Month: February 2017

Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued

Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued

  • Cost of Best Picture winners show very significant devaluation of the dollar
  • Average cost to make an Oscar winning film is over $43 million – in gold terms, this is over 106,000 ounces
  • Four $15 million films show nearly 100% difference when priced in gold ounces
  • Oscar fiasco was courtesy of error by accountants PWC
  • Whilst the price of the films remained the same, the cost in gold ounces fell from 11.53% of the cost to make the Departed, in 2009 to just 6.4% in 2012
  • In an error prone, irrational and volatile world, gold retains value over time …

snip20170227_4

The Oscars – the drama of the dollar

Oscars night seemingly sent Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway a bit La La as they declared the wrong film the winner of the Best Picture Award at the Oscars, last night.

Instead of announcing ‘Moonlight’ as the winner of the industry’s highest accolade, they read out ‘La La Land’. Cue a few awkward moments, no doubt some heads rolling behind the scenes of the Dolby Theatre and a Daily Mail headline of ‘FAKE OSCARS FIASCO.’

Which it wasn’t really, just a bit odd after a very slick night.

Moonlight was the story of a man who grows up unsure and occasionally uncomfortable about who he is. La La Land is a musical love story about a couple trying to make it in LA – a city known for destroying hopes and throwing many hopefuls to the wayside. Both narratives are not unfamiliar to the world in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately our world is not a fantasy and will certainly not be done with our attentions in just over two hours.

When we wrote about the Oscars last week, we asked if they were Worth Their Weight in Gold and concluded that whilst we might dream in gold just like the glitterati, perhaps gold bullion would be a better investment for most of us. We showed that the price of gold has climbed 60 times ever since the first ceremony in 1929, a sobering example of the devaluation of fiat currencies in the last 88 years.

Whilst we think the devaluation of the dollar, and the maintained value of gold is the lesson to take away, there are a number of different lessons actors, directors and studios would like the critics and viewers to believe they can draw from their masterpieces. For some this is about the big bucks and box office numbers, and how they can make or break a film.

We agree, today there a few examples around that really show how little value the dollar carries.

Now that we are on the other side of the most 89th Academy Awards we take a look at what we can learn from last night’s behemoth that was the Oscars and the films that they work to honour.

Cost of making Best Picture

 In the last twenty years, the average cost to make an Oscar winning film is over $43 million. In gold terms it is over 106,000 ounces.

The above graph doesn’t mean very much though, just that the cost of films go up and down, no matter what currency you decide to price it in.

In the decade of the financial crisis, this has come down somewhat and the average is more like $27 million, or 29,600 ounces. This statistic alone shows you how the dollar is falling in real value. Whilst the average cost in US Dollars to make a winning film is 60% in the last decade, compared to the average in the last 20 years, it is just 27% of the 20 year average when priced in gold ounces.

When you rebase to 100, using 2007 as the base year, then you begin to see some interesting results. Conveniently, Martin Scorcese’s 2007 The Departed is the most expensive Best Picture film in the last decade, cost ing $90 million. This was equal to just over 150,000 ounces of gold. No film since then has cost as much. Lincoln was close, costing just 72% of the price of Scorcese’s epic gangster film, but interestingly when priced in gold it cost just 26% percent of the Departed’s gold budget, with 39,000 ounces needed to fund the biopic.

snip20170227_3

The $15 million question

Perhaps as a sign of the times, Best Picture winners have been getting cheaper in recent years. Moonlight cost just $5 million to make, the lowest price for a winning film in at least two decades. It was also the cheapest in terms of gold ounces, costing just 3,997 ounces.

It is when we look at years when films are significantly cheaper that we see real evidence of gold’s purchasing power in the land of stars. Between 2009 and 2012 each Best Picture winner cost $15 million. This is 17% of the cost to make The Departed. One unfamiliar with gold’s ability to hold value would probably think that it costs a similar amount in gold ounces, but unsurprisingly this is not the case.

Whilst the price of the films remained the same, the cost in gold ounces fell from 11.53% of the cost to make the Departed, in 2009 to to just 6.4% in 2012.

snip20170227_2

One can easily conclude that had film financiers bought gold at the start of the financial crisis then there films would have cost far less to make.

Does more money mean more gold?

One would assume that when we hear phrases such as ‘the highest grossing film of all time’, then it’s something Donald Trump would say and you would wonder if it was true or not…or in this day and age maybe you would believe that it is actually the highest grossing film of all time. But when you look at the box office takings in terms of real money, gold, then it tells a different story and this is a case of FAKE NEWS!

Really? Hollywood lied? Yes, we can prove it.

The King’s Speech made the most fiat money at the Box Office in the last ten years, nearly 29% more than the Departed (which comes in second). But it only made 63% of the Departed’s takings, when priced in gold. This means it made less in gold ounces, than the Departed, and yet fiat currencies would have us believe that it was nearly 30% more successful.

This year’s winner, Moonlight, was not only the cheapest film to win in the last decade, but also the lowest in terms of takings. This is true for both dollars and gold ounces. However the percentage difference is drastically different – by over 100%.

Moonlight made 7.4% of the amount the Departed made in 2007 when priced in USD. But when it comes to gold it made just 3.6% of the Departed’s takings.
snip20170227_1

 


Conclusion – Never trust the favourite…or an accountant … or fiat currencies …

For all of Reagan’s and now, Donald Trump’s talk about ‘draining the swamp’ it seems that maybe Hollywood needs to perhaps consider doing the same. The fault of the Oscar mishap was courtesy of big accountancy firm Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Just a few days ago Martha Ruiz and Brian Cullina, the two PWC bods responsible for handing the correct envelopes to the presenters were interviewed about their roles as the only individuals who know the results before the winners do.

Cullina told the Art and Science blog, “The producers decide what the order of the awards will be. We each have a full set. I have all 24 envelopes in my briefcase; Martha has all 24 in hers. We stand on opposite sides of the stage, right off-screen, for the entire evening, and we each hand the respective envelope to the presenter. It doesn’t sound very complicated, but you have to make sure you’re giving the presenter the right envelope.”

Turns out that it wasn’t as simple as they were hoping to be, hence three producers thanking wives and families for supporting them in making a film that it turned out didn’t win the most coveted Oscar.

