Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Recession 2017? Ominous Signs Emerge

According to Gallup, U.S. economic confidence has soared to the highest level ever recorded, but meanwhile a whole host of key economic indicators are absolutely screaming that a new recession is beginning. And if the U.S. economy does officially enter recession territory in 2017, it certainly won’t be a shock, because the truth is that we are well overdue for one. Donald Trump has inherited quite an economic mess from Barack Obama, and it was probably inevitable that we were headed for a significant economic downturn no matter who won the election.

One of the key indicators to watch is average weekly hours. When the economy shifts into recession mode, employers tend to start cutting back hours, and that is happening right now. In fact, as Graham Summers has pointed out, we just witnessed the largest percentage decline in average weekly hours since the recession of 2008…


In addition to the decline in hours, Summers has suggested that there are a number of other reasons to believe that a new recession is here…

The fact is that the GDP growth of 4%-5% is not just around the corner. The US most likely slid into recession in the last three months. GDP growth collapsed in 4Q16, with a large portion of the “growth” coming from accounting gimmicks.

Consider the following:

Tax receipts indicate the US is in recession.
Gross private domestic investment indicates were are in a recession.
Retailers are showing that the US consumer is tapped out (see AMZN’s recent miss).
UPS, another economic bellweather, dramatically lowered 2017 forecasts.

To me, even more alarming is the tightening of lending standards. In our debt-based economy, the flow of credit is absolutely critical to economic growth, and when credit starts to get tight that almost always leads to a recession.

So the fact that lending standards have now tightened for medium and large sized firms for six quarters in a row is very bad news. The following comes from Business Insider…

“Although modest over the past couple of quarters, it is still worth noting that this is now the sixth quarter in succession that standards have tightened for large and medium sized firms,” Deutsche Bank economist Jim Reid wrote in a research note to clients.

“This usually only happens in recessions.”

Reid is 100 percent correct on this point. This is precisely the kind of thing that we would expect to see if a new recession was beginning, and if this trend continues it is hard to imagine that the U.S. economy will be able to continue to grow.

And it is interesting to note that job growth at S&P 500 companies has gone negative for the first time since the last recession, and so large firms are definitely starting to feel the pressure.

Simultaneously, lending standards are also tightening up for consumers…

“The most notable tightening in standards though was in consumer loans,” the Fed said. “During the quarter, banks reported an 8.3% net tightening in credit standards for credit cards and 11.6% net tightening for auto loans.”

US consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity and is thus a key driver of growth in the world’s largest economy.

Those numbers for credit cards and auto loans are major red flags.

It is very simple. Tighter credit means less economic activity which means slower economic growth. The U.S. economy grew at a dismal 1.9 percent annual rate during the 4th quarter of 2016, and it would be absolutely no surprise if we end up with a negative number for the first quarter of 2017.

One of the big reasons why lending standards are tightening is because bankruptcies are rising.

As I reported the other day, consumer bankruptcies just rose on a year-over-year basis in back to back months for the first time in almost seven years. Commercial bankruptcies had already been rising on a year-over-year basis throughout 2016, and so the fact that consumer bankruptcies have now joined the party is a very bad sign.

And we have also just learned that real median household income declined in 2016…

Its official! The spectacular Obama/Fed “recovery” produced no increase in real medin household income in 2016 (the last year of Obama’s reign of [economic] error). In fact, real median annual household income in December 2016 ($57,827) was 0.9 percent lower than in December 2015 ($58,356).

Yes, I understand that there is a tremendous amount of optimism out there right now because of Donald Trump.

But the truth is that it is literally going to take some sort of an economic miracle to avoid a recession.

And if a recession is going to happen anyway, the Trump administration should want it to occur as quickly as possible.

You see, if a recession starts a year from now, it will be much more difficult for Trump to blame it on Obama. But if a recession starts right now, he will definitely be able to argue that it happened because of the mess that he inherited from the last administration.

In addition, the sooner the next recession ends the sooner the next recovery can begin. If a recession is still going on during the 2020 campaign, that would be really bad for Trump, but if a recovery is well underway by then that would be really good for his chances.

