Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...be-buying-gold

Buy Gold as Basel III Means “Central Banks and Banks Are Going To Be Buying Gold”

- "Basel III rules (on April 1st) are basically making gold more attractive" as they have a "focus on financial soundness" and more "central banks and banks are going to be buying gold"
- The financial expert and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing has long been lukewarm on gold, but not any longer
"You are seeing more and more people become aware of gold and want gold"
- "The financial asset bubble game is over, and now we want real things. . . . To me, gold is a core position"
- Federal accounting in the U.S. is "now meaningless & frightening"
- “The world is choking on debt ...”
https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...stin-fitts.png


Watch Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, financial expert and founder of The Solari Report Here

https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...GoldBanner.jpg

Access 7 Key Gold Investing Must Haves here

News and Commentary
Gold Maintains Gains As Brexit Uncertainty Continues (FXStreet.com)
UK MPs reject Theresa May’s Brexit deal AGAIN (BBC.co.uk)
Gold gains as dollar wilts on mixed CPI data; Brexit vote eyed (Reuters.com)
Stocks, sterling fall as Brexit optimism evaporates (Reuters.com)
EU court shields ECB from disclosing key document in Greek crisis (Reuters.com)
Gold ends higher in delayed settlement; CME blames ‘technical issue’ for late finish (MarketWatch.com)
https://news.goldcore.com/ie/wp-cont...ajor-pairs.png
Gundlach Says "We Are In A Bear Market", S&P Will Take Out December Lows In 2019 (CNBC.com)
Big banks are totally reliant on stock buybacks, and that could be a problem (CNBC.com)
Retirement Isn’t Happening as Social Security Is Not Enough - Mauldin (MauldinEconomics.com)
Sales of gold and silver coins should not be taxed - Steve Forbes (Forbes.com)
China Scrambles To Defuse $6 Trillion "Hidden Debt Bomb" With "Titanic Credit Risk" (ZeroHedge.com)
Gold Prices (LBMA PM)
12 Mar: USD 1,296.95, GBP 986.85 & EUR 1,150.78 per ounce
11 Mar: USD 1,296.35, GBP 998.32 & EUR 1,153.49 per ounce
08 Mar: USD 1,294.10, GBP 989.34 & EUR 1,153.95 per ounce
07 Mar: USD 1,285.30, GBP 921.20 & EUR 1,144.17 per ounce
06 Mar: USD 1,285.55, GBP 978.82 & EUR 1,136.82 per ounce
05 Mar: USD 1,285.00, GBP 975.19 & EUR 1,134.78 per ounce
Silver Prices (LBMA)
12 Mar: USD 15.44, GBP 11.83 & EUR 13.72 per ounce
11 Mar: USD 15.29, GBP 11.74 & EUR 13.60 per ounce
08 Mar: USD 15.11, GBP 11.56 & EUR 13.48 per ounce
07 Mar: USD 15.07, GBP 11.47 & EUR 13.33 per ounce
06 Mar: USD 15.09, GBP 11.49 & EUR 13.36 per ounce
05 Mar: USD 15.11, GBP 11.47 & EUR 13.33 per ounce
Recent Market Updates
- Invest In Gold Or Bitcoin – Which Is The True Store Of Value?
- Silver Bullion Is The Portfolio Insurance To Buy Now
- EU Isn’t Ready for the Next Recession
- JPMorgan Is Bullish on Gold as a Hedge Against Rising Inflation
- Gold – It Might Be Different This Time
- Euromillions Winners To Invest In Gold In 2019?
- Gold Still on a Long Term Track to Reach $2,000 An Ounce
- “Gold Is A Global Thermometer Of Risk” – CEO Q+A: Stephen Flood, GoldCore

Ticket Account Symbol Amount S/B Open Close P/L Gross P/L Roll Net P/L Open Time Close Time
67611797 01045760 US30 50 S 25,727.70 25,705.60 22.10 110.50 0.00 110.50 2019-03-13 20:07 2019-03-13 20:52
67611784 01045760 US30 50 S 25,726.55 25,706.80 19.75 98.75 0.00 98.75 2019-03-13 20:01 2019-03-13 20:51
67611812 01045760 SPX500 50 S 2,814.38 2,812.24 21.4 107.00 0.00 107.00 2019-03-13 20:08 2019-03-13 20:31
67611779 01045760 SPX500 50 S 2,813.63 2,812.34 12.9 64.50 0.00 64.50 2019-03-13 20:00 2019-03-13 20:31
Total 76.15 380.75 0.00 380.75

https://www.forexfactory.com/attachm...1&d=1551388030

https://www.forexfactory.com/attachm...1&d=1551388030

Good Morning

The next 90 days or so will be arriving with MAJOR changes to your life whether you like it or agree or whatever.

If you want an explanation then post your request here and I will tell you privately.

Have a positive day.


Benjamin

Good Morning Benjaminis, yes p lz could you plz explain it to me. thanks & take care

https://goldswitzerland.com/3-dozen-...-to-hold-gold/

3 DOZEN REASONS TO HOLD GOLD

March 14, 2019

by Egon von Greyerz

The world financial system has been in a euphoric state since 2009. It seems that the Keynesians, like Krugman or the Modern Money Theorists (MMT) are right after all. All asset markets are near the highs and show little sign of changing direction. As Treasury Secretary Mellon said in September 1929: “There is no cause to worry. The high tide of prosperity will continue.” All that is required is more of the same medicine, more credit, more money printing to make a virtuous circle of eternal prosperity.