The speeches of the losing side were all about how this shows that dreams really can come true. How ironic. It seems a good analogy for what we see today, false investment hopes and false monetary rewards that can ultimately be ripped away on a moments’ notice thanks to some silly administration error by a firm or bank who isn’t held accountable.

The difference with physical gold bullion bars and coins is that it can’t just be made to disappear. You don’t have to worry about a counter party making a mistake and vanishing your hard earned rewards and wealth into thin air.

But, this can be tough to believe when gold is consistently downplayed by the mainstream.

For the last three years the bookies’ favourite has failed to spark the interest of Academy voters when it comes to the Best Picture Award. Boyhood in 2015, The Revenant in 2016, and now La La Land have each been touted as winners but have been left disappointed on the night.

This is very much reflective of the mainstream’s approach to gold. It is consistently dismissed as something that is a bit too kooky to do well and one shouldn’t focus on it in the long-term, instead we should look at stock markets and big tech companies and definitely save in fiat currencies like the dollar, the pound and the euro.

But, as our analysis shows, gold has been the consistent winner alongside all of those Big Picture winners, underdogs or not.

Billion of dollars are ploughed into these films, whether they are huge A-list casts or made up of Indie newbies. While the dollar cost of movies has been falling in recent years – in real terms – in gold terms the cost is rising.

Movie producers, companies and investors should consider owning physical gold in order to hedge the declining value of the dollar and other fiat currencies.

Whilst the price of gold, like any tradeable asset or currency does fluctuate, analyses such as ours above shows that gold retains value over the long term.

Sign Up Here For Gold News, Research & Special Offers

 

Gold and Silver Bullion – News and Commentary

Gold holds near 3-1/2 mth highs; Trump economic policy in focus (Reuters)

Gold prices extend 2017 gains, rally looking robust (Bulliondesk)

Gold and Silver had a very good week (FX Street)

How a Tiny Gold Fund and TV Treasure Hunter Got Out-Sized Return (Bloomberg)

Greek central bank holds 5.26 bln euros of gold, half stored abroad (Times of India)

How France scrapping the euro could go beyond a ‘Lehman moment’ (CNBC)

President Trump: Replace The Dollar With Gold As The Global Currency To Make America Great Again (Forbes)

Bullish as Gold rallies in face of expected Fed rate hikes (Scrap Register)

Back From Never Gone: CURRENCY WARS (Zero Hedge)

Safe havens of gold, yen and Treasuries perform well with equities holding on (FX Street )

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

27 Feb: USD 1,256.25, GBP 1,011.16 & EUR 1,187.41 per ounce
24 Feb: USD 1,255.35, GBP 1,000.89 & EUR 1,185.18 per ounce
23 Feb: USD 1,237.35, GBP 992.97 & EUR 1,173.13 per ounce
22 Feb: USD 1,237.50, GBP 994.21 & EUR 1,178.22 per ounce
21 Feb: USD 1,228.70, GBP 988.86 & EUR 1,166.16 per ounce
20 Feb: USD 1,235.35, GBP 991.49 & EUR 1,163.21 per ounce
17 Feb: USD 1,241.40, GBP 1,000.57 & EUR 1,165.55 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

27 Feb: USD 18.34, GBP 14.77 & EUR 17.33 per ounce
24 Feb: USD 18.27, GBP 14.56 & EUR 17.23 per ounce
23 Feb: USD 18.00, GBP 14.42 & EUR 17.06 per ounce
22 Feb: USD 18.00, GBP 14.47 & EUR 17.14 per ounce
21 Feb: USD 17.89, GBP 14.41 & EUR 16.97 per ounce
20 Feb: USD 17.98, GBP 14.42 & EUR 16.92 per ounce
17 Feb: USD 18.01, GBP 14.50 & EUR 16.91 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

– Gold Up 9% YTD – 4th Higher Weekly Close and Breaks Resistance At $1,250/oz
– The Oscars – Worth Their Weight in Gold?
– Gold To Benefit from Rising Inflation and Higher Than “Official” China Gold Demand
– Russia Gold Buying Is Back – Buys One Million Ounces In January
– Gold The “Ultimate Insurance Policy” as “Grave Concerns About Euro” – Greenspan
– Sharia Standard May See Gold Surge
– Gold Price To 2 Month High As Fiery Trump Declares World Order
– Gold’s Gains 15% In Inauguration Years Since 1974
– Turkey, ‘Axis of Gold’ and the End of US Dollar Hegemony
– Gold Up 5.5% YTD – Hard Brexit Cometh and Weaker Dollar Under Trump
– Bitcoin and Gold – Outlook and Safe Haven?
– Physical Gold Will ‘Trump’ Paper Gold
– Gold Lower Before Trump Presidency – Strong Gains Akin To After Obama Inauguration

Interested in learning more about physical gold and silver?
Call GoldCore and speak with a Gold and Silver Specialist today!

via http://ift.tt/2lqN19W GoldCore

Core Durable Goods Orders Tumble Most Since June, Shipments Slump

While the headline durable goods oders print beat expectation (rising 1.8% MoM in Jan) – thanks to a considerable downward revision in December – the core orders and shipments disappointed markedly and declined in all cases.  Core durable Goods Orders fell most since June and Shipments fell most since July as it appears 'hard' data drastically disappoints relative to 'soft' data expectations.

Core Durable Goods Orders declined… (-0.2% MoM vs +0.5% Exp)

 

As once again the headline beat was all airplanes – military and civilian:

  • Defense aircraft and parts +59.9%
  • Non-defense aircraft and parts +69.9% 

And Core Capital Goods Shipments tumbled… (-0.6% vs +0.2% exp)

via http://ift.tt/2lMekyb Tyler Durden

Behold – The Dow Jones Non-Industrial Average

With The Dow Jones Industrial Average trading almost 50% higher than its 2007 peak, we thought it ironic that core Industrial durable goods orders remain well below the peak in 2008, once again suggesting that it may be time to drop the "Industrial" part from the name of the famous index.

