Author: admin

Via AlMasdarNews.com,

Lebanon is turning east for economic support after the lack of progress in talks with Western and Arab states. According to the Associated Press, Lebanon is seeking to secure investments from China, while dwindling its chances of obtaining the support from the West and the Arab states to overcome its financial crisis.

The agency said in a report published Wednesday that Lebanon, which had long been an area of ​​competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia, is now at an important point in the escalation of tensions between China and the West, noting that the government of Hassan Diab, is currently seeking for Chinese support.

The AP noted that Diab received the Chinese ambassador to Lebanon, Wang Qijian, earlier this month, and after that the Lebanese Minister of Industry, Imad Hoballah, was instructed to study cooperation opportunities with Beijing.

The AP report begins:

Facing a worsening economic crisis and with little chance of Western or oil-rich Arab countries providing assistance without substantial reforms, Lebanon’s cash-strapped government is looking east, hoping to secure investments from China that could bring relief.

But help from Beijing risks alienating the United States, which has suggested such a move could come at the cost of Lebanese-U.S. ties.

“We have moved very seriously towards China, but we are not turning our backs on the West… we are going through exceptional circumstances, and we welcome everyone who intends to help us,” the agency quoted a ministerial official, who asked not to be named, as saying.

The official pointed out that China has proposed to contribute to ending the decades-old energy crisis in Lebanon through its government companies, stressing that the Beirut government is currently studying this proposal.

The aforementioned and economic official, Hassan Muqalled, assured the agency that Beijing also offered to establish a network of power stations and a tunnel linking Beirut and the Beqaa Valley, and a railway along the coast of Lebanon.

Muqallah, who visited China several times in 2018 and 2019, estimated the value of the projects proposed by Beijing at $12.5 billion.

The report pointed out that these investments may bring benefit to both parties, pointing out that China may benefit from improving its relations with Lebanon as this country is a springboard for the reconstruction of neighboring Syria.

The report also suggested that the Lebanese port of Tripoli, which has been expanded in recent years, may become an important point in the Chinese “Silk Road” project.

Lebanon is what happens when you create a neoliberal paradise where bankers run the show. https://t.co/Qh9rVkh9e7
They can’t blame the collapse on socialism, so expect to see the west fault Hezbollah rather than the handful of elites who ran a decades long Ponzi scheme government

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) July 6, 2020

For its part, the American ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, warned the Lebanese government against rapprochement with Beijing, as she said that turning towards the East will not solve all the country’s problems, warning that this rapprochement may take place at the expense of the prosperity, stability and financial sustainability of Lebanon, not to mention its long relations.

“When there is an increase in insolvency risk, what you do not need is more debt. You need less debt.”

That is the common-sense warning from Ed Altman that every talking head in the world seems incapable of understanding or admitting.

Altman, who, along with Oldrich Vasicek, is often described as the father of credit risk modeling, warns that this year’s spate of “mega” insolvencies is just getting started.

On the back of Fed guarantees, global firms have sold a record $2.1 trillion of bonds this year, with nearly half coming from U.S. issuers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“The speed and magnitude of the increase in corporate debt this year poses various risks to an already fragile global economic outlook,” said Ayhan Kose, director of the World Bank Group’s Prospects Group.

While the stimulus-fueled rally in credit markets since March has helped borrowers stay afloat during the coronavirus crisis, Bloomberg’s Denis Wee reports that Altman and others have warned that many companies are just delaying an inevitable reckoning.

“There was a huge buildup in corporate debt by the end of 2019 and I thought the market would gain some much needed de-leveraging with the Covid-19 crisis,” said Altman, who is also director of credit and debt market research at the NYU Salomon Center.

“Now, seems like companies again are exploiting what seems to be a crazy rebound.”

For Altman, some of the debt sold “kicks the can down the road” for firms that don’t deserve support.

Altman is most famous for his “Z Score”, which is used to predict the likelihood that a business will go bankrupt within the next two years.

The formula is based on information found in the income statement and balance sheet of an organization; as such, it can be readily derived from commonly-available information. The Z score is based on the liquidity, profitability, solvency, sales activity, and leverage of the targeted business. Given the ease with which the required information can be found, the Z Score is a useful metric for an outsider who has access to a company’s financial statements. In its original form, the Z score formula is as follows:

Z = 1.2A x 1.4B x 3.3C x 0.6D x 0.99E

The letters in the formula designate the following measures:

A = Working capital / Total assets [ Measures the relative amount of liquid assets]

B = Retained earnings / Total assets [Determines cumulative profitability]

C = Earnings before interest and taxes / Total assets [measures earnings away from the effects of taxes and leverage]

D = Market value of equity / Book value of total liabilities [incorporates the effects of a decline in market value of a company’s shares]

E = Sales / Total assets [measures asset turnover]

A Z score of greater than 2.99 means that the entity being measured is safe from bankruptcy. A score of less than 1.81 means that a business is at considerable risk of going into bankruptcy, while scores in between should be considered a red flag for possible problems. The model has proven to be reasonably accurate in predicting the future bankruptcy of entities under analysis.