Clearly the Cassandras are all wrong with their pessimistic forecasts that never happen. The Greek Princess had the ability to forecast the future but her curse was that nobody believed her accurate predictions. (Cassandra article)

We modern Cassandras are in the same position. We are certain that the theories based on spending and borrowing yourself out of the biggest debt bubble in history are totally fallacious. We know that a debt problem cannot be solved by more debt. No one defined it more succinctly than Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”

THE PARTY IS OVER
But sadly for the world, Cassandra will be right this time also since the party is over. The Time Bomb below says it all. Contained in the red bomb are all the explosive elements that will change the history of the world. Any single one of these risks is sufficient to trigger a collapse of the world economy. The combined explosive nature of all the risks will not only disprove MMT but create a world which will be a lot less pleasant to live in.
http://goldswitzerland.com/wp-conten...19/03/bomb.jpg


This cleansing of a sick financial system and a morally decadent world will be totally necessary to create new green shoots based on real, sustainable values.

But the transition will create great suffering for the whole world.

THE WORLD NEEDS STATESMEN
In the final stages of a major super cycle, there is normally a total lack of clarity in the thinking of world leaders. But not only that, there is also a total lack of leadership. Right now this is exactly what we have. Countries normally get the leaders they deserve. The world is in desperate need of statesmen who can take uncomfortable decisions to get the world out of the mess it is in.

But looking around the world, there is no statesman in any country. There are countries with strong leaders like Putin in Russia and Orban in Hungary but real statesmanship does not exist anywhere.

Look at France where Macron becomes more unpopular by the day. Soon every Frenchman will wear a yellow vest and it is already spreading to other countries. The French economy and financial system are weakening and the inequality between the rich and the poor has the seeds of yet another French Revolution.

Germany has been the biggest beneficiary of a weak Euro but in spite of that, the German economy is now deteriorating rapidly. Merkel’s socialist policies will have disastrous effects on the German economy in coming years, exacerbated by an immigration policy which will create a major economic and social disaster.

When Deutsche Bank (DB) collapses, which is probable, that will have repercussions not only for German banks but for the global banking system. DB’s derivative book of EUR 50 trillion is 15x German GDP. When counterparty fails, the Bundesbank and the ECB will need to print more Euros than during the hyperinflationary Weimar Republic. In addition, the Bundesbank and the German financial system are the biggest guarantors of the ECB and the Target2 lending to Southern European countries which are all likely to default on their commitments.

The UK leadership is extremely weak. Theresa May’s government is irresolute and divisive. They have spent 2 years solely trying to extricate itself from the EU. This issue has totally dominated UK politics at the expense of the economy. With 2 weeks left to Brexit-day, the UK is nowhere nearer an agreement with the Brussels elite who have consistently frustrated the process.

The US is bankrupt with a currency which is living on borrowed time. Trump had good intentions but has been shackled by the Deep State.

When the biggest economy in the world collapses, it will have major repercussions on the world.

Every major country or continent in the world has got problems of a magnitude that will bring the country down. In addition to the above nations, this includes Japan, China, South America and many more.


FINAL SECONDS OF A GLOBAL MEGA BUBBLE
We must understand that the world has never faced risk of this magnitude ever. We are now in the very final seconds of the global mega bubble, the likes of which the world has never seen before. What will happen next will be worse than the fall of the Roman Empire, much worse than the South Sea and Mississippi Bubbles and will create a disaster that will dwarf the 1930s Depression.


GLOBAL DEBT UP 3X SINCE 2000
The problem is simple to define and is all based around debts and liabilities. At the beginning of this century, global debt was $80 trillion. When the Great Financial Crisis started in 2006, global debt had gone up by 56% to $125 trillion. Today it is $250 trillion.
http://goldswitzerland.com/wp-conten...19/03/debt.jpg


Thus, in this century global debt has more than trebled. So far MMT seems to work. Just print and borrow more money and the economy will take care of itself. Einstein said it won’t work and the laws of nature also tell us that this is a saga that will have an unhappy ending.


PROTECTION IS CRITICAL
Rather than trying to figure out what the exact trigger will be, it is much more important to focus on how to protect yourself financially.

Gold has throughout history been the solution to a mismanaged economy based on deficits, debts and money printing. But it must be physical gold, stored outside the financial system in the safest jurisdictions and vaults. It is essential to have direct ownership of the gold and direct access.

ETFs, futures, or part ownership of bars are not proper wealth preservation.


$30,000 GOLD AND $3,000 SILVER
The Krugmans and MMT fans will now get more than they ever asked for. Because the world will soon start the biggest money printing bonanza in history.

Bearing in mind that total debt and liabilities, including derivatives are over $2 quadrillion, we could easily see similar or higher amounts of money printing. A recent KWN article by Lundeen projects $3,000 silver and $30,000 gold. Those are not unrealistic targets and are probably based on normal inflation. With hyperinflation, the future gold price is likely to have many more zeroes.


We must remember that we are holding gold primarily to preserve wealth since it is the best store of value and represents stable purchasing power. But gold is likely to do better than to maintain purchasing power for the simple reason that there will be a massive shortage of physical gold when the gold paper market blows up. This is why it is critical to hold physical gold, bars or coins.

I wrote about the Gold Maginot Line a few weeks ago which is at $1,350. This line has stopped gold since 2013. After a first attempt to break through 3 weeks ago, we are now in a small correction and gold is building momentum to break through the Line. Once through, it will go very quickly all the way through the old high of $1,920. Remember that this high has already been broken in many currencies, so it is not a major hurdle to clear.


3 DOZEN REASONS TO HOLD GOLD AS INSURANCE
For anyone who doesn’t understand the necessity of owning gold, just go through the list of risks in the Time Bomb. And once you have gone through it, go through it again and again and again. The list includes 3 dozen reasons why you need to hold physical gold as protection or insurance against unprecedented global risk.


Anyone who doesn’t own gold today mustn’t wait for the next move up to take place. That could be too late. Once the real move starts, it will be very difficult to get hold of gold at any price. At some point there will no physical gold on offer. The paper gold positions of banks and futures exchanges will see to that.


Central banks will also have major problems. Most of them have covertly sold their official holdings. And most of what they have left, they have leased to the market. That gold has gone to China, India and Russia and all the central banks have left is an IOU from a bullion bank that won’t be honoured.