 

NOTE: the decoupling between stocks and the real economy began to become obvious in late 2012/early 2013 – after QE3 was announced.

via http://ift.tt/2lqReui Tyler Durden

Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued

Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued

  • Cost of Best Picture winners show very significant devaluation of the dollar
  • Average cost to make an Oscar winning film is over $43 million – in gold terms, this is over 106,000 ounces
  • Four $15 million films show nearly 100% difference when priced in gold ounces
  • Oscar fiasco was courtesy of error by accountants PWC
  • Whilst the price of the films remained the same, the cost in gold ounces fell from 11.53% of the cost to make the Departed, in 2009 to just 6.4% in 2012
  • In an error prone, irrational and volatile world, gold retains value over time …

snip20170227_4

The Oscars – the drama of the dollar

Oscars night seemingly sent Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway a bit La La as they declared the wrong film the winner of the Best Picture Award at the Oscars, last night.

Instead of announcing ‘Moonlight’ as the winner of the industry’s highest accolade, they read out ‘La La Land’. Cue a few awkward moments, no doubt some heads rolling behind the scenes of the Dolby Theatre and a Daily Mail headline of ‘FAKE OSCARS FIASCO.’

Which it wasn’t really, just a bit odd after a very slick night.

Moonlight was the story of a man who grows up unsure and occasionally uncomfortable about who he is. La La Land is a musical love story about a couple trying to make it in LA – a city known for destroying hopes and throwing many hopefuls to the wayside. Both narratives are not unfamiliar to the world in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately our world is not a fantasy and will certainly not be done with our attentions in just over two hours.

When we wrote about the Oscars last week, we asked if they were Worth Their Weight in Gold and concluded that whilst we might dream in gold just like the glitterati, perhaps gold bullion would be a better investment for most of us. We showed that the price of gold has climbed 60 times ever since the first ceremony in 1929, a sobering example of the devaluation of fiat currencies in the last 88 years.

Whilst we think the devaluation of the dollar, and the maintained value of gold is the lesson to take away, there are a number of different lessons actors, directors and studios would like the critics and viewers to believe they can draw from their masterpieces. For some this is about the big bucks and box office numbers, and how they can make or break a film.

We agree, today there a few examples around that really show how little value the dollar carries.

Now that we are on the other side of the most 89th Academy Awards we take a look at what we can learn from last night’s behemoth that was the Oscars and the films that they work to honour.

Cost of making Best Picture

 In the last twenty years, the average cost to make an Oscar winning film is over $43 million. In gold terms it is over 106,000 ounces.

The above graph doesn’t mean very much though, just that the cost of films go up and down, no matter what currency you decide to price it in.

In the decade of the financial crisis, this has come down somewhat and the average is more like $27 million, or 29,600 ounces. This statistic alone shows you how the dollar is falling in real value. Whilst the average cost in US Dollars to make a winning film is 60% in the last decade, compared to the average in the last 20 years, it is just 27% of the 20 year average when priced in gold ounces.

When you rebase to 100, using 2007 as the base year, then you begin to see some interesting results. Conveniently, Martin Scorcese’s 2007 The Departed is the most expensive Best Picture film in the last decade, cost ing $90 million. This was equal to just over 150,000 ounces of gold. No film since then has cost as much. Lincoln was close, costing just 72% of the price of Scorcese’s epic gangster film, but interestingly when priced in gold it cost just 26% percent of the Departed’s gold budget, with 39,000 ounces needed to fund the biopic.

snip20170227_3

The $15 million question

Perhaps as a sign of the times, Best Picture winners have been getting cheaper in recent years. Moonlight cost just $5 million to make, the lowest price for a winning film in at least two decades. It was also the cheapest in terms of gold ounces, costing just 3,997 ounces.

It is when we look at years when films are significantly cheaper that we see real evidence of gold’s purchasing power in the land of stars. Between 2009 and 2012 each Best Picture winner cost $15 million. This is 17% of the cost to make The Departed. One unfamiliar with gold’s ability to hold value would probably think that it costs a similar amount in gold ounces, but unsurprisingly this is not the case.

Whilst the price of the films remained the same, the cost in gold ounces fell from 11.53% of the cost to make the Departed, in 2009 to to just 6.4% in 2012.

snip20170227_2

One can easily conclude that had film financiers bought gold at the start of the financial crisis then there films would have cost far less to make.

Does more money mean more gold?

One would assume that when we hear phrases such as ‘the highest grossing film of all time’, then it’s something Donald Trump would say and you would wonder if it was true or not…or in this day and age maybe you would believe that it is actually the highest grossing film of all time. But when you look at the box office takings in terms of real money, gold, then it tells a different story and this is a case of FAKE NEWS!

Really? Hollywood lied? Yes, we can prove it.

The King’s Speech made the most fiat money at the Box Office in the last ten years, nearly 29% more than the Departed (which comes in second). But it only made 63% of the Departed’s takings, when priced in gold. This means it made less in gold ounces, than the Departed, and yet fiat currencies would have us believe that it was nearly 30% more successful.

This year’s winner, Moonlight, was not only the cheapest film to win in the last decade, but also the lowest in terms of takings. This is true for both dollars and gold ounces. However the percentage difference is drastically different – by over 100%.

Moonlight made 7.4% of the amount the Departed made in 2007 when priced in USD. But when it comes to gold it made just 3.6% of the Departed’s takings.
snip20170227_1

 


Conclusion – Never trust the favourite…or an accountant … or fiat currencies …

For all of Reagan’s and now, Donald Trump’s talk about ‘draining the swamp’ it seems that maybe Hollywood needs to perhaps consider doing the same. The fault of the Oscar mishap was courtesy of big accountancy firm Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Just a few days ago Martha Ruiz and Brian Cullina, the two PWC bods responsible for handing the correct envelopes to the presenters were interviewed about their roles as the only individuals who know the results before the winners do.

Cullina told the Art and Science blog, “The producers decide what the order of the awards will be. We each have a full set. I have all 24 envelopes in my briefcase; Martha has all 24 in hers. We stand on opposite sides of the stage, right off-screen, for the entire evening, and we each hand the respective envelope to the presenter. It doesn’t sound very complicated, but you have to make sure you’re giving the presenter the right envelope.”

Turns out that it wasn’t as simple as they were hoping to be, hence three producers thanking wives and families for supporting them in making a film that it turned out didn’t win the most coveted Oscar.

The speeches of the losing side were all about how this shows that dreams really can come true. How ironic. It seems a good analogy for what we see today, false investment hopes and false monetary rewards that can ultimately be ripped away on a moments’ notice thanks to some silly administration error by a firm or bank who isn’t held accountable.