If you doubt this, just go back and look at the 1984 campaign. After a very difficult recession, the U.S. economy bounced back strongly and Ronald Reagan was able to ride that momentum to an easy victory.

So this may sound very strange to many of you, but the truth is that if a new recession is coming Trump supporters should want it to happen as rapidly as possible.

Unfortunately, once a new recession begins it may not play out like recessions normally do. The U.S. government is 20 trillion dollars in debt, we are in the midst of one of the biggest stock market bubbles in history, and our planet is becoming more unstable with each passing day. So even though Trump is in the White House and Obama is gone, let there be no doubt that a catastrophic economic crisis could literally erupt at any moment. I continue to encourage my readers to do all that they can to get prepared, because those that are prepared in advance will have the best chance of successfully getting through what is coming.

Unfortunately, a lot of people out there seem to believe that all of our problems have somehow evaporated just because Donald Trump is now living in the White House.

That is simply not true, and we all need to be praying for guidance and wisdom for Trump and his team as they prepare to deal with the great challenges that are ahead for our nation.



Friday, February 10, 2017

US Trade Deficit In 2016 Was The Biggest In Four Years

In a report that will be closely watched by Donald Trump, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced that the US trade deficit in December decreased modestly last December: In the last month of 2016, the US deficit decreased from $45.7 billion in November (revised from $45.2) to $44.3 billion in December, less than the $45 billion expected, as exports increased more than imports.


The goods deficit decreased $1.2 billion in December to $65.7 billion, offset by a services surplus increased $0.3 billion in December to $21.4 billion.

The breakdown: exports of goods and services increased $5.0 billion, or 2.7 percent, in December to $190.7 billion. Exports of goods increased $4.8 billion and exports of services increased $0.2 billion.

The increase in exports of goods mostly reflected increases in capital goods ($3.3 billion) and in industrial supplies and materials ($0.7 billion).

The increase in exports of services reflected increases in transport ($0.1 billion), which includes freight and port services and passenger fares, and in travel (for all purposes including education) ($0.1 billion).

Imports of goods and services increased $3.6 billion, or 1.5 percent, in December to $235.0 billion. Imports of goods increased $3.6 billion and imports of services were nearly unchanged.

The increase in imports of goods mostly reflected increases in automotive vehicles, parts, and engines ($1.6 billion), in industrial supplies and materials ($1.1 billion), and in capital goods ($1.0 billion).
The change in each category for imports of services was less than $0.1 billion.

Of particular note was the geographic breakdown, something Trump will be especially focused on:

The December figures show surpluses, in billions of dollars, with Hong Kong ($2.1), South and Central America ($1.0), Singapore ($0.9), Saudi Arabia ($0.4), and Brazil ($0.2). Deficits were recorded, in billions of dollars, with China ($30.2), European Union ($12.9), Japan ($6.8), Germany ($5.2), Mexico ($4.6), Italy ($2.8), India ($2.0), South Korea ($1.8), Canada ($1.5), Taiwan ($1.0), OPEC ($1.0), France ($0.7), and United Kingdom ($0.2).
The deficit with Canada decreased $1.7 billion to $1.5 billion in December. Exports increased $1.0 billion to $22.4 billion and imports decreased $0.7 billion to $23.8 billion.

The deficit with Mexico decreased $1.2 billion to $4.6 billion in December. Exports increased $1.6 billion to $20.7 billion and imports increased $0.5 billion to $25.2 billion.




That was the good news; the bad news is that for all of 2016, the goods and services deficit was $502.3 billion, up $1.9 billion from $500.4 billion in 2015, and the biggest going back to 2012.


Exports were $2,209.4 billion in 2016, down $51.7 billion from 2015. Imports were $2,711.7 billion in 2016, down $49.9 billion from 2015. In short, a substantial slowdown in trade all around.

The 2016 increase in the goods and services deficit reflected a decrease in the goods deficit of $12.5 billion or 1.6 percent to $750.1 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of $14.4 billion or 5.5 percent to $247.8 billion.

