We Give Up! Government Spending And Deficits Soar Pretty Much Everywhere

Posted with permission and written by John Rubino, Dollar Collapse

via http://ift.tt/2jbekGy Sprott Money

An Interview with GoldCore Founder, Mark O’Byrne

“Uber-bull predictions of gold at over $5,000 per ounce are not beyond the realms of possibility…”

So says GoldCore founder and self-confessed gold bug, Mark O’Byrne.

Indeed, I recently caught up with Mark to get his thoughts on gold and what’s going on with it right now…

But before we got to the nitty-gritty, I started by asking him a little about his background:

GLENN: How long have you been in the gold business, Mark?

MARK: Well, I founded GoldCore more than 14 years ago and it’s been my passion and a huge part of my life ever since.

I strongly believe that due to the significant macroeconomic and geopolitical risks of today, saving and investing a portion of one’s wealth in gold bullion is prudent.

Indeed, I believe it will reward patient investors again in the coming years.

GLENN: Interesting… and I want to dig into your views on where you see gold going in a moment. First, though, for those who don’t know about GoldCore, can you tell us a little about what you do?

MARK: Sure. Basically, my passion is helping people to protect and grow their wealth with the provision of the safest forms of precious metals ownership – allocated and segregated physical gold, silver, platinum and palladium bullion coins and bars.

GLENN: And that ownership is key, right, as far as you’re concerned?

MARK: Definitely. We believe actual outright legal ownership of physical coins and bars is vital, rather than owning digital and paper gold.

We now have over 15,000 clients in over 140 countries with over $130 million in bullion assets under management & storage.

We completed the sale of our wealth management division in 2015 to focus on our core business. A major milestone of sales of over $1 billion was reached in September and it’s our next corporate goal to help our clients own $1 billion worth of coins and bars stored through us in the safest vaults in the world.

GLENN: Those are some big numbers – well done.
MARK: Thanks. It’s great to be moving in the right direction and you know I have long endeavoured to educate our clients and the wider public about our modern monetary and financial system and how a precious metals diversification remains an important way to grow wealth in today’s uncertain world.

Today, I am concerned that we have not learnt our lessons, we are repeating the same mistakes as before and there will be similar negative consequences for the unprepared.

So, the more we can help people protect themselves with physical gold, the better as far as I’m concerned.

GLENN: Makes sense. And obviously, you’re a major gold bull… but let me ask you, as I’m sure many other would ask the same: why do you think gold makes a good investment?

MARK: Well, that’s the question isn’t it?

Put it this way…

We live in a world beset by risks – Brexit, Trump, North Korea and major central banks, including the Bank of England, are all engaged in a gigantic monetary experiment.

Fact is, the UK – and most other country’s economic recoveries remain very fragile.

But gold is a proven safe haven asset and acts as a hedge against a fall in stocks and property and against currency devaluation. This was seen during the global financial crisis.

And it was the same for those with sterling exposure after Brexit, when gold rose 30% in sterling terms last year.
GLENN: In other words, over the long term gold has performed well?

MARK: Exactly. Since GoldCore was established in 2003, gold has seen average gains of over 12% per annum in British pound terms. I think that makes it pretty good investment.

GLENN: Indeed, here’s the thing, though… for a while now gold seems to have been underperforming. Many commentators suggest the gold price should be much higher right now? Do you agree?

MARK: Yes I do.

We believe gold will reach a new inflation adjusted high over $2,500 per ounce in the coming years.

Indeed, uber-bull predictions of gold at over $5,000 per ounce are not beyond the realms of possibility given the scale of the coming global debt crisis and the magnitude of the geo-political risks facing us.

GLENN: Hmm. That is very interesting. What do you think could be the next catalyst for a significant rise in the gold price?

MARK: For me it has to be geopolitics and the supply demand fundamentals…

We are on the cusp of peak gold production.

Gold production is South Africa has already fallen over 75% and it is the canary in the gold mine so to speak.