CHINA’S INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR GOLD
http://goldswitzerland.com/wp-conten...9/03/china.jpg

With a guaranteed absolute mess in the world financial system, resulting panic in the gold market now is the very last chance to be protected.

Gold is today as cheap as it was in 1970 at $35 and in 2000 at $270:
http://goldswitzerland.com/wp-conten...3/usd_gold.jpg


Egon von Greyerz
Founder and Managing Partner
Matterhorn Asset Management
Zurich, Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 213 62 45

Matterhorn Asset Management’s global client base strategically stores an important part of their wealth in Switzerland in physical gold and silver outside the banking system. Matterhorn Asset Management is pleased to deliver a unique and exceptional service to our highly esteemed wealth preservation clientele in over 60 countries.

GoldSwitzerland.com

Contact Us

Articles may be republished if full credits are given with a link to GoldSwitzerland.com.



All articles by Egon von Greyerz
Select Year 2019 (9) 2018 (49) 2017 (53) 2016 (93) 2015 (74) 2014 (88) 2013 (74) 2012 (69) 2011 (17) 2010 (10) 2009 (21)




https://goldswitzerland.com/gallery/sm/fb.pnghttps://goldswitzerland.com/gallery/sm/twitter.pnghttps://goldswitzerland.com/gallery/sm/in.pnghttps://goldswitzerland.com/gallery/sm/youtube.png


CONTACT / REGISTER
to become a client

Recent Posts

 

1. 3 DOZEN REASONS TO HOLD GOLD
2. STOCK INVESTORS, LIKE ALFRED, TO LOSE 98% OF THEIR INVESTMENT
3. 6,250 YEAR OLD BULL STILL GOING STRONG
4. THE CHINESE AND MAGINOT GOLD LINES
5. “THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR HAS NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER”

Prof. Václav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic (2003-13), slammed the European Union as being worse than the Soviet Union's Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) that ruled over the economies of EasternEurope between 1949 and 1991. Having lived under communism for 40 years, Klaus said, he has the experience to make such a criticism.
On March 12 Klaus was the featured speaker at the Presidential Lecture Series of the Center for Financial Studies,Goethe University Frankfurt, under the auspices of its President, Prof. Otmar Issing. In his presentation, entitled, "The EU Is Not Europe," Klaus laid out several key policies which have made the EU a most undemocratic union.

First he slammed its environmentalist policies at a time when not one environmentalist party in Europe could come anywhere close to winning an election. He particularly slammed, by name, the Club of Rome. Second, he slammed the climate-change policy as entirely unproven and now promoting a Malthusian agenda. Third, he attacked the so-called information society in which Europe's universities are graduating unemployable degree holders. Fourth, he attacked the euro single currency as having generated mass inequality throughout Europe. He charged that the Eurozone, through the European Central Bank's Target 2 real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system, is already a transfer union but has notbenefitted any of its members. After its 20 years of existence, it has proven to be a failure.

The fifth point he made was a passionate defense of the nation-state and national sovereignty as the only basis fordefending the political and economic rights of the people. He pointed out that a "democracy," by definition, requires a"demos," but it is only the sovereign nation-state, not "Europe," that fulfills the requirements of a demos. The text of hisremarks is posted to his English website, https://www.klaus.cz/clanky/4374.

Given that the city of Frankfurt now considers itself a "European city" and is the headquarters of the European Central Bank, the audience was polite and respectful, but nonetheless hostile, which showed in their questions, which Klaus handled quite well. Asked to comment on Brexit, he expressed the shock at the way the EU dealt with it. He recalled how he, as Prime Minister (1993-97), oversaw the split between Czechia and Slovakia. Although he disagreed with the division of Czechoslovakia, he did implement it, since the Slovaks insisted. The division took only six months and was carried out in the most cooperative and friendly manner; whereas with the Brexit, he said, while the British could have been more clever, the way the EU addressed it was outrageous. He also admitted that, when the Brexit vote occurred, 'we uncorked the champagne bottles.'

When the question of so-called "populism" in Europe came up, he replied that the term is meaningless, and is being used simply to put on a derogatory label on those who disagree with EU policy.
To the last question, asking him to comment on what he believes the future holds for Europe, he referred to a famous Marlon Brando movie, in which Brando's character asks a fortune teller what the cards hold for his future. The fortune teller looks at the cards, and tells him, "You have no future." He said he expected that the EU will collapse after some painful muddling through.

It should be noted that Klaus's economic policy, on which he did not really elaborate in his presentation, is well known to be very free-market-oriented. The hostile atmosphere was so strong, that when asked, after his presentation, about the Belt and Road policy, he thought it was a hostile question and answered that he did not want to get into China-bashing and that the entire topic would take a much longer discussion. When asked by a Chinese journalist about Chinese "investment," he pointed out when he had been in government and met with the Chinese, he had told them that his country did not need investments but wanted to trade with China. It should be noted that he was the first CzechPresident to visit China, making more than one official visit, and he defended his China policy in the face of phony human rights activists.

Prof. Issing, former chief economist and member of the board of the European Central Bank, and a critic of the Eurozone policies, told this author that he had invited his good friend Prof. Klaus in order to bring another view into the debate. He said he felt there would have been more voices in support of Klaus, if not for the tremendous social pressure created by the Europeanists and environmentalists.

On March 11, Klaus gave a very similar, polemical speech at the meeting of the energy firm E.ON, held in Prague, also posted on his English webpage. [DEA]


Václav Klaus: EU is not Europe

ENGLISH PAGES, 13. 3. 2019
Many thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to address this very distinguished audience. My thanks go especially to Otmar Issing, the President of the Center for Financial Studies, who asked me to deliver this year´s CFS Presidential Lecture. Thank you. It is a great honour for me.