As a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product, the goods and services deficit was 2.7 percent in 2016, down from 2.8 percent in 2015.

- Source, Zero Hedge

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Why Trump’s Economic Justice Warriors Will Crash The US Dollar

From Jeff Berwick:

For the last eight years we’ve seen the rise of the Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s), as they had lobbied their man, Obama, for the political power required to direct the force of government in the name of their own peculiarly relativist brand of “social justice.”

While they are still busy demonstrating the violent soul of what is inherent in all brands of statism by breaking storefront windows (masked), under the Trump epoch a new type of statist “warrior” has emerged… let’s call them the Economic Justice Warriors (EJW’s).

Like the SJW’s, the EJW’s ultimately also want to direct the “force” of government in the name of justice, albeit slightly different. And, much like the SJW’s, this new form of economic justice isn’t just at all. In fact, it is antithetical to the goals of the EJW’s.

One of the big rallying cries of the EJW’s has been to “build a wall” across an entire continent!

This is silly for a few reasons.

One is that there already is a wall across most of it… but all it takes to defeat a wall is a ladder or a shovel. Or a boat.

But, even that is silly because there have been more Mexicans leaving the US than migrating there for the last five years (“More Mexicans Leaving the US Than Entering” – New York Times). Most say they leave due to how unfree the Land of the Free is nowadays.

In fact, Americans may be building a wall that eventually will keep them in. The IRS has just announced that it will be notifying the State Department of anyone with overdue extortion (tax) payments. Anyone with overdue tax payments will not be given a passport to defect from the country.

Adding insult to injury on building this useless wall is Trump’s idea on how to “make Mexico pay for it”. His way of “making Mexico pay for it” is to charge American’s 20% more on anything imported from Mexico.

Mexico is one of the biggest importers into the US and two of its biggest imports are petroleum and food… so get ready for food and gas to rise 20% in price in order to build a wall that is already mostly there and is useless.


But, imposing tariffs on foreign imports and building walls isn’t just useless and increasing the cost of things for Americans. It actually threatens to destroy the entire American economy.

TDV’s Senior Analyst wrote this in our last issue to subscribers:

Like most Americans, [Trump] is unaware of the role that international trade has played in developing wealth, not only for American corporations, but also, American consumers and the many countries engaged in it.

Ed points out that Trump doesn’t make the proper distinction between trade and globalism.

Besides failing to grasp the mutually beneficial nature of trade, he doesn’t understand the complexities involved in the balance of payments theory, which has long been discredited as an old mercantilist doctrine. He uses it to attempt to define who the winners and losers are in trade. But, Ed points out, the accounts are always in balance; the other side of a “trade deficit” is a “capital surplus.”

When enough money is put into American goods and services – and when people who trade with Americans also store their money in the US – the US can develop a “capital surplus.” As Ed explains, a country can have a trade deficit because its capital markets are attractive. It is after all trading financial claims for goods and services.

A country may also have a trade deficit if it prints more currency than its trading partner, but this kind of cheating tends to self correct via exchange rates eventually.

On the contrary, the US has had a “trade deficit” for as long as the US dollar has floated freely, and probably longer. Sometimes this is the result of its inflationist policy, but mostly it is because the US has always offered a relatively more attractive – i.e., more diverse and more liquid – and more politically stable capital market environment to store wealth.

That’s one of the ways the US dollar became a reserve currency – by offering a home for all those mercantilist governments around the world who would debase their own currencies in order to give their exporters an edge into the American market. How many times have you heard the argument about the Japanese or Chinese banks funding US deficits and consumers.

Yet this is precisely the kind of thing Trump thinks of as exploitation.

But America gained from it too. Because people all around the world wanted to trade with people in the US, its currency circulated broadly; in fact, combined with the beneficial aspects of trade on productivity it helped the Fed manage the fallout of its policies on local prices.

But Trump thinks having a trade deficit is a bad thing and wants to wipe it out. He will try to, and in the process he will do a lot of damage to the American economy, as Ed points out. For, by eliminating the trade deficit he will also eliminate the capital surplus, and reverse all the benefits that have accumulated not only to the economy, but also, the dollar over the decades.