All the data is suggesting this and leading people in gold mining industry itself to say we are on the verge of peak gold.

GLENN: That’s interesting you mention mining there… I’m currently working on a project with our in-house gold mining expert all about an area in British Columbia called ’The Golden Triangle’… are you familiar with it?

MARK: Yeah, a little. I’m aware that there sizeable gold deposits in the area and that they are seeing a lot of exploration and increased mining.

Canada is interesting from a gold supply perspective as it is the 5th largest gold producer, after China, Australia, Russia and the U.S.

Arguably given its size and the inaccessibility of many of the mines, Canada likely has to best potential for an increase in gold production.
This supply will be needed to meet global demand as global gold production faces the challenge of peak gold production.

[Editor’s note: This backs up exactly what Simon Popple has been writing about in a new report he’s preparing right now. I’ll be in touch with more details on this as soon as it’s ready.]

GLENN: Great. I’m glad an expert like yourself is hearing the same things we are and I must thank you for all you’ve shared today. I think our readers will find it really interesting to get your view.

Before I let you go, though… before we started talking properly, I mentioned I saw a piece recently suggesting cryptocurrencies are now ‘the new gold’ when it comes to a safe haven asset and you, shall we say, smirked somewhat. What are your thoughts on that and cryptocurrencies generally?

MARK: Look, Bitcoin and cryptos generally, are very interesting and we were actually one of the first bullion dealers and wealth managers to write about them. We were even on CNBC back in 2015 discussing them.

And to be frank, the fledgling digital currency and the technology behind Bitcoin itself is exciting and has potential.

However, it has become massively speculative and has the hallmarks of a bubble after its meteoric 6-fold increase in the last year.

Coinbase, a leading bitcoin exchange saw 100,000 accounts opened in just 24 hours on November 1st, as reported by Bloomberg. In my opinion, Bitcoin is significantly overvalued in the short term.

Conversely, gold appears undervalued as it is flat to mildly higher this year and appears to be consolidating on last year’s gains.

It is important to think of gold in local currency terms. Gold is trading at just below £1,000 per ounce and is still 16% below its record nominal high of £1,160 per ounce in August 2011 and the height of the global financial crisis.

So, gold looks good value versus stocks, bonds and many property markets (especially London) – many of which are at all-time record highs and look overvalued. We are advising clients to rebalance portfolios.

GLENN: Great. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with our readers, Mark. It’s much appreciated.

Indeed, if people would like to find out more about Mark and what he and the team are GoldCore are up to, you can visit www.goldcore.com.

Important Guides

For your perusal, below are our most popular guides in 2017:

Essential Guide To Storing Gold In Switzerland

Essential Guide To Storing Gold In Singapore

Essential Guide to Tax Free Gold Sovereigns (UK)

Please share our research with family, friends and colleagues who you think would benefit from being informed by it.

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

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

According to news reports in the British press, Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed Russia’s industries to prepare themselves to be able to make a quick switch to war production.

Clearly, the Russian government would not make such an announcement unless it was convinced that the prospect of war with the West was real.

For some time I have emphasized in my columns that the consequence of years of hostile actions taken by Washington and its European vassals against Russia was leading to war.

It is easy to understand that the massive US military/security complex needs a convincing enemy in order to justify its enormous budget, that the crazed neoconservatives put their fantasy ideology of US world hegemony above the life of the planet, and that Hillary and the Democratic National Committee will do anything to overturn Trump’s presidential victory.

However, it is difficult to understand why the European political leaders are willing to put their countries at risk for Washington’s benefit.

Yet, they do.

For example, on November 13 UK PM Theresa May said that Russia was a threat to international security and was interfering in European elections and hacking European governments. There is no more evidence for these claims than there is for “Russiagate.” Yet the allegations continue and multiply. Now the European Union is organizing former provinces of the Soviet Union—Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan—into an “Eastern Partnership” with the European Union.