The difference with physical gold bullion bars and coins is that it can’t just be made to disappear. You don’t have to worry about a counter party making a mistake and vanishing your hard earned rewards and wealth into thin air.

But, this can be tough to believe when gold is consistently downplayed by the mainstream.

For the last three years the bookies’ favourite has failed to spark the interest of Academy voters when it comes to the Best Picture Award. Boyhood in 2015, The Revenant in 2016, and now La La Land have each been touted as winners but have been left disappointed on the night.

This is very much reflective of the mainstream’s approach to gold. It is consistently dismissed as something that is a bit too kooky to do well and one shouldn’t focus on it in the long-term, instead we should look at stock markets and big tech companies and definitely save in fiat currencies like the dollar, the pound and the euro.

But, as our analysis shows, gold has been the consistent winner alongside all of those Big Picture winners, underdogs or not.

Billion of dollars are ploughed into these films, whether they are huge A-list casts or made up of Indie newbies. While the dollar cost of movies has been falling in recent years – in real terms – in gold terms the cost is rising.

Movie producers, companies and investors should consider owning physical gold in order to hedge the declining value of the dollar and other fiat currencies.

Whilst the price of gold, like any tradeable asset or currency does fluctuate, analyses such as ours above shows that gold retains value over the long term.

Sign Up Here For Gold News, Research & Special Offers

 

Gold and Silver Bullion – News and Commentary

Gold holds near 3-1/2 mth highs; Trump economic policy in focus (Reuters)

Gold prices extend 2017 gains, rally looking robust (Bulliondesk)

Gold and Silver had a very good week (FX Street)

How a Tiny Gold Fund and TV Treasure Hunter Got Out-Sized Return (Bloomberg)

Greek central bank holds 5.26 bln euros of gold, half stored abroad (Times of India)

How France scrapping the euro could go beyond a ‘Lehman moment’ (CNBC)

President Trump: Replace The Dollar With Gold As The Global Currency To Make America Great Again (Forbes)

Bullish as Gold rallies in face of expected Fed rate hikes (Scrap Register)

Back From Never Gone: CURRENCY WARS (Zero Hedge)

Safe havens of gold, yen and Treasuries perform well with equities holding on (FX Street )

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

27 Feb: USD 1,256.25, GBP 1,011.16 & EUR 1,187.41 per ounce
24 Feb: USD 1,255.35, GBP 1,000.89 & EUR 1,185.18 per ounce
23 Feb: USD 1,237.35, GBP 992.97 & EUR 1,173.13 per ounce
22 Feb: USD 1,237.50, GBP 994.21 & EUR 1,178.22 per ounce
21 Feb: USD 1,228.70, GBP 988.86 & EUR 1,166.16 per ounce
20 Feb: USD 1,235.35, GBP 991.49 & EUR 1,163.21 per ounce
17 Feb: USD 1,241.40, GBP 1,000.57 & EUR 1,165.55 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

27 Feb: USD 18.34, GBP 14.77 & EUR 17.33 per ounce
24 Feb: USD 18.27, GBP 14.56 & EUR 17.23 per ounce
23 Feb: USD 18.00, GBP 14.42 & EUR 17.06 per ounce
22 Feb: USD 18.00, GBP 14.47 & EUR 17.14 per ounce
21 Feb: USD 17.89, GBP 14.41 & EUR 16.97 per ounce
20 Feb: USD 17.98, GBP 14.42 & EUR 16.92 per ounce
17 Feb: USD 18.01, GBP 14.50 & EUR 16.91 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

– Gold Up 9% YTD – 4th Higher Weekly Close and Breaks Resistance At $1,250/oz
– The Oscars – Worth Their Weight in Gold?
– Gold To Benefit from Rising Inflation and Higher Than “Official” China Gold Demand
– Russia Gold Buying Is Back – Buys One Million Ounces In January
– Gold The “Ultimate Insurance Policy” as “Grave Concerns About Euro” – Greenspan
– Sharia Standard May See Gold Surge
– Gold Price To 2 Month High As Fiery Trump Declares World Order
– Gold’s Gains 15% In Inauguration Years Since 1974
– Turkey, ‘Axis of Gold’ and the End of US Dollar Hegemony
– Gold Up 5.5% YTD – Hard Brexit Cometh and Weaker Dollar Under Trump
– Bitcoin and Gold – Outlook and Safe Haven?
– Physical Gold Will ‘Trump’ Paper Gold
– Gold Lower Before Trump Presidency – Strong Gains Akin To After Obama Inauguration

Interested in learning more about physical gold and silver?
Call GoldCore and speak with a Gold and Silver Specialist today!

via http://ift.tt/2lqN19W GoldCore

Core Durable Goods Orders Tumble Most Since June, Shipments Slump

While the headline durable goods oders print beat expectation (rising 1.8% MoM in Jan) – thanks to a considerable downward revision in December – the core orders and shipments disappointed markedly and declined in all cases.  Core durable Goods Orders fell most since June and Shipments fell most since July as it appears 'hard' data drastically disappoints relative to 'soft' data expectations.

Core Durable Goods Orders declined… (-0.2% MoM vs +0.5% Exp)

 

As once again the headline beat was all airplanes – military and civilian:

  • Defense aircraft and parts +59.9%
  • Non-defense aircraft and parts +69.9% 

And Core Capital Goods Shipments tumbled… (-0.6% vs +0.2% exp)

via http://ift.tt/2lMekyb Tyler Durden

Fifty Years After Titicut Follies, Frederick Wiseman Collects an Oscar

The big news from the Oscars last night was the snafu at the evening’s end, when the presenters accidentally announced the wrong winner for Best Picture. But the night before that, at the Saturday ceremony where they handed out honorary Oscars, another moment worth noting slipped by: An Oscar statuette went to the man who directed the only movie in U.S. history to be banned for reasons other than obscenity or national security. The filmmaker in question was Frederick Wiseman, and the film that was banned is Titicut Follies, a 1967 documentary about an asylum for the criminally insane. The state of Massachusetts attempted to suppress the picture on the grounds that by exposing the inmates’ miserable conditions, Wiseman was violating the prisoners’ privacy.