Trump is wrong to target the trade deficit. Trade is not a win-lose concept. Nations are not necessarily better off because they export more physical goods than financial claims if there is a competitive advantage on each side discovered voluntarily in the market by entrepreneurs.

The policy will radically shrink America’s sphere of trade. It will lower labor productivity as a result, and real wages in the process. It may even more radically accelerate the dollar’s global demonetization (de-dollarization) as those who have traded with America over the years finally repatriate their dollars.

Just this week, Iran announced it will stop using the US dollar in response to Trump’s bans.

EJW’s think they are going to improve things in the US by limiting trade and enforcing tariffs and bans. What they’ll get is the exact opposite.

Trumponomics is a US dollar crisis in the making.

Protecting Yourself From The Trump/EJW US Dollar Crisis

Given the precariousness associated with the US economy and Donald Trump, you will certainly want to keep your assets safe and well positioned to profit during the incoming turmoil.



Monday, January 30, 2017

Pro Commodity Trader Michael Oliver On Gold And Why Were Moving Higher


Please Join Jay Taylor as he interviews professional commodities trader Michael Oliver why were moving higher in gold and what to look for even as the dollar also moves up.

Michael Oliver entered the financial services industry in 1975 on the Futures side, joining E.F. Hutton’s International Commodity Division, NYC. He studied under David Johnson, head of Hutton’s Commodity Division and Chairman of the COMEX. In the 1980’s Oliver began to develop his own momentum-based method of technical analysis. In 1987 Oliver, along with his futures client accounts (Oliver had trading POA) technically anticipated and captured the Crash. Oliver began to realize that his emergent momentum-structural-based tools should be further developed into a full analytic methodology. In 1992 he was asked by the Financial VP and head of Wachovia Bank’s Trust Department to provide soft dollar research to Wachovia. Within a year Oliver shifted from brokerage to full-time technical research. MSA has provided its proprietary technical research services to financial and asset management clients continually since 1992. Oliver is the author of The New Libertarianism: Anarcho-Capitalism. Oliver is the author of The New Libertarianism: Anarcho-Capitalism.


Thursday, January 26, 2017

Which Will It Be A Free Candy Bar Or Free Gold Coin?


Offering random people a free 1/10 ounce gold coin (worth around $140.00) or a free Snickers bar, this social experiment explores what the average person knows about the value of precious metals.


Monday, January 23, 2017

Jeff Christian: Gold to Reach “Record Levels” Over the Next Few Years


In this Interview Cris Sheridan of Financial Sense talks with one of the leading global precious metal expert's Jeff Christian of the CPM Group

Jeff goes on to tell us that gold will move sideways to higher in the first half of 2016 and then the second half of the year, once the people understand what the Trump administration means to the U.S. economy gold will move sharply higher.


Monday, January 16, 2017

IMF Downplays Trump Stimulus Effect; Slashes Saudi, Mexico Growth In Latest World Economic Outlook

As the world's elite gather in Davos to decide for the minions what the world should look like, The IMF has taken a far dimmer view of global (and by that we mean Trumpian) economic growth than markets appear to be. In addition to slashing Brazilian, Mexican, and Saudi Arabian economic growth forecasts, Lagarde's lackeys are taking a cautious stance toward the policies of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office this week, assuming only a modest boost to the U.S. economy from his promise of fiscal stimulus.

As Bloomberg reports, The IMF maintained its forecast for global growth in 2017 of 3.4 percent, the Washington-based organization said Monday in a quarterly update to its World Economic Outlook. Expansion for 2018 is forecast at 3.6 percent, also unchanged from the fund’s previous forecast in October.

After a lackluster outturn in 2016, economic activity is projected to pick up pace in 2017 and 2018, especially in emerging market and developing economies. However, there is a wide dispersion of possible outcomes around the projections, given uncertainty surrounding the policy stance of the incoming U.S. administration and its global ramifications. The assumptions underpinning the forecast should be more specific by the time of the April 2017 World Economic Outlook, as more clarity emerges on U.S. policies and their implications for the global economy.