In other words, the West is openly organizing former provinces of Moscow against Russia, declared by Prime Minister May to be a “hostile state.” Russia knows that there is no basis for the allegations against Russia and regards them as identical to the false allegations against Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad in order to justify military attacks on Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Having convinced Russia that she is being set up for attack, Russia is preparing for war.

Think about this for a moment. The world is being driven to Armageddon simply because a greedy and corrupt US military/security complex needs an enemy to justify its huge budget, because Hillary and the DNC cannot accept a political defeat, and because the neoconservatives have an ideology of American Supremacy. What’s the difference between the detested White Supremacy and the American Supremacy that President Obama himself endorsed? Why is white supremacy terrible and American supremacy God’s gift to the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country?

The Russian government has openly shared its concern that Russia is being set up for military attack. As I, if not CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, have reported, the deputy commander of the Russian military’s Operation Command stated publicly the concern that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack against Russia. President Putin recently called attention to Washington’s collection of Russian DNA for a US Air Force weapons lab, which implies development of a Russian-specific bio-weapon. On many occasions Russia has called attention to US and NATO bases on its borders despite previous assurances from US administrations that no such thing would ever happen.

We have to ask ourselves why it is not the top item of public and political discussion that Washington has convinced Russia, a premier nuclear and military power, that Russia is going to be attacked. Instead, we hear of football players who kneel for the national anthem, fake news about Russiagate, a Las Vegas shooting, and so on.

We also must ask ourselves how much longer Washington is going to permit any of us via the Internet to report the real news instead of the fake news that Washington uses to control explanations.

The effort by the Federal Communications Commission chairman to destroy net neutrality and other efforts underway to discredit factual news as Russian propaganda indicate that Washington has concluded that in order to war on Russia Washington must also war on truth.

Washington will not survive its war, and neither will the American and European people.

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

Around mid-November, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a shocking report detailing China’s gay conversion problem.

Powerful first-hand accounts expose how state-owned hospitals are using electric shock machines and medication to convert gays back to some form of 'normalcy'. The practice is an open secret in China, where a majority of gays are forced by their families into hospitals, because the culture labels it as a curable-disease.

 Even the World Psychiatric Association has come out denouncing the practice as “unethical, unscientific and harmful”.

It’s been rumored that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have received better treatment than those in China, who have been put through the conversion process.

With that being said, the Chinese knew the rest of the world was going to figure out about the inhuman treatments to literally shock the gay out of you; and so, back in 2015, the Government approved a research team at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou to study the effects of spraying oxytocin up the noses of homosexual men to see how it affects their sexual orientation.

Oxytocin has been best known for its roles in the female reproduction system. Recently, scientist have been investigating oxytocin’s role in various behaviors including, orgasm, social recognition, bonding, and maternal behaviors. The article says it’s also known as the ‘love hormone’ or the ‘cuddle hormone’ because levels of oxytocin are increased during hugs and orgasms. Oxytocin’s connection in love and sexuality is not well understood, which spurred the scientist’s two years clinical, to spray the natural hormone up gay men’s noses.

Darius Longarino, a senior fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center, indicated on Twitter, the 2-year study is in the final stages and results should be out by the end of December.

Zhejiang University researchers are spraying oxytocin up gay men’s noses to study its effects on their sexual orientation. Researcher once told activist 30–40% “have changed.” The study ends next month—let’s be on the lookout for any “results.” https://t.co/KKvDmtJ4Ia

— Darius Longarino ??? (@DariusLongarino) November 29, 2017

On the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry website, the study states the objective of the trial: “the feature of brain activity and social gender cognition in male homosexuals, and how oxytocin affects them.” In pursuit of these objectives, 20 volunteers were chosen at random. Among other things, the volunteers had to be right-handed, aged 18-40, and have “complete male homosexuality.”

Researches then conducted a blind study with 20 test subjects who were divided into two groups. One group had oxytocin sprayed up their nose, while the others used a placebo saline solution.

According to the article, the study began in October 2015 and is now in the latter stage of completion.