This scoring system was originally designed for manufacturing firms having assets of $1 million or more. Given the targeted nature of the model, it has since been modified to be applicable to other types of organizations.

This approach to evaluating organizations is better than using just a single ratio, since it brings together the effects of multiple items – assets, profits, and market value. As such, it is most commonly used by creditors and lenders to determine the risk associated with extending funds to customers and borrowers.

And judging by the weakness he is seeing in his Z-Scores, for instance, here is UAL (note this is even before Q2’s massive collapse)…

Altman warns, companies are doing the opposite of what they should be doing, which is to de-leverage as the banks did after the global financial crisis of 2008.

Authored by John Solomon via JustTheNews.com,

As President Obama aggressively pursued a nuclear deal with Iran, the FBI used an  operative who worked undercover for years inside Vladimir Putin’s nuclear empire to investigate and raise alarm that Russia was aiding Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The undercover work on Iran by William Douglas Campbell was overshadowed by his effort to help the FBI successfully prove that an executive at Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company, was engaged in kickbacks, bribery and other crimes on U.S. soil and had compromised a U.S. uranium trucking company.

Campbell’s harrowing work posing as a consultant while informing for the FBI inside Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary from 2007 to 2014 led to the successful prosecution of several players in the kickback scheme, including Russia’s top American nuclear executive, Vadim Mikerin.

The FBI warned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other major federal agencies in August 2010 that Campbell had uncovered significant evidence of wrongdoing inside Rosatom’s Tenex agency. But the Obama administration nonetheless proceeded to approve billions of dollars in nuclear fuel contracts and Moscow’s purchase of a large swath of U.S. uranium through a company known as Uranium One.

But Campbell’s efforts to uncover the nuclear alliance between Tehran and Moscow raised similar concerns inside the FBI and are chronicled in the new book Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties.

Agents actually pressed Campbell so hard to get more intelligence on Iran from his Russian contacts that it ultimately blew his cover, the books reveals.

Campbell began providing evidence of the Russia-Iran nexus starting in 2010, including a memo he intercepted inside Rosatom written by an American adviser, Cheryl Moss Herman, who later would go to work in a senior nuclear energy policy job inside the Obama Energy Department.

Herman’s 11-page report, titled “Policy/Legislative Issues Affecting the Business Climate in the U.S. for TENAM/Tenex,” warned there was a growing concern inside Congress that Russia’s determined march into new U.S. uranium business conflicted with Western intelligence that Moscow was still aiding Iran’s illicit nuclear program.

“There are some in Congress who believe that Russia is providing Iran with sensitive nuclear technology as well as the nuclear know-how that will allow it to proliferate a nuclear weapons program, despite Russian Government statements to the contrary,” the report told the Russians.

The FBI had similar concerns. Here are excerpts from the books that reveal just how extensive those concerns were.

In one debriefing, for instance, Campbell related to his handling agents that Mikerin had identified a specific Russian company that was facilitating business between Iran and Tenex.

“As I have mentioned previously they do all the uranium business between Russia and Iran,” Campbell wrote of the intermediary. “Vadim is involved in the process under the same kind of payment network between Iran and the special TENEX group.

“I have asked him if he visits Tehran and he indicates he will not go because he feels it will cause trouble both for [U.S.] relations as well as his US travel.”

Such intelligence was intriguing for FBI counterintelligence, especially as the Obama administration secretly began discussions with Tehran aimed at reaching a deal to delay Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In 2010, Campbell had obtained from his Russian sources a nonpublic report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog that was bird-dogging Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program. The public version of the May 2010 report identified current enrichment-related activities inside Iran, including evidence that UN inspectors gathered related to a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

While U.S. officials likely already knew the contents of the report, Campbell’s acquisition had provided valuable insight: an IAEA report marked “restricted” for limited distribution had fallen into the hands of Rosatom’s leadership quickly. The long arm of Putin’s nuclear team knew few bounds.

Campbell continued to provide fragmentary intelligence on the Moscow-Tehran nuclear dealings, including additional IAEA reports that the Russians had obtained.

But in early 2012, a harbinger arrived that the bureau was preparing to pull out its operative and finally close the counterintelligence gathering part of the probe and transition to criminal prosecutions.

Special Agent [Timothy] Taylor contacted Campbell with the most specific instruction the team had ever given him over the years: a detailed list of 15 questions that the bureau wanted asked of Mikerin.

The questions were transmitted via the secret Sigma email accounts that the bureau had set up with Campbell. All were about Iran:

• Is Iran seeking to create a weapon, either through obvious means, or through the design of their nuclear program?

• Are there any other countries, other than Russia, partnering to help Iran’s nuclear program?

• If there are other countries participating, what model for security and nuclear power generation is Iran following?

• What security measures has Iran put in place at nuclear facilities to prevent the computer failures, the failure of automated systems, or a computer virus?

• What political issues are of concern to Russia if they are to continue to support the Iranian nuclear program?