With these caveats, aggregate growth estimates and projections for 2016–18 remain unchanged relative to the October 2016 World Economic Outlook. The outlook for advanced economies has improved for 2017–18, reflecting somewhat stronger activity in the second half of 2016 as well as a projected fiscal stimulus in the United States. Growth prospects have marginally worsened for emerging market and developing economies, where financial conditions have generally tightened. Near-term growth prospects were revised up for China, due to expected policy stimulus, but were revised down for a number of other large economies—most notably India, Brazil, and Mexico.

While the balance of risks is viewed as being to the downside, there are also upside risks to near-term growth. Specifically, global activity could accelerate more strongly if policy stimulus turns out to be larger than currently projected in the United States or China. Notable negative risks to activity include a possible shift toward inward-looking policy platforms and protectionism, a sharper than expected tightening in global financial conditions that could interact with balance sheet weaknesses in parts of the euro area and in some emerging market economies, increased geopolitical tensions, and a more severe slowdown in China.

In a welcome move to Brexiters the IMF hiked its outlook on UK growth, saying "domestic demand held up better than expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote", but warned that while it was upgrading its outlook on China GDP, it warned that China's "sugar-rush" growth presents risks to future stability.

The growth forecast for 2017 was revised up for China (to 6.5 percent, 0.3 percentage point above the October forecast) on expectations of continued policy support. However, continued reliance on policy stimulus measures, with rapid expansion of credit and slow progress in addressing corporate debt, especially in hardening the budget constraints of state-owned enterprises, raises the risk of a sharper slowdown or a disruptive adjustment. These risks can be exacerbated by capital outflow pressures, especially in a more unsettled external environment.

- Source, Zero Hedge, Read More Here

Friday, January 13, 2017

Here is Why Gold Will Make New Highs in 2017


After a stellar start in 2016 investors saw their gold holdings get hammered into the end of the year. But the gold bull market may see a resurgence in 2017 after President Trump takes office later this month.

As Future Money Trends highlights in the following video, there are a number of factors that will contribute to its next big move forward, including one particular indicator that has been so accurate in the past it’s impossible to ignore:

The reality is there is only one single indicator that has always pointed to the rise of gold… one that is a screaming indicator to buy or sell gold… the last time this indicator was this bullish for gold it surged from $175 per ounce to $850 in less than two years… that’s a 485% increase… A move that at today’s prices would take gold over $6,000 per ounce by 2019.


Monday, January 9, 2017

Bitcoin Bloodbath As Mexican Peso Surges After Central Bank Intervention

Following yesterday's 'panic' among mexican officials that Trump has considerably more leverage than the elites believed, the peso is soaring suddenly this morning as Banxico intervention took place. At the same time, following comments from official reserachers in China on capital controls and crackdown on 'virtual' outflows, Bitcoin is getting hammered - biggest drop in 2 years.

Initially it was speculation but now Bloomberg confirms a comment from the central bank:

*BANXICO IS INTERVENING IN THE MARKET, CENTRAL BANK GARCIA SAYS

Something just snapped...




This is the biggest drop in Bitcoin in 2 years and biggest rise in the peso since 11/15.



- Source, ZeroHedge

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Bundesbank Hauls its Gold back from New York & Paris Faster than Planned

A “trust-building” measure after an enormous hullabaloo.

“In 2016, we brought back again substantially more gold to Germany than initially planned; by now, nearly half of the gold reserves are in Germany,” Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann told the German tabloid Bild in what has become an annual Christmas interview about gold – to soothe the nerves of his compatriots.

Because they’d been frazzled, apparently, by this whole saga.

The German Bundesbank, which is in charge of managing Germany’s gold hoard of 3,381 tons, the second largest in the world behind the US, got into hot water in 2012 when rumors were circulating that some or much of its 2,000 tons of gold stored in New York, London, and Paris might not be there anymore, that it might have been melted down, leased, or sold.