When I looked at the list of the past speakers in this series, I was not at all sure if someone like me who spent the last thirty years in the political arena actually deserves it. Even though I have been all that time an active Professor of Finance at the Prague School of Economics, even though I continued teaching and writing economic texts even during my Presidential era, I am fully aware of the fact that my engagement in politics didn´t allow me to be fully involved in the academic activity and to follow the events in the economic science on every day basis. Nevertheless, I believe in the general validity of the law of diminishing marginal returns even as regards the returns of the new contributions to the economic science. I am, therefore, convinced that the old proven pillars of economics are still there and that most of the new, sometimes very promising, highly appraised, allegedly revolutionary ideas in the economic theory don´t look so great as they pretend to be.

As a side remark, I should say that I am not that often in Frankfurt, in this “bastion” of banking, in this very modern and flourishing city. The wealth of the city is not surprising. The high purchasing power of the bankers who work here and spend their huge incomes in this city is no doubt the main reason behind its prosperity.

We are here at the gathering of economists or of people from the economic, financial and banking community but I will not confine my talk to the narrow field of economics. The topic of my today´s speech is not strictly an economic one. In addition to it, we, the economists, should admit that the economic discourse ceased to be the main and the most relevant issue of the current highly controversial and ideologically divided era. Whether we like it or not, the people in our countries don´t pay that much attention to us[1]. This is partly because the people reflect their relative very high level of affluence and partly because the era of charismatic exponent of freedom and of free markets is over.

In the communist era, travel to the West was almost impossible for someone like me in Czechoslovakia and as a result, it was not until January 1990 that I was allowed to come here for the first time. It was two months after the fall of communism in my country and I was a newly appointed Minister of Finance in the first non-communist government. I was invited by Karl Otto Pöhl to have lunch with the board of the Bundesbank. It gave me a fascinating opportunity to discuss the challenges of the post-communist transition in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the economic aspects of the forthcoming German unification (Wiedervereinigung) with this highly distinguished group of people.

I remember our very close views as regards the topic of the day, which was the search for the appropriate exchange rate between the two German currencies in case of unification. As some of you remember, the German politicians of that era didn´t listen sufficiently to what the economists had to say. They chose the exchange rate which was neither in conformity with reality, nor with the majority view of German economists. The politicians were, as it is often the case, wrong. I am, however, not sure that the economists used all their arguments and presented them in a strongly enough way.

Let me say that I allowed myself to explicitly warn the German politicians and economists already in January 1990 that the German unification shouldn’t be done as a substitute for the fundamental systemic transformation of the East German society and economy. Based on my strong belief in the economic theory, I was convinced already at that time that unification without transformation would be very costly and for many East Germans extremely frustrating. I can use many convincing arguments in this respect but let me remind you that the annual fiscal transfers from the West to the East of Germany in the 1990s reached on the average the level of the Czech GDP at that time (in some years were higher)! Many times I found out that not even many German economists are aware of the magnitude of these transfers.[2]

As I said, my first visit to Frankfurt took place still in the Velvet Revolution era. I dare say that some of us in the ex-communist countries were prepared for what happened. We spent decades in the irrational and oppressive communist economic and political system but we tried to use this time at least partly efficiently. Some of us – instead of only criticising the reality – spent these years studying contemporary economics and especially the literature in the field of comparative economic systems.

We also learned a lot by living in such an irrational and inefficient system. We were frustrated by seeing the tragic consequences of the absence of the autonomy of economic thinking and economic decision-making in our part of the world. The politics dictated the topics and principally predetermined the answers to all kinds of economic questions and issues. Due to it, one of our first tasks after the fall of communism was to get rid of the dominance of politics and to establish the autonomy of economic decision-making. Only in such a situation it is possible to think clearly and without understatements. The political compromises are, of course, necessary – but only ex-post, not ex-ante. The thinking has to be done without compromises.

This idea should be repeated again and again because this problem has become relevant in the current era again. These days, in the “brave new world” of the European Union and of political correctness, even more. In my country we were aware of the relevance of this idea since the very beginning and succeeded in making a radical change in this respect very soon. We see now, however, that we have been losing this favourable state of affairs once again.

I would like to be very explicit by stressing that I don´t have in mind the former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe only or mostly but the whole Western Europe and America. This time, the politicization of economic life has not been organized by the communist apparatchiks or by the emissaries from Moscow. It has arisen from inside, it is a home-made problem. These shifts have been relatively silently, slowly and incrementally growing inside the contemporary Western society during the last decades, especially after the fall of communism.The threat of communism blocked the emergence, the expansion and the dissemination of such views and ideas. The change has come from the West itself this time. It has not been imported (neither officially imported, nor illegally smuggled) from the East now. It is different now.

It hasn´t been accidental. We live in the era of a new authoritarianism of illiberal elites, of neomarxists of the Frankfurter Schule, of so called “experts”, of bureaucrats of international organizations, of IT protagonists and lobbyists[3], of loud and noisy exponents of political NGOs. As a result of it, we are the witnesses of an important institutional change, of a shift in power from elected representatives to permanent functionaries, from local councils to central bureaucracies, from legislators to executives, from national parliaments to Brussels and Strasbourg, from the citizen to the state. The form and substance of political discourse have changed substantially as a result.

Let me once again mention the name of Otmar Issing, one of the most distinguished German economists and bankers whom I have been privileged to repeatedly meet on many occasions at different places of the world in the last thirty years. We sometimes held and expressed similar views on various economic issues but – not to undermine his reputation in the politically correct world of current Germany – I want to say very loudly that he has always been much more pro-European and much more pro-establishment than myself.
In spite of that, the title of my today´s speech – EU is not Europe – was suggested by him. I only accepted it, but I did it with a great pleasure, because the title has a meaning. It sends a very clear message to all those who see these two terms as perfect substitutes. It is a message to the European political elites, to the uncritical admirers of the EU in politics, media and academia as well as to the EU huge and permanently growing nomenclature. All of them behave as if these two terms were identical.

They are wrong, but I understand why – they have a vested interest in pretending the EU and Europe are identical. They want to be the owners of Europe. They want to be recognized as the authentic heirs of all European historic events and achievements. They believe they have a right to authoritatively interpret current events and to decide whether they are European or un- or anti-European. For them the EU is the personification of Europe.