Many of Wiseman’s best-known pictures look at life in intensely bureaucratic or hierarchical institutions—besides Titicut Follies, there’s High School, Hospital, Basic Training, Juvenile Court, and Welfare, among others—but he has also covered topics ranging from a small town in Maine to a department store. I interviewed him for Reason when Titicut turned 40, and we discussed both his free speech case and the career it kicked off. Here’s an excerpt:

Reason: There’s a recent trend toward documentaries in which the filmmaker makes himself a part of the action. Obviously that’s very different from your style. Sicko and Hospital are both about American health care, but their approaches are just poles apart.

Wiseman: Well, I haven’t seen Sicko, but generally speaking I’m not a fan of Michael Moore’s.

Reason: How come?

Wiseman: I think he’s an entertainer. I don’t think he’s interested in complexity.

I’m not against the filmmaker appearing in a film. I think some of the greatest documentaries I’ve ever seen have been made by a filmmaker who’s present in the film. I don’t know if you’ve seen any movies by Marcel Ophuls—The Sorrow and the Pity or Hotel Terminus. Ophuls is a great filmmaker because he’s a great interviewer and he has a very sharp and analytical mind. In the case of Michael Moore, I don’t see any particular filmmaking skills, and I think his point of view is extremely simplistic and self-serving.

One of my goals is always to deal with the ambiguity and complexity that I find in any subject. Even the simplest human act can be subject to multiple interpretations or have multiple causes. In Titicut Follies, for example, there are scenes where you see a guard or a doctor or a social worker being cruel to an inmate. But there are other situations where they’re being kind. Some of them are both kind and cruel, if not simultaneously then serially.

Reason: You’ve said Titicut Follies is more didactic than your later films. Are there sequences you wish you had done differently?

Wiseman: Yeah. The best example is the forced feeding. I show too heavy an editorial hand in that sequence. Instead of intercutting it with the guy being made up for his funeral, it would have been better if I’d shown the forced feeding as a separate sequence, and then had some intervening sequences, and then shown him being made up for his burial later and cutting it in such a way that you recognize that it’s the same person.

I think the way I did it forces the issue of whether the guy is treated better in death than in life. Whereas if I did it the way I just described, the viewer could have come to that conclusion instead of having it forced on him.

To read the whole interview, go here. If you just want to see the wrong movie get called for Best Picture, go here. (But really, doesn’t the wrong movie almost always win Best Picture? This time they were just a bit more upfront about it.)

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2lYahiH
via IFTTT

Behold – The Dow Jones Non-Industrial Average

With The Dow Jones Industrial Average trading almost 50% higher than its 2007 peak, we thought it ironic that core Industrial durable goods orders remain well below the peak in 2008, once again suggesting that it may be time to drop the "Industrial" part from the name of the famous index.

 

NOTE: the decoupling between stocks and the real economy began to become obvious in late 2012/early 2013 – after QE3 was announced.

via http://ift.tt/2lqReui Tyler Durden

Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued

Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued

  • Cost of Best Picture winners show very significant devaluation of the dollar
  • Average cost to make an Oscar winning film is over $43 million – in gold terms, this is over 106,000 ounces
  • Four $15 million films show nearly 100% difference when priced in gold ounces
  • Oscar fiasco was courtesy of error by accountants PWC
  • Whilst the price of the films remained the same, the cost in gold ounces fell from 11.53% of the cost to make the Departed, in 2009 to just 6.4% in 2012
  • In an error prone, irrational and volatile world, gold retains value over time …

snip20170227_4

The Oscars – the drama of the dollar

Oscars night seemingly sent Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway a bit La La as they declared the wrong film the winner of the Best Picture Award at the Oscars, last night.

Instead of announcing ‘Moonlight’ as the winner of the industry’s highest accolade, they read out ‘La La Land’. Cue a few awkward moments, no doubt some heads rolling behind the scenes of the Dolby Theatre and a Daily Mail headline of ‘FAKE OSCARS FIASCO.’

Which it wasn’t really, just a bit odd after a very slick night.

Moonlight was the story of a man who grows up unsure and occasionally uncomfortable about who he is. La La Land is a musical love story about a couple trying to make it in LA – a city known for destroying hopes and throwing many hopefuls to the wayside. Both narratives are not unfamiliar to the world in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately our world is not a fantasy and will certainly not be done with our attentions in just over two hours.

When we wrote about the Oscars last week, we asked if they were Worth Their Weight in Gold and concluded that whilst we might dream in gold just like the glitterati, perhaps gold bullion would be a better investment for most of us. We showed that the price of gold has climbed 60 times ever since the first ceremony in 1929, a sobering example of the devaluation of fiat currencies in the last 88 years.

Whilst we think the devaluation of the dollar, and the maintained value of gold is the lesson to take away, there are a number of different lessons actors, directors and studios would like the critics and viewers to believe they can draw from their masterpieces. For some this is about the big bucks and box office numbers, and how they can make or break a film.

We agree, today there a few examples around that really show how little value the dollar carries.

Now that we are on the other side of the most 89th Academy Awards we take a look at what we can learn from last night’s behemoth that was the Oscars and the films that they work to honour.

Cost of making Best Picture

 In the last twenty years, the average cost to make an Oscar winning film is over $43 million. In gold terms it is over 106,000 ounces.

The above graph doesn’t mean very much though, just that the cost of films go up and down, no matter what currency you decide to price it in.

In the decade of the financial crisis, this has come down somewhat and the average is more like $27 million, or 29,600 ounces. This statistic alone shows you how the dollar is falling in real value. Whilst the average cost in US Dollars to make a winning film is 60% in the last decade, compared to the average in the last 20 years, it is just 27% of the 20 year average when priced in gold ounces.

When you rebase to 100, using 2007 as the base year, then you begin to see some interesting results. Conveniently, Martin Scorcese’s 2007 The Departed is the most expensive Best Picture film in the last decade, cost ing $90 million. This was equal to just over 150,000 ounces of gold. No film since then has cost as much. Lincoln was close, costing just 72% of the price of Scorcese’s epic gangster film, but interestingly when priced in gold it cost just 26% percent of the Departed’s gold budget, with 39,000 ounces needed to fund the biopic.

snip20170227_3

The $15 million question

Perhaps as a sign of the times, Best Picture winners have been getting cheaper in recent years. Moonlight cost just $5 million to make, the lowest price for a winning film in at least two decades. It was also the cheapest in terms of gold ounces, costing just 3,997 ounces.