The ensuing hullabaloo left some folks at the Bundesbank red-faced. Then the Rechnungshof (the federal government’s independent office of financial control) told the Bundesbank to rethink its overseas gold hoard. So the Bundesbank got to work. And in January 2013, it promised that by 2020 it would bring back all 374 tons of its gold that it kept at the Banque de France in Paris and 300 tons of its gold at the New York Fed.

Bundesbank Executive Board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele told the German daily Handelsblatt at the time that these moves were a “trust-building” measure, and he tried vigorously to put the rumors about the missing gold to rest.


Monday, January 2, 2017

How George Soros Destroyed The Democratic Party

It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office records. You couldn’t set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling, “Oops, I Did It Again.” And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.

In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That’s up from 16 in 2000.

What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.

It was 2004. The poncho was the hottest fashion trend, there were 5 million new cases of AIDS and a former Nazi collaborator had bought the Democratic Party using the spare change in his sofa cushions.



And gone to war against the will of the people. This was what he modestly called his own “Soros Doctrine”.

“It is the central focus of my life,” George Soros declared. It was “a matter of life and death.” He vowed that he would become poor if it meant defeating the President of the United States.

Instead of going to the poorhouse, he threw in at least $15 million, all the spare change in the billionaire’s sofa cushions, dedicated to beating President Bush.

In his best lisping James Bond villain accent, Soros strode into the National Press Club and declared that he had “an important message to deliver to the American Public before the election” that was contained in a pamphlet and a book that he waved in front of the camera. Despite his “I expect you to die, Mr. Bond” voice, the international villain’s delivery was underwhelming. He couldn’t have sold brownies to potheads at four in the morning. He couldn’t even sell Bush-bashing to a roomful of left-wing reporters.

But he could certainly fund those who would. And that’s exactly what he did.

Money poured into the fringe organizations of the left like MoveOn, which had moved on from a petition site to a PAC. In 2004, Soros was its biggest donor. He didn’t manage to bring down Bush, but he helped buy the Democratic Party as a toy for his yowling dorm room of left-wing activists to play with.

Soros hasn’t had a great track record at buying presidential elections. The official $25 million he poured into this one bought him his worst defeat since 2004. But his money did transform the Democrat Party.

And killed it.

Next year the Democracy Alliance was born. A muddy river of cash from Soros and his pals flowed into the organizations of the left. Soros had helped turn Howard Dean, a Vermont politician once as obscure as this cycle’s radical Vermont Socialist, into a contender and a national figure. Dean didn’t get the nomination, but he did get to remake the DNC. Podesta’s Center for American Progress swung the Democrats even further to the left. And it would be Podesta who helped bring Hillary down.

The Democrats became a radical left-wing organization and unviable as a national political party. The Party of Jefferson had become the Party of Soros. And only one of those was up on Mount Rushmore.

Obama’s wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. The left had hollowed it out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority coalitions.

Republicans control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They boast 25 trifectas , controlling both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion. Trifectas had gone from being something that wasn’t seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the South, the Midwest and the West.

The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and little else. The vast majority of the country’s legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor’s Association has a membership in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from holding national legislative majorities to becoming a marginal movement.

And the Democrats don’t intend to change course. The way is being cleared for Keith Ellison, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with an ugly racist past, to head the DNC. Pelosi will oversee the disaster in the House. And Obama will remain the party’s highest profile national figure.

There could hardly be a clearer signal that the left intends to retain its donkey herding rights. Soros and his ilk have paid for the reins. That is why Pelosi, with her access to donors, will retain her position.

The left had recreated the Democrat Party and marginalized it. Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying the very thing he was trying to control.

George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn’t care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn’t exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists.

Trump’s victory, like Brexit, came because the left had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist.

Leftists used Soros money to focus on their own identity politics obsessions leaving the Dems with little ability to interact with white working class voters. The Ivy and urban leftists who made up the core of the left had come to exist in a narrow world with little room for anything and anyone else.

Soros turned over the Democrats to political fanatics least likely to be able to recognize their own errors. His protégés repeated the great self-destruction of the Soviet Union on a more limited scale

Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it.