Further, the article notes,

And perhaps, the chart above identifies why China’s government is racing to find the most humane method in gay conversions, as the gender gap is about to take the next leg up similar to the 1980’s through the mid-2000’s widening. Anti-gay spray seems to be the communist regimes solution to combat homosexuality.

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

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

– Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

As we head into 2018, I believe governments around the world will become increasingly insecure about their positions of power and control, which will result in increased paranoia about whether or not they have the consent of the governed.

Being a global empire in decline, the U.S. power structure has the most to lose, making it particularly vulnerable to such panic. I suspect forces within the U.S. government are likely to engage in various attempts to reestablish authority via desperate and authoritarian moves as 2018 unfolds. I don’t say this to spread fear; rather, I think such moves will result in considerable pushback from the population at large, particularly from younger generations who are intimately aware of how spectacularity the status quo has failed them. Panic and desperation from those in control shouldn’t be feared, it should be expected and contemplated ahead of time. That’s why I’m writing this series. I want as many people as possible to start thinking about this now so we aren’t caught off guard.

The areas I’ll be diving into with these pieces consist of cannabis, Bitcoin, and war against Iran. I’m sure there are plenty of other areas government will target in its last ditch effort to exert control over a populace sick and tired of these busybody, corrupt authoritarians, but these are issues I follow closely and have a certain degree of familiarity with. As such, they’ll be the focus of this series.

Today’s topic is cannabis. This seems the least likely area for government action, specifically because it would be such a monumentally stupid move. That said, just because something’s idiotic doesn’t mean we should simply discount it, particularly with human fossil Jeff Sessions continuing to chirp on the issue every chance he gets.

Although Sessions has been threatening to stomp on states’ rights and freedom of choice when it comes to cannabis ever since he became Attorney General, he hasn’t done anything yet. Nevertheless, he continues to issue threats.

As Axios reported yesterday:

That looks like the chart of Bitcoin.

More significantly, we live in an era in which basically no issue issue successfully crosses partisan political lines. Except cannabis. Also from Gallup:

Democrats and independents have historically been much more likely than Republicans to say marijuana should be legalized. In 2009, Democrats were the first partisan group to see majority support for legalization, followed by independents in 2010.

 

This year for the first time, a majority of Republicans express support for legalizing marijuana; the current 51% is up nine percentage points from last year.

Moreover, many of those against legal cannabis in their particular state still accept the right of people in other states to decide for themselves. The idea of the federal government going into states and denying the will of the citizens who voted to legalize it would be extraordinarily unpopular across the board. It’ll be completely obvious to everyone that if the feds think they can tell people their votes don’t matter on that issue, there’s zero freedom of choice for anything in this country. It’s the ultimate canary in the coal mine.

In fact, I’ll take this one step further and say if Sessions dares to make this move, it’ll accelerate secessionist movements across the country and delegitimize government credibility more than any other single act in the forty years since I’ve been alive.

The clowns in D.C. have no conception of how fragile this nation is right now.
One more gigantic policy disaster and the whole thing could fall apart.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) November 30, 2017

If the Trump administration actually moves on this issue, we’ll know for sure how completely inept and desperate it is. Part of me almost wants to see them try, because the resulting monumental fail will demonstrate the power of the people and give a gigantic black eye to authoritarians in government.

Stuff like this is all part of the process we’ll be going through over the next few years, and we need to be mentally prepared for it. We the people will increasingly move to take sovereignty back in a variety of ways, and government will respond with panic. The good news is they’ll be reacting from a position of weakness, not strength.

Which brings us to the topic of Bitcoin. As the price crossed $10,000 recently, I noticed increased squeamishness and fear on behalf of various banksters, economists and other assorted statists.

Monday’s post will dig into what all of that means.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

via http://ift.tt/2i7Ntdk Tyler Durden

Having caused chaos in financial markets briefly, set the liberal media on fire with 'I told you so's, and sparked a renewed round of #ImpeachTrump demands, ABC News issued a 'clarification' to their bombshell Flynn report that not only negates the entire story but provides President Trump with another round of ammunition to fire against the 'fake news' media.