It is when we look at years when films are significantly cheaper that we see real evidence of gold’s purchasing power in the land of stars. Between 2009 and 2012 each Best Picture winner cost $15 million. This is 17% of the cost to make The Departed. One unfamiliar with gold’s ability to hold value would probably think that it costs a similar amount in gold ounces, but unsurprisingly this is not the case.

Whilst the price of the films remained the same, the cost in gold ounces fell from 11.53% of the cost to make the Departed, in 2009 to to just 6.4% in 2012.

snip20170227_2

One can easily conclude that had film financiers bought gold at the start of the financial crisis then there films would have cost far less to make.

Does more money mean more gold?

One would assume that when we hear phrases such as ‘the highest grossing film of all time’, then it’s something Donald Trump would say and you would wonder if it was true or not…or in this day and age maybe you would believe that it is actually the highest grossing film of all time. But when you look at the box office takings in terms of real money, gold, then it tells a different story and this is a case of FAKE NEWS!

Really? Hollywood lied? Yes, we can prove it.

The King’s Speech made the most fiat money at the Box Office in the last ten years, nearly 29% more than the Departed (which comes in second). But it only made 63% of the Departed’s takings, when priced in gold. This means it made less in gold ounces, than the Departed, and yet fiat currencies would have us believe that it was nearly 30% more successful.

This year’s winner, Moonlight, was not only the cheapest film to win in the last decade, but also the lowest in terms of takings. This is true for both dollars and gold ounces. However the percentage difference is drastically different – by over 100%.

Moonlight made 7.4% of the amount the Departed made in 2007 when priced in USD. But when it comes to gold it made just 3.6% of the Departed’s takings.
snip20170227_1

 


Conclusion – Never trust the favourite…or an accountant … or fiat currencies …

For all of Reagan’s and now, Donald Trump’s talk about ‘draining the swamp’ it seems that maybe Hollywood needs to perhaps consider doing the same. The fault of the Oscar mishap was courtesy of big accountancy firm Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Just a few days ago Martha Ruiz and Brian Cullina, the two PWC bods responsible for handing the correct envelopes to the presenters were interviewed about their roles as the only individuals who know the results before the winners do.

Cullina told the Art and Science blog, “The producers decide what the order of the awards will be. We each have a full set. I have all 24 envelopes in my briefcase; Martha has all 24 in hers. We stand on opposite sides of the stage, right off-screen, for the entire evening, and we each hand the respective envelope to the presenter. It doesn’t sound very complicated, but you have to make sure you’re giving the presenter the right envelope.”

Turns out that it wasn’t as simple as they were hoping to be, hence three producers thanking wives and families for supporting them in making a film that it turned out didn’t win the most coveted Oscar.

The speeches of the losing side were all about how this shows that dreams really can come true. How ironic. It seems a good analogy for what we see today, false investment hopes and false monetary rewards that can ultimately be ripped away on a moments’ notice thanks to some silly administration error by a firm or bank who isn’t held accountable.

The difference with physical gold bullion bars and coins is that it can’t just be made to disappear. You don’t have to worry about a counter party making a mistake and vanishing your hard earned rewards and wealth into thin air.

But, this can be tough to believe when gold is consistently downplayed by the mainstream.

For the last three years the bookies’ favourite has failed to spark the interest of Academy voters when it comes to the Best Picture Award. Boyhood in 2015, The Revenant in 2016, and now La La Land have each been touted as winners but have been left disappointed on the night.

This is very much reflective of the mainstream’s approach to gold. It is consistently dismissed as something that is a bit too kooky to do well and one shouldn’t focus on it in the long-term, instead we should look at stock markets and big tech companies and definitely save in fiat currencies like the dollar, the pound and the euro.

But, as our analysis shows, gold has been the consistent winner alongside all of those Big Picture winners, underdogs or not.

Billion of dollars are ploughed into these films, whether they are huge A-list casts or made up of Indie newbies. While the dollar cost of movies has been falling in recent years – in real terms – in gold terms the cost is rising.

Movie producers, companies and investors should consider owning physical gold in order to hedge the declining value of the dollar and other fiat currencies.

Whilst the price of gold, like any tradeable asset or currency does fluctuate, analyses such as ours above shows that gold retains value over the long term.

Sign Up Here For Gold News, Research & Special Offers

 

Gold and Silver Bullion – News and Commentary

Gold holds near 3-1/2 mth highs; Trump economic policy in focus (Reuters)

Gold prices extend 2017 gains, rally looking robust (Bulliondesk)

Gold and Silver had a very good week (FX Street)

How a Tiny Gold Fund and TV Treasure Hunter Got Out-Sized Return (Bloomberg)

Greek central bank holds 5.26 bln euros of gold, half stored abroad (Times of India)

How France scrapping the euro could go beyond a ‘Lehman moment’ (CNBC)

President Trump: Replace The Dollar With Gold As The Global Currency To Make America Great Again (Forbes)

Bullish as Gold rallies in face of expected Fed rate hikes (Scrap Register)

Back From Never Gone: CURRENCY WARS (Zero Hedge)

Safe havens of gold, yen and Treasuries perform well with equities holding on (FX Street )

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

27 Feb: USD 1,256.25, GBP 1,011.16 & EUR 1,187.41 per ounce
24 Feb: USD 1,255.35, GBP 1,000.89 & EUR 1,185.18 per ounce
23 Feb: USD 1,237.35, GBP 992.97 & EUR 1,173.13 per ounce
22 Feb: USD 1,237.50, GBP 994.21 & EUR 1,178.22 per ounce
21 Feb: USD 1,228.70, GBP 988.86 & EUR 1,166.16 per ounce
20 Feb: USD 1,235.35, GBP 991.49 & EUR 1,163.21 per ounce
17 Feb: USD 1,241.40, GBP 1,000.57 & EUR 1,165.55 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

27 Feb: USD 18.34, GBP 14.77 & EUR 17.33 per ounce
24 Feb: USD 18.27, GBP 14.56 & EUR 17.23 per ounce
23 Feb: USD 18.00, GBP 14.42 & EUR 17.06 per ounce
22 Feb: USD 18.00, GBP 14.47 & EUR 17.14 per ounce
21 Feb: USD 17.89, GBP 14.41 & EUR 16.97 per ounce
20 Feb: USD 17.98, GBP 14.42 & EUR 16.92 per ounce
17 Feb: USD 18.01, GBP 14.50 & EUR 16.91 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