This is, of course, untenable. All democrats should oppose this way of thinking. Europe is a historically evolved cultural and civilizational entity (with more or less widely accepted geographical borders), whereas the EU is a man-made constructwhich has its well-defined beginning and will have – undoubtedly – its glorious or not so glorious end.
The only superficial attention to the European issues leads to the underestimation of the fact that the EU is not a constant structure. It is a moving and variable entity[4]. Every EU summit redefines its substance – some of them only marginally, some fundamentally. The changes go, however, all in one direction. The well-known ratchet effect functions in this field as well as in many others: every treaty or summit takes Europe closer to a centralised European state. This is not surprising because the main goal of the European political elites (and their fellow-travellers) is the dislocation of national sovereignty and the overcoming of the state. These people consider the sovereign nation-state as an obsolete historical anachronism which should be defeated.

Last decades were characterized by the consequences of two such fundamental systemic and institutional restructurings. Both the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty brought about significant changes in the EU (originally EC) arrangements. I have to say quite resolutely that I see it as a very negative development.

We were not yet members of the EU in the moment of the Maastricht Treaty and had no “voice” in European debates then. We couldn´t express our disapproval or disagreement. However, as it is well known, I was the last President of all EU member-states who – under tremendous pressure both at home and abroad – capitulated and signed the Lisbon Treaty. I remember that even Otmar Issing wrote several years ago that “the Maastricht Treaty was the triumph of political ambitions over economic reservations”.[5] This is also my position but I stress the political reservations as well.

Both of these treaties – neither of which was fully democratically approved and implemented – were in my opinion historic mistakes. They transformed the original concept of integration into something else, into unification. They pushed the heterogeneous community of sovereign European states into a union of subordinated regions and provinces (Länder in German terminology). They substantially augmented the power of the bureaucratic central agency in Brussels. They supressed democracy and turned it into a post-democracy (misleadingly called liberal democracy). I agree with John Laughland that these treaties created “a mechanism which allows governments to pass laws for which they would prefer not to argue in public, safely away from the glare of democratic scrutiny and parliamentary opposition”.[6]

By unifying (by means of averaging) important economic parameters (currency, exchange rates, interests rates, all kinds of obligatory non-economic standards, etc.) these two treaties turned some regions of the EU into the position of winners, some into losers. The level of these parameters was advantageous for some parts of Europe only, especially for the North of the continent. They proved to be detrimental for the European South.

Instead of facilitating the mutually advantageous cooperation of European countries, these – economic realities not respecting – unification measures created deep disparities inside Europe. These disparities asked for the unwanted and unplanned emergence of a transfer union, which exists without authentic solidarity and is based on a non-voluntary redistribution.

Another unification measure, the liquidation of internal borders inside Europe, was supposed to facilitate the movements of the Europeans inside Europe and to create a new European Man, Homo Europeus[7]. It had an important side-effect. It led to the mass migration of non-Europeans who mostly didn´t come to Europe as future Europeans or as a labour force, who don’t intend to be assimilated and who don´t want to accept European culture, religion, values, habits, ways of life[8].

I can continue in the same spirit and extend the briefly stated arguments, but I know that we are in an economic institution and should pay more attention to the economic aspects of these processes. The EU – in its doctrine which I call Europeism – builds its policy on the very debatable non-traditional ideas and doctrines and presents them as “undisputable truths”. To oppose them is considered politically incorrect. I will briefly touch upon some of them:

1) One of the most important (and most detrimental) aprioristic prejudices which have been aggressively pushed forward in the EU is the almost religious belief that the environmental imperatives should be put before any economic considerations. It is not relevant that these ideas never succeeded in winning elections. They are presented as eternal truths. This way of thinking has a long tradition, especially here in Germany, but the decisive breaking point was the formation of the Club of Rome fifty years ago and its aggressive denial of long established fundamental pillars of the economic theory and of the economic way of thinking[9].

I will mention – just as examples, without analysing them – the main pillars which have been undermined – the concept of the non-exhaustibility of economic resources, the understanding of the role of prices in any rational decision-making, the role of economic incentives in human behaviour, the proper dealing with externalities, the seeing of the environmental protection as a luxury good, etc. All of them deserve to be discussed in detail and especially they deserve to be returned to their fundamental place in political and economic discourse where they belong.[10]

2) Not less important and not less detrimental is the almost religious belief in the global warming (or climate change) doctrine and the economic consequences of that belief. This doctrine represents the victory of the non-economic thinking by underestimating the information hidden in politically unmanipulated prices and the decisive impact of the long-term growth of income and of technical progress on the outcomes of economic decision-making. This doctrine set us back two centuries to the old Malthusian fallacies.
The arbitrarily chosen size of the discount rate in climatology (both implicitly in the climatologists´ thinking and explicitly in the climatological modelling) denies the role of time and of opportunity costs as the economists see them. By using a low discount rate, the exponents of these doctrines harm current generations. By claiming to fight for future generations, they pursue only their own political agendas. The war against oil, coal and cars impoverishes millions of people in spite of the fact that there is no measurable effect of human production of carbon dioxide on global temperature. All of that are, however, topics for serious lectures.

3) By claiming that we live in a knowledge economy, in an information economy, in an IT world, the EU apostles misinterpret the true sources of economic growth and development, they disregard the Adam Smith´s theory of the causes of The Wealth of Nations and they deny the fundamental contribution of the genuine creative behaviour of the free, unregulated and unmanipulated people to the economic performance. By adoring the role of formal education (and especially of mass high education), they underestimate the role of the quality of the economic system and – as a side-effect – produce the unemployable army of holders of university degrees in useless disciplines (or produce formally overeducated workers). It reminds me of the way of thinking and the rhetoric of the Leonid Brezhnev´s era.