Criticially, ABC News reports, correcting their earlier report, that Michael Flynn is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to contact the Russians as president-elect, not as a candidate.

Here is the full 'clarification'

During a live Special Report, ABC News reported that a confidant of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the campaign.

 

That source later clarified that during the campaign, Trump assigned Flynn and a small circle of other senior advisers to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots.

 

It was shortly after the election, that President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact Russian officials on topics that included working jointly against ISIS.

So to clarify – just as President Trump had stated, there was no contact with Russians during his time as a candidate but in fact it was in transition as he attempted to mend broken bridges with another world super-power in his role as president-elect – this in no way a criminal act at all. In fact, reaching out to foreign governments during transitions is standard procedure.

CNN is embarrassed…

ABC News spokesperson tells me that “World News” will clarify that this should be president-elect Trump, not candidate Trump. https://t.co/Xm0BuvAstj

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) December 1, 2017

Axios apologizes for its use of the story…

(We regret highlighting a story that had one source making an astonishing allegation.)

And maybe Brian Ross, so-called journalist and ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent, who wrote the ABC article, will explain himself and his 'sources' for this nothingburger of a story.

One wonder what the consequecnes are, or should be, for such an obvious error.

We look forward to President Trump's tirade over this.

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

North Korea launched its Hwasong-15 ICBM into the waters west of Japan at 3:17 am local time on Wednesday. Barely six minutes later, South Korean artillery, air force, and Navy sprang into action and began firing missiles into the waters off eastern Korea – yet another military show of force meant to intimidate the North into ceasing its missile strikes.

The retaliatory display was calibrated to target a spot in the waters off the Korean peninsula that was exactly as far away as Pyongsong, a town about 20 miles north of Pyongyang where the Hwasong 15 was reportedly launched. The distance was meant to signify that the South Korean military could destroy the North’s missile launchers if it chose to do so, the Wall Street Journal.

But while the precision strike probably impressed any bystanders who were watching, in reality, the South’s technology for detecting and responding to North Korean missile launches is still unreliable.

But detecting missile tests is an imperfect science, involving misses as well as hits. In a conflict situation, North Korea is likely to take more steps to conceal its movements, for instance by deploying decoy launchers, said Yang Uk, senior defense researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, a Seoul think tank.

 

In such a scenario, the likelihood falls that South Korean, U.S. or Japanese forces would pinpoint the exact launch site, Mr. Yang said. Still, he viewed the South’s response to the missile test as a success, especially considering the short time the military needed to return fire.

 

A spokesman for the U.S.-led U.N. Command in Korea said no U.S. or other forces participated in the response.

 

“What we saw Wednesday was an active response to a North Korean missile launch that South Korea calls its ‘kill chain’ system’,” Mr. Yang said. The kill chain is part of a larger defense system designed to pre-emptively strike the North’s missile systems in the case of a nuclear attack.

 

South Korea this year installed a U.S.-operated Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense antimissile battery that can shoot down short- and medium-range missiles, complementing its Patriot PAC-2 antiballistic missile system.

 

The new battery has a longer-range, but it can’t cover the whole country.

A retired senior South Korean military official said that the South lacks a military satellite that can watch the North, although US and Japanese satellites share images with South Korean officials in real time.

Meanwhile, analysts said North Korean officials install devices onto missiles that generate signals and send them to ground-based control towers. The South has a way to tap into these signals and track the missiles, they said.

But in a real missile launch targeting a South Korean, Japanese or U.S. city, the North Koreans may choose not to install them, said Jo Dong-joon, deputy director of the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University. This means that the South might have no way to track a hostile missile, Mr. Jo said.

The retired military official also noted that the South has a network of human intelligence in the North that may have tipped off Seoul officials about this week’s launch. He declined to give further details, citing security concerns.

Details on the South’s spy network in the North remain murky, but local media have reported in recent months that the South has lost most of its human network in North Korea in recent years.
 

via http://ift.tt/2j9dycO Tyler Durden