– Gold Up 9% YTD – 4th Higher Weekly Close and Breaks Resistance At $1,250/oz
– The Oscars – Worth Their Weight in Gold?
– Gold To Benefit from Rising Inflation and Higher Than “Official” China Gold Demand
– Russia Gold Buying Is Back – Buys One Million Ounces In January
– Gold The “Ultimate Insurance Policy” as “Grave Concerns About Euro” – Greenspan
– Sharia Standard May See Gold Surge
– Gold Price To 2 Month High As Fiery Trump Declares World Order
– Gold’s Gains 15% In Inauguration Years Since 1974
– Turkey, ‘Axis of Gold’ and the End of US Dollar Hegemony
– Gold Up 5.5% YTD – Hard Brexit Cometh and Weaker Dollar Under Trump
– Bitcoin and Gold – Outlook and Safe Haven?
– Physical Gold Will ‘Trump’ Paper Gold
– Gold Lower Before Trump Presidency – Strong Gains Akin To After Obama Inauguration

Interested in learning more about physical gold and silver?
Call GoldCore and speak with a Gold and Silver Specialist today!

via http://ift.tt/2lqN19W GoldCore

Core Durable Goods Orders Tumble Most Since June, Shipments Slump

While the headline durable goods oders print beat expectation (rising 1.8% MoM in Jan) – thanks to a considerable downward revision in December – the core orders and shipments disappointed markedly and declined in all cases.  Core durable Goods Orders fell most since June and Shipments fell most since July as it appears 'hard' data drastically disappoints relative to 'soft' data expectations.

Core Durable Goods Orders declined… (-0.2% MoM vs +0.5% Exp)

 

As once again the headline beat was all airplanes – military and civilian:

  • Defense aircraft and parts +59.9%
  • Non-defense aircraft and parts +69.9% 

And Core Capital Goods Shipments tumbled… (-0.6% vs +0.2% exp)

via http://ift.tt/2lMekyb Tyler Durden

Foreign Policy Confusion in the Age of Trump

Two panels on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) dramatically underscore the tensions over foreign policy among conservatives in the Donald Trump era.

The first was conversation on foreign policy realism sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute (CKI) and the second was a panel on “China’s expansion.” There were a number of other panels and addresses related to foreign policy during the conservative conference, mostly focused on threats abroad, like North Korea, China, and Russia, and threats at home (from abroad), but rarely advocating constraint. (Disclosure: Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website, receives support from CKI and David Koch sits on its board of trustees).

Addressing the main hall earlier in the day on Friday, John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, defined a conservative foreign policy as one that addressed “foreign threats and ideologies and protecting American interests around the world.” The phrase “American interests” (or “national security interests”) in that statement, and statements like it, is doing a lot of work in the definition because it remains mostly undefined and therefore malleable to whatever particular agenda whoever is using it wants to advance.

At the CKI conversation, where American Conservative‘s Daniel McCarthy interviewed CKI Vice President of Research & Policy William Ruger, Ruger explained that within the context of foreign policy realism, national interests are “narrowly defined,” largely around territorial integrity. Ruger also explained that there wasn’t really such a thing as conservative foreign policy. Instead, “there are foreign policies that fit for a time, a place, a threat environment that make sense to secure a state.”

Ruger highlighted the compatibility between foreign policy realism and conservatism, saying that contemporary foreign policy suffered from Friedrich Hayek’s knowledge problem and and ignored constraints like human nature, balance of power, geography, and even unknown unknowns, relying instead on a hubris exemplified by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albrights’s statement that the U.S. stands taller and can “see further” than other countries (it can’t). “Conservatives should recognize those things,” Ruger told the audience. “because they’re fundamentally a part of realism and conservative principles.”

Ruger stressed that “isolationism and the foreign policy of the Weekly Standard” were not the only options. “There are many options between those two.” Ruger also rejected the idea that realist foreign policy was isolationist, pointing out that it relied on free trade, because of the understanding that economic power is tied to military power, and that realism would also “suggest certain views about grand strategy—the use of military power to secure our ends—but it does not say that we have to stick our head in the hands.”

“The United States should stand up in its diplomacy and rhetoric for values of democracy and liberties,” Ruger added. It should not, he explained, seek out monsters abroad to slay, pointing out that America’s founders recognized that foreign policies of meddling had the effect of threatening the experiment of liberty at home, in part by “giving up the advantages of the new world [and the constraint of geography] by getting embroiled in the old.” War, the founders understood, “would make us more like those old, corrupt European countries, and less the glorious city on a hill.”

“The United States used to have a more realist foreign policy,” Ruger explained, “From Washington’s farewell address to 1898 and the Spanish-American war, the U.S. pursued a very restrained, very realist, very prudentialist foreign policy. The United States eschewed general peacetime alliances, and did not intervene aggressively abroad, particularly for liberal causes.” He pointed out the U.S. declined to get involved in the European revolutions of the late 18th century, because its leaders “differentiated between those things that were necessary for America’s safety, and those that were unnecessary or even harmful.”

Interventionist foreign policy put “conservative principles at stake,” Ruger noted, stressing that it did not mean that any conservative should be “against all war period—the U.S. has to defend itself,” but that it was crucial to understand there are unintended consequences.

“Realism is about the use of military power and support for liberalization and free trade,” Ruger explained. “That’s very different from spreading democracy or liberalism through the bayonet or the sword. We aren’t even making the world safer for the people we say that we are helping.” Ruger pointed to Libya as a prime example of the U.S. intervening in a foreign country and leaving it far worse off than it was before, adding that the Iraq war was also a failure (Ruger, who served in Afghanistan, points to the 2001 invasion as an example of a war justified under a realist foreign policy because of the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban’s support for and sheltering of Al-Qaeda).

“The idealism you see in liberal internationalism and neoconservatism doesn’t take the world as it is,” Ruger pointed out, even though outside of foreign policy such a view is often a conservative one. Ruger pointed out that had President Reagan made the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon after the Beirut barracks bombing in today’s political climate, he would be called a surrenderer.