4) By believing that it is possible to have a common currency in a non-optimal currency area, the EU political elites contribute to the evident economic decline of Europe and to the slow economic growth of the Eurozone countries in the last decades. The recent 20th anniversary of the euro was not used as a basis for a serious debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the European common currency. This is inexcusable, because the already 20 years’ long experience gives us sufficient data. One conclusion is clear: the single currency in Europe needs either an explicit or an implicit transfer union.

The explicit transfer union is not politically feasible (for many of us also undesirable), but the euro hasn´t yet collapsed because of the existence of an implicit transfer union in the form of the ECB´s “target balances”. This “union” was very innovatively described by the first Presidential Lecture speaker Hans-Werner Sinn[11] in many of his writings. It is now well-known that – within the current European monetary system – the governments can finance themselves via the European Central Bank. They cannot, of course, directly print euros but can issue their own government bonds which can be bought by the ECB.[12] This is also a transfer union.

5) My last remark relates to the still existing belief in the idealistic hypothesis of the so called “Great Moderation”, in the doctrine about the possibility to avoid economic fluctuations by clever, technocratically, not politically oriented macroeconomic policies. This idea rather surprisingly survived the undisputable reality of the 2008-2009 crisis. The students of Schumpeter should always remind us of the significance of the process of creative destruction.[13] Thanks to Schumpeter, we know that there is no growth without the previous destruction of obsolete equipment, machines, businesses, the whole industries. We witness it currently in the Czech Republic – the lowest rate of unemployment in Europe is not just a victory. It reveals the rigidity of our economy.


Conclusion: The Never-Ending Struggle for Free Economy and Society
I didn´t come here to start a revolution. I am, nevertheless, convinced that Europe needs to be liberated. To be liberated again. The ingenuity of free people should be made possible to bring fruits. We need a change, wir brauchen eine Wende. The dictate of the status quo is very powerful.

It may sound too ambitious but we shouldn´t capitulate to the intellectual trends of the time. I know that it takes political courage to admit that the eventual change will be slow and painful. I know that it is easier to say that in a position of a retired politician whose oversensitivity stems from his life in communism and who sharply sees the signs of the coming dangers. In a position of someone who knows that the growing politicization of economic life increases rent-seeking and creates low growth equilibrium. In a position of someone who is afraid of the consequences of the end of the malignant quantitative easing.

But the change has to be done.

Václav Klaus, CFS Presidential Lectures, Center for Financial Studies, Goethe University, Frankfurt, March 12, 2019
[1] This is also due to the fact that we economists have stopped focusing on big economic issues, on what people really care about. Our science is focused on very partial, esoteric research.

[2] I discussed this issue on the occasion of receiving the honorary doctorate degree at the Technische Universität Dresden 12 years ago, see my “Komparative Analyse der Transformation im Multavialand und Albisland”, Dresden, 2007, https://www.klaus.cz/clanky/15 The economic decline in the former GDR was much deeper than in my country (the output in the former GDR was for about 25 years roughly at the pre-transition level), unemployment has been all three decades substantially higher, etc.

[3] See my recent speech in Vienna, „Europas wirtschaftliche Zukunft in Zeiten der Digitalisierung und Globalisierung“, Wiener com.sult Kongress, Vienna, January 28, 2018 https://www.klaus.cz/clanky/4356

[4] Paradoxically, its protagonists claim that the EU development has always been following the commitment to subsidiarity. This concept is close to the communist concept of “democratic centralism”.

[5] The International Economy, Winter, 2014

[6] John Laughland, „European Integration: A Marxist Utopia?“, The Monist, No. 2, 2009.

[7] I discovered recently that I spoke critically about “Homo Europeus” already in my article in The Economist, September, 1994.

[8] See my book “Völkerwanderung” written together with Jiří Weigl, Manuscriptum Verlagsbuchhandlung, Leipzig, 2016. Its English version has a title „Europe all inclusive“, IVK, Prague, 2017.

[9] I have to claim that I saw this new danger very clearly already in the – in many respects hopeless and frustrating – situation in Czechoslovakia after the Warsaw Pact invasion in August 1968 when we had totally different worries.

[10] I tried to do it in my book ”Blue Planet in Green Shackles“, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D. C., 2008 (The German version ”Blauer Planet in grünen Fesseln“, Carl Gerold´s Sohn, Vienna, 2007).

[11] H. W. Sinn, „Die reale Seite der Krise und der Rettungsschirm der EZB“, CFS Presidential Lecture, Frankfurt, 26 February 2014. More about it in his book „Die Target-Falle – Gefahren für unser Kinder“, Hanser: München, 2012.

[12] My critical views on the European common currency can be found in ” First Five Years since the Outbreak of the Greek Crisis”, Notes for Le Cercle Washington Meeting, The Fairfax at Embassy Row, Washington, D.C., June 28, 2015, https://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3771.

[13] I consider it very important that even Alan Greenspan in his recent book “Capitalism in Amerika: A History”, Allen Lane, 2018, written together with A. Wooldridge, reminds contemporary readers of this concept and says that “the central mechanism of progress has been creative destruction”. I suppose, however, that the banking community here in Frankfurt doesn´t like his recommendation that the capital/asset ratios should be radically increased.

Benjaminis, should we on-hold for trading?? and wait till end of March??

I will call you over the weekend and we can discuss all that we need to do.

Have a positive day.


Benjamin

Hello Benjamin.

I recall reading a post here that you plan to relocate to the island of Turks and Caicos sometime in the near future. I will be visiting there and several other islands soon on a 10 day cruise. Wondering if you would be open to share your "fundamental analysis" on what made you select this particular island to relocate from Canada? I and my wife are on a search to relocate as well in couple of years so journey towards that goal has begun for us. St Thomas, San Juan, Bahamas, TnC were mostly hit by hurricane so certain areas of the island are still quite affordable to invest (I think!).