"I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave in 2010.

But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.

- Source, Zero Hedge

Friday, December 30, 2016

Fake News, Mass Hysteria, And Induced Insanity

The "fake news" is that we've never been healthier, healthcare costs are under control and our economy has fully "recovered."

We've heard a lot about "fake news" from those whose master narratives are threatened by alternative sources and analyses. We've heard less about the master narratives being threatened: the fomenting of mass hysteria, which turns the populace into an easily manipulated and managed herd, and induced insanity, a longer-term marketing-based narrative that causes the populace to ignore the self-destructive consequences of accepting the fad/ ideology/ mindset being pushed as "good" and "normal."

In terms of "fake news," it's hard to beat the mainstream media and its handlers' attempts to whip up mass hysteria via unsubstantiated claims that Russian hackers working for Putin deprived Hillary of the presidency. The campaign to spark mass hysteria was launched with great precision, unleashing the overwhelming forces of endless repetition (the marketer's favorite tool) and appeals to national security authorities: The C.I.A., F.B.I, and all the other security agencies purportedly concur that Russia "hacked" (whatever that means) the U.S. election.

The intent of the campaign was painfully obvious: by wheeling out the big guns of authority without any actual evidence, the campaign's designers hoped the public would automatically assume the bizarre, outlandish claim must be "true," even though no evidence was submitted to substantiate this fact-free claim, and respond as planned, i.e. willingly join a mass hysteria herd in favor of discrediting the U.S.election results.


Did the "hackers" change the election results issued by voting machines? Did they "hack" the election totals? Wouldn't there be tell-tale forensic evidence of such tampering? How else could "hackers" change the election other than by changing votes and vote totals?

Or was the media campaign to generate mass hysteria based on nothing but purposefully vague and unsubstantiated claims of Russia-inspired "fake news" that undermined the election by questioning the mainstream media's biased coverage of the presidential campaign?

"Fake news" is of course the staple of marketing products that end up killing the unwary consumers who buy the hype. The classic example is the cigarette/ tobacco industry, which ran adverts for decades proclaiming absurdities such as the health benefits of smoking (other than dying a horrible, needless death), the "fact" that doctors preferred one brand of cigarette over the other brands, and so on.

The industry famously went to truly monumental lengths to hide the facts about the destructive consequences of smoking from the public, and aggressively attacked any evidence that smoking was remarkably unhealthy as "unscientific," i.e. beating back the truth with The Big Lie.

That a form of consumption that killed the consumers was unquestionably accepted not just as "normal" but as cool/hip for decades illustrates the staying power of induced insanity. Mass hysteria eventually wears off, as it overloads the emotional circuitry of the target audience; humans soon become desensitized to the triggers used to generate mass hysteria, and it takes heavier and heavier doses of propaganda to maintain the feverishly herd-inducing hysteria.

Eventually, the populace habituates to the stimulus and becomes exhausted by the hysteria.

Induced Insanity, on the other hand, is not an emotional state--it is a state of mind and a state of perception that filters and interprets inputs to produce the desired output-- an acceptance of insanity as "normal" and "good."

- Source, ZeroHedge, Read More Here

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

The Global Economy Will Disintegrate Rapidly, Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate Are Doomed


To understand gold and silver, one must understand energy. Precious metals investors who do not understand the energy predicament we are soon to face, may sell their gold and silver prematurely… believing business as usual will continue for many years in our highly manipulated markets.


Friday, December 16, 2016

India & THE GOLD CONSPIRACY – Jim Willie


The Golden Jackass exposes the golden conspiracy. Jim Willie says we are witnessing a disconnect between the paper and physical prices of gold...


Sunday, December 11, 2016

Trump & The Next Recession – Mike Maloney and David Morgan


David Morgan and Mike Maloney, two of the greatest minds in the precious metals space sit down together and discuss the future of the economy going forward under a Trump presidency. Are rosy times ahead, or is a major recession coming our way?

Subscribe to our Free Gold & Silver Financial Newsletter