634.png



It has long been suggested here on POM that North Korea is a puppet state of the West. This has been covered in the following articles:
Is North Korea an American Puppet State – October 21, 2016
The Convenience of the North Korean Threat – March 9, 2017
North Korea is the Pre-Text for Iran – August 9, 2017.
Each of the above articles presents a strategy of containment and control of the Eurasian continent and its emerging Union. This thesis has been further expanded upon in the post The Great War for Eurasia (FREEPOM). All readers should revisit all articles as the unfolding drama with North Korea is about much more than nuclear weapons.


Longtime reader SafetyFishnet provided us with a link a few ago and included the following comment:

“It is incredible, as you stated in one of your posts, that North Korea being a puppet state of Anglo-American Establishment, or in a wider-context, a useful and expendable pawn in the eyes of all-controlling supranational bankers is voiced by no other platform except POM. But once again, a London connection seems to be found for the support of North Korea’s nuclear programme that solidifies your claim.”

The article was from the Independent and stated that:

“North Korea is suspected of using a London house to finance its nuclear weapons programme.”

Up to £33m a year have been funnelled through a property in Blackheath registered as the UK branch of a regime-controlled insurance firm, a Sunday Times investigation found.”

It’s a connection for sure, as SafetyFishnet suggested. But there would need to be much more concrete evidence to get the mass of Western people to wake up to the truth about the Anglo-American establishment, its attempts to hijack the transformation of the international monetary system (as they did during Bretton Woods in 1944), and the ongoing strategy of containment and manipulation of the Eurasian continent.

The additions to the THADD system in South Korea has sparked large protests against the presence of American weapons on the peninsula. These weapons are promoted as defensive, when in fact they are just as easily offensive in nature. The more of these weapons the Anglo-American establishment can creep towards the borders of Russia, China, and Iran, the easier it will be for them to successfully orchestrate a war strategy which achieves full spectrum dominance over the Eurasian continent and developing Eurasian Union.

The narrative is clear. North Korea presents a huge threat and each weapons test builds a stronger case for the presence of American weapons. But not all are buying into the script. The South Koreans are protesting the presence of the weapons, and Russia and Iran have been indirectly outspoken about the true nature of scheme. Even if war with North Korea became a reality, the results would still likely serve the purpose and objectives of the Anglo-American establishment. Which is why Russia and China are careful about engagement and are adamant that military conflict not take place.

Setting up puppet states and leaders only to take them out with military force years later is a speciality of the Western interests. It achieves multiple objectives. It creates an enemy which can be controlled. It creates a pretext for military adventures. And it corals all arguments into a pre-arranged narrative which captures all counterarguments and strategies.


There will be much more happening over the coming weeks and months, especially the elevated risk of some method of American military action against Venezuela. Read the recent POM post Venezuelan Invasion – A New System of International Payments.


Using our own logic, reason, and ability to observe patterns, are the tools we need to harness in order to see through the immense propaganda and mental conditioning which we have dominated our lives. It is my opinion that the thesis presented here on North Korea is 100% correct and will be proven as such in time. But as SafetyFishnet stated, no one else is even talking about it. – JC

https://finviz.com/news.ashx?v=2

Hello Forex Traders

I am waiting for 3 people to open their FXCM UK Demo account before I can do anything more. Have a positive day and smell the roses. !!!


Benjaminis
BWM

YES I am 100% interested. plz let me know what would be the time, you know I live in EST, Toronto. waiting for your reply. take care.