This is quite an important thread. Thanks so much Mr. BenjaminIs for taking your time to update us on critical matters that can impact the success of a trader. I like your trading strategy, and I hope you'll continue updating this thread as time goes for the sake of new traders. Money flow trading method is quite essential

Money flow trading method is a very good trading strategy. Having keenly followed the past posts on this thread, I believe the results are quite promising. Just to emphasize, a trader must never risk more than 5% and never trade more than 20% of trading capital at any single trade

Nice thread here, very informative and quite up to date. Money flow trading looks like something that every trader should adopt. Risk management is the key to success in forex trading, and one must never risk more than you can afford to lose. 5% rule is the way to go, better still, I suggest a new trader should not risk more than 2%

Good Day

Thanks for the comments. I will post here a little longer as long as I get input from excellent contributors as yourself. It is very nice to see you post here.

Enjoy your weekend.


Benjamin

Thank you for your comments.

Here is an update on news not available in many places that I have verified from at least one other independent source.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2815.htm

March 16, 2019

Trump Moves In For Kill Against Tech Giants—Democrats Respond By Throwing “Psychedelic Warlord” Against Him

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A scathingly worded new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today warning that both the United States and Canada are continuing to follow a “perilous course” aimed at a “total destruction” of relations with Russia that’s already at rock bottom due to the “unhinged Russophobia that has engulfed Washington and Ottawa”—further exampled by Democrat Party US Senator, and 2020 presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar this past week outlandishly invoking President Putin to justify the “cruel mistreatment” of her staff—states that the “grave security threat” posed by the US-NATO “massive buildup of military forces along Russia’s borders”, that yesterday saw the rare occurrence of an American B-52 nuclear weapons armed bomber attempting to near Russian airspace, nevertheless, shows the most responsible response to these overt war moves is not to deploy nuclear missiles in the European part of Russia as long as the United States does not deploy them in Europe—a response validated by growing evidence that President Trump is moving in for the kill against his nation’s socialist-led tech giants he warned last year “better be careful”—and in whose looming destruction, now sees panicked Democrats attempting to save them by throwing against Trump their “Second Coming” presidential candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke—who’s otherwise known as the “Psychedelic Warlord”, the name he used while being a member of the famed hacking group “Cult of the Dead Cow”—and whose “murder fantasy” writings show him being demonically fascinated with the killing of children. [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/beto1.jpg

According to this report, in the immediate aftermath of President Trump’s stunning election victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, socialist-led tech giants Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all of the companies they own and control, began a “censorship rampage” shutting down and blacklisting every pro-Trump, conservative, Christian, pro-life and populist alternative news website, news feed, video and message they could find.

Coinciding with these Hillary Clinton and Democrat Party socialist tech giants unleashing their “censorship rampage”, though, this report notes, President Trump filled roughly 20% of the US Federal Circuit Court seats in the country with his own judges after just two years in office—thus meaning that he will leave few, if any, vacancies there for a potential Democratic president in 2021 should he lose—and along with the majority pro-Trump balance he holds on the US Supreme Court, this past week saw him “flip” the powerful US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entirely into his control.

Not known to the masses of the American people, this report details, is that nearly all of their nation’s binding legal rulings come from their US Federal Circuit Court system that’s now being overwhelmingly populated by pro-Trump judges—and of whose hundreds-of-thousands of cases ruled on each year, sees 7,000-8,000 of them being appealed to the US Supreme Court—and of which, only an average of 80 are actually argued before and ruled on by the US Supreme Court Justices.

Likewise unknown to the masses of the American people, this report continues, is that the largest litigators in the US Federal Circuit Court system are their 50 States and 6 Territories—and whose cases are overseen, directed and managed by the National Association of Attorneys General—which is an organization of 56 State and territorial attorneys general in the United States.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/beto2.png

Upon his taking office in early 2017, this report further details, President Trump was beyond outraged by his nation’s opioid crisis whose death toll was over 70,000 per year—a crisis begun under former President Bill Clinton who “opened the floodgates” for opioid maker Purdue Pharma to begin flooding the United States with this deadly drug—that reached “tidal wave” proportions under the Obama-Clinton Regime who protected Purdue Pharma with their “Dirty Blood Money Cartel” comprised of top American political leaders and politicians—the most noteworthy of whom was Hillary Clinton who received millions-of-dollars from Purdue Pharma and its owners while tens-of-thousands died.


Knowing that he couldn’t rely on a US Department of Justice riddled with Obama-Clinton operatives trying to overthrow him in a coup to confront this opioid crisis, this report explains, President Trump summoned to the White House, in early 2017, the National Association of Attorneys General—whom he gave pro-Trump US Federal Court judges to bring their opioid crisis lawsuits against—that, in turn, led to the creation of a “critical mass” of 36 State Attorneys General who unleashed their full fury against Purdue Pharma—and that this past week, stunningly resulted in Purdue Pharma having to declare it was nearing bankruptcy.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/beto3.jpg

While watching the Obama-Clinton decades long protected Perdue Pharma go down in flames, this report continues, this past fortnight President Trump, once again, summoned the National Association of Attorneys General to the White House—and whose unmistakable next target for total destruction are America’s socialist-led tech giants—as so stated by them in their declaration warning this past week that Facebook, Google and other big tech giants are about to “face a reckoning”.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/beto4.png

They should have listened when they had the chance!

As amusing as it is terrifying to contemplate, this report concludes, the only 2020 presidential candidate the Democrat Party has to defend these tech giants against President Trump is a failed three-term US Congressman, and failed US Senate candidate, named Robert O’Rourke—an Irish-American who has deceptively “culturally appropriated” an entirely made up Hispanic persona that sees him now going under the name “Beto”—but who is, also, the Democrats most highly educated and skilled high tech computer expert—a highly advanced skill he honed while being a member of the famous group of hackers credited with inventing the term “hacktivism” known as the “Cult of the Dead Cow”—where he operated under the code name “Psychedelic Warlord” while writing “murder fantasy” stories of young children being run over with cars—and whom, should he ever become US President, would leave as one of his most lasting legacies his poetic writings—such as:

THE SONG OF THE COW

I need a butt-shine

Right now

Your are holy,

Oh, sacred cow

I thirst for you,

Provide Milk

Buff my balls,

Love the Cow,

Good fortune for those that do.