“War is the health of the state, war grows budgets, war grows government, war grows the surveillance state, war threatens liberty,” Ruger stressed. “We have to make sure it’s absolutely necessary for our safety.”

“7,000 Americans were killed since 9/11 in our wars, that’s a consequences, that’s a cost we have to work through,” Ruger said. “We have to be clear-eyed about what those costs (of war) are.”

Addressing the issue of NATO, the alliance President Trump questioned the fairness and usefulness of on the campaign trail, Ruger explained that one had to “look at alliances not in a kind of ideological fashion but in a sense of do these alliances help make us safer. Are they necessary for our security, relative to the costs (not just manpower and budgetary) but also the potential of being dragged into a war, or have an ally act in a way that provokes war?”

Ruger said he had a hard time seeing how NATO expansion makes America safer. “Sometimes you can stimulate conflicts you don’t intend.” Ruger acknowledged there were many reasons NATO made sense,. “Does it make sense now?” Ruger asked. “We ought to have a real conversation about that, because they commit us potentially to war.”

Ruger discussed illiberal regimes abroad, including Russia and China, and how the U.S. ought to relate to them. “U.S. foreign policy should be aimed at making America safer,” Ruger explained. “Sometimes that means that you have to tolerate other states doing things internally that we don’t love… because there’s nothing we can do about it.” The U.S. had to be “kind of hardheaded” about the limits of the power to effect regime change.

“A realist approach isn’t a naive or pacifist approach,” Ruger stressed. “We don’t have to love Russia or Putin… but what could the United States have done [over Crimea]? Were we supposed to fight a war to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine, which is not an ally of the United States?”

Ruger highlighted the importance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, and that it shouldn’t be undervalued. “That should give us some confidence that it would have to be a very, very foolhardy and irrational set of leaders in another country” to threaten the U.S. Ruger said it was important to talk about modernizing nuclear capabilities, including asking questions like whether all three legs of the nuclear trident were necessary. “Maybe not,” he offered, pointing out that China has an effective nuclear deterrent with a far smaller nuclear arsenal. The most important part, according to Ruger, was demonstrating that the U.S. has the capacity and the credibility on its nuclear arsenal, and that it has the commitments that “sends the signal to the world, if you do X, then this could happen to you.” Ruger pointed to the role of nuclear proliferation and deterrence in India and Pakistan had as a “pacifying effect in those relations.”

Asked about China’s expansion, a fear that ran through a number of the CPAC events, Ruger suggested that the U.S. should “try to command the global commons… what that means is that the United States should have a robust blue water navy, it should be able to do presence patrols in key areas in the world,” and make sure that sea lanes of vital trade routes are open. “We should be able to have protection of government systems from cyberattacks,” he added. “We should be sure we’re very alive to new challenges.”

Neverthless, given all that, Ruger continued that “in some cases, we don’t have to worry so much about China threatening our blue water capability. China is a rising power but still not a peer competitor, and certainly not a peer competitor in open water.”

“We have a lot of ability to cramp the style of China if it tried to break out,” Ruger explained, “there are also other powers in the region that want” to be a balance to China.

“It’s not as if China’s course is obvious,” Ruger continued. “The progress and the rate of change does not predict that it will go on forever. They’re not going to grow at the same economic rate forever.” Ruger recalled a line by President Calvin Coolidge that the thing to remember when looking to deal with 10 problems coming down the road is that “you don’t have to deal with all 10 at once—nine could end up in the ditch.”

“You don’t want to undermine our economy today,” Ruger warned, “in case China does become a peer competitor in the future.” Less government spending now, then, Ruger explained, could help make a necessary build up in the future possible. Ruger stressed that increased military spending did not mean increased defense, and told conservatives they ought to stop treating the military bureaucracy as an “honorary member of the private sector,” saying it was prone to the same problems any other part of the government is.

“Let’s try to spend the money we do allocate better before we spend more,” Ruger offered, suggesting that that was something the American people would support. He pointed to polling by CKI on military defense spending that showed the public in general underestimating how much the U.S. spends on defense but believing that that low-ball amount was sufficient. “We’re not, as conservatives, treating the Defense Department the way we treat other government spending,” Ruger noted. “Terrorism is a threat, it’s not the same kind of threat the Soviet Union posed during the Cold War.” Some of the best counterterrorism, Ruger explained, is “done through policing and police cooperation,” not regime change and/or large-footprint military excursions.

Ruger was also asked about Iran, another country whose threat ran through other events at CPAC. Bolton called on Trump to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal—the president was one of a few Republican candidates who declined to tear up the deal on day one of his administration, and his defense secretary, James Mattis, has expressed support in the U.S. continuing to make a good-faith effort to honor the deal so long as Iran does. The questioner pointed out Iran was a “theocratic regime,” and in his answer Ruger stressed that that “doesn’t necessarily matter for what the U.S. should do” because it “can’t just deal with countries that look like” the United States. “We shouldn’t think of the regime type of another state” to determine how to deal with that state, Ruger explained. “The American national interest is territorial integrity. That should be number one.”

Ruger warned about the “fatal conceit” in contemporary U.S. foreign policy that “you can control the world and achieve the results” you want, and pointed out that it was necessary in order to defend and protect the country.

“The United States is the greatest country in the world,” Ruger told the audience, “but it doesn’t mean we’re responsible for every good or bad thing that happens in the world.”

Earlier in the day, John Bolton boasted that the U.S. had created its “own world order,” saying the U.S. had to fight ISIS in a way that would not only destroy them but keep Iran from taking advantage of that. “Our worldview rests on the exceptionalism of America,” Bolton told the crowd in the main hall, “faced often with a hostile world that neither understands nor appreciates what makes America different. We are not looking to be a part of an international world order.” Bolton and his fellow-travelers just want to shape it. Ruger’s want to engage the countries of the world where it works, but avoid engagements that end up putting America’s homeland at greater risk. Bolton echoed another fear common at CPAC, about globalists looking to tell the U.S. want to do. But foreign policy realism—which focuses on America’s national interests in a narrow way and sees the rest of the world as full of potential partners—not as one giant playground for the U.S. to reshape in its image—is the surest way to protect the country from bulwarking. A world in which you don’t meddle will likely not be as interested in meddling with you.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mvMoND
via IFTTT