Love me, breathe my feet,

The Cow has risen.

Wax my ass,

Scrub my balls

The Cow has risen,

Provide Milk.

Oh, Milky winder, sing for us once more

Live your life, everlusting joy.

Thrust your hooves up my analytic passage,

Enjoy my fruits

Provider of Cheese and other wonderful dairy products,

We will cleanse your inner intestines.

We will bathe in your Pungent Odor

Gather cotton.

Count my eyes,

Smell my skin,

Love the Scarecrow and the Milkman.

I live only for eternity,

Thirst for the undrinkable.

Hold the heat,

Praise the dough boy at the pizza shop.

Love the Oxen dung!

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/beto5.jpg

America’s new national anthem???

March 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 manybucatastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagree with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions 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.]

Hillary Clinton May Talk With Spirit Of Eleanor Roosevelt—But Longest Serving First Lady In History Rises From Grave To Protect Trump
The Epistle of Saint Helena: Why German Scientists Are Sounding Grave New Alarm
War Has Just Been Declared On Me, On Me Personally—Now I Am Alone, On Enemy Territory

Return To Main Page



Benjamin

Hello 7Shun

Thank you for your input. I will post here the exact strategy that I use. The total of 20% of funds used is for $50,000 US dollars requires some additional explanation which I will do tomorrow.

Enjoy your weekend.


Benjamin

https://dailyreckoning.com/the-gover...y+Reckoning%29


https://dweaay7e22a7h.cloudfront.net...BrianMaher.jpg

BY BRIAN MAHER

POSTED

MARCH 15, 2019

The Government’s Greatest Con Job

Yesterday we documented our personal frustrations with contemporary technology.
Today we file a protest against contemporary money.
We begin with the “evolution” of United States currency…
We refer you to this $10 bank note, dated 1928:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/agorafinanc...3/image3-3.png


In those antique days, a fellow could march into a bank, hand the clerk a slip of paper as illustrated above and demand the denominated amount in gold coin.
The system imposed a hard discipline upon banks… and held inflation in checkmate.

Federal Reserve banks were required to keep a 35% reserve of “gold or lawful money” on hand, lest they make a liar of the United States Treasury secretary — in this case the Hon. Andrew William Mellon.

In effect, the private citizen bound the banking system in golden handcuffs.
But one Great Depression, one New Deal and one world war later… we come now to a 1950 $10 bank note:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/agorafinanc...3/image2-5.png


In appearance it is nearly a perfect twin to the 1928 model — with one infinitely telling exception.

Can you sniff it out?

The 1928 note bears this inscription:
“Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

But reads the 1950 version:
“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

The fine print disguises a vast swindle: The gold provision was stricken from the record.
The bankers had broken free of their golden handcuffs… and no longer could a private citizen bring them to honest account.

But what about “lawful money”? What is it?
In 1947, a certain gentleman — A.F. Davis by name — dispatched the following note to the United States Treasury, accompanied by a $10 note:

I am sending you herewith via registered mail one $10 Federal Reserve note. On this note is inscribed the following:

“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve bank.”
In accordance with this statement, will you send me $10.00 in lawful money?

The acting treasurer, M.E. Slindee, responded after this fashion:

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of Dec. 9 with enclosure of one ten-dollar ($10.) Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

And so Mr. Slindee began chasing his tail — what the logicians call circular reasoning.

Trade Secrets From Investing Legends

Don't be drawn into the suckers rally: Listen to the guys who have beaten the market! Chris Mayer lays out eight unusual rules for becoming a better investor. In the report he reveals the five greatest investment books you have never heard of -- you get them immediately. Sign up for the Daily Reckoning today and receive your FREE report.

By submitting your email address, you will receive a free subscription to The Daily Reckoning and carefully selected products and services that we think might interest you. You can unsubscribe at anytime. Privacy Policy.

https://dweaay7e22a7h.cloudfront.net.../2015/09/4.jpg




https://ads.agorafinancial.com/www/d...&cb=390dedadff

In exchange for his $10 note, Mr. Davis was mailed two $5 bills bearing the same pledge to redeem in lawful money.

But this Davis fellow would not be so easily shooed away.

He returned one of the $5 bills, once again demanding lawful money in exchange:
Finally Mr. Slindee threw up the sponge:
Dear Mr. Davis:

… You are advised that the term “lawful money” has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came to use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking associations as lawful money reserves.

Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of Aug. 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term “lawful money” no longer has such special significance.

The $5 United States note received with your letter of Dec. 23 is returned herewith.

Beginning in 1963, all promises to redeem in lawful money were stricken from United States currency.

Here, in graphic detail, the devolution of American money:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/agorafinanc...e4-2_fixed.jpg

Say what you will of paper money. But in one sense it is redeemable — if you’ll forgive the expression in the present context.

It in tangible. You can hold it in your hand, in your wallet, in your mattress.

It cannot be erased at the stroke of a key.

It is also anonymous. Once out of your hands, it leaves no trace.

None of these happy virtues apply to digital money…
Digital money has no tangible existence. It can disappear at a keystroke. The bank can freeze you out of it. And every transaction goes on your permanent record.


What is more, digital money removes all natural checks.
Even paper money files a claim on Earth’s resources — it is constituted of cotton and linen.

Meantime…
Digital money is the type of money bound to get itself into trouble.

Wispy as fog, slippery as oil, it is conjured into existence… as if by the magician’s wand.
And it can get around the world at electronic speeds.

It is also the ideal money for a government swollen to ghastly dimensions — its issue being unlimited in theory.
If paper money invites abuse… what about digital money?

Thus we speak our piece for lawful money — even paper money.

Regards,
Brian Maher
Managing editor, The Daily Reckoning

https://dweaay7e22a7h.cloudfront.net...BrianMaher.jpg

BY BRIAN MAHER

POSTED

MARCH 15, 2019