• If Iran is seeking to enrich uranium to HEU, what is the timeframe in which they expect to achieve that level?

• How many Russian employees are currently working on Iranian projects?

• How many Iranian scientists are currently working on nuclear energy projects? Who are they? What are their specialties?

• What is the megawatt capacity of Bushehr?

• What are the long-term goals for the facility?

• Are there other facilities currently enriching uranium?

• Have there been requests for assistance or indications of interest in new facilities?

• How may centrifuges are currently operating at Bushehr?

• What are the safety standards to which Iranian nuclear facilities are built? IAEA standards?

• How is Iran prepared to ensure force protection and answer international security concerns? · Are there concealed or restricted areas at Iranian nuclear facilities where Russians are not allowed to visit? Where are they, and what do the Russians feel is going on there?

• Are there temporary storage facilities where nuclear materials are stored? How are they secured?

• How is new and used nuclear material moved and stored, and by whom?

When Campbell got this list, he joked that the FBI was signing his death warrant. The questions were too specific, the kind only an American spy might ask. Campbell had already been threatened by the Russians with polonium poisoning to ensure that he would not betray their criminal network.

The FBI, however, would not back off, insisting that Campbell press ahead and corner Mikerin with the Iran questions. The agents even coached him on how he could put his Russian friend at ease while unloading this barrage of inquiries.

“As discussed: You spoke with contacts who understand US policy. After the conversations you wrote down notes and have some ideas. You believe that Russia, Rosatom and Tenex could improve working relations with the US by being transparent about activities in Iran. You believe that it would be easier for Tenex to do business in the US if the US knows that Rosatom and Tenex have their fingers on the pulse of what is going on in Iran and can ensure that the nuclear energy is being produced responsibly and safely,” the agents wrote Campbell in their instructions.

It might have sounded good to the agents, but after 30 years in the business of spying, Campbell knew that these questions would blow his cover, or at the very least break the bond of trust that he had built with his Russian targets.

Campbell was right.

Mikerin refused to provide much in terms of answers, and soon backed away from his longtime Sigma consultant.

Campbell’s work for Tenex dwindled, and his access to Rosatom diminished.

Senior editor Ash Bennington joins managing editor Roger Hirst to discuss the latest developments in markets and macro. Bennington and Hirst consider the divergence of large-cap stock indexes and small-cap stock indexes, the DXY falling with he dollar weakening, and how the momentum of US equity markets is slowing due to Fed balance sheet tightening. They also dive into banking and explain why the recent earnings reports for some of the US’s large banks reveal the bifurcation of the real economy and financial markets. In the intro, Peter Cooper talks about Goldman Sachs’ 2020 Q2 earnings and explains why it exceeded expectations by a wide margin.

The family of George Floyd filed a lawsuit in federal court against the city of Minneapolis and the four police officers involved in the incident leading up to his death.

This is in addition to the $14.6 million raised via GoFundMe, which was established by his brother, Philonise Floyd.

“It was not just the knee of officer Derek Chauvin on George Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds, but it was the knee of the entire Minneapolis Police Department on the neck of George Floyd that killed him,” said attorney Ben Crump, adding “The city of Minneapolis has a history of policies and procedures and deliberate indifference when it comes to the treatment of arrestees, especially Black men.”

Nationwide riots erupted after a video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck went viral. Bystanders could be seen pleading with the officer, who has been charged in Floyd’s death along with three other policemen – Thomas Lane, Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng, all of whom have been fired.

“This is an unprecedented case, and with this lawsuit, we seek to set a precedent to make it financially prohibitive, so police won’t … kill marginalized people, especially Black people, in the future,” said Crump, calling it a “tipping point” and a “teachable moment for America,” according to USA Today.

The lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount but seeks “compensatory, special and punitive damages,” attorney fees and the appointment of a “receiver or similar authority” to ensure Minneapolis properly trains its police officers. 

Attorney Antonio Romanucci, who also represents Floyd’s family, said it was unconstitutional that Minneapolis trained its police officers to kneel on the necks of nonviolent, compliant offenders. 

“If you don’t change the use-of-force policies and train, you will have continued failures, as in the death of George Floyd,” Romanucci said. –USA Today

Floyd left behind a six-year-old daughter, Gianna, who was born to his former partner, Roxie Washington.

Submitted by Right Wire Report,

Wealth inequality has become a major talking point for those primarily on the Left who are vehemently against capitalism. Often espoused by leftist professors, lawmakers, and think tanks, the increasing disparity in wealth among Americans has been a growing concern. Many have questioned for years whether the Federal Reserve and their fiat currency monetary system is a fundamental fraud in our economy today. Is the Federal Reserve causing wealth inequality, thereby sowing the seeds of Marxism?

Wealth inequality is an issue that both political sides should be willing to tackle because it can cause terrible consequences for a cohesive society. One can easily go off on the issues of personal responsibility and envy politics, but the reality is society must deal with the issue regardless of the morality of the issues – see “Trapped on a Deserted Island with 200 Hungry Savages.” While the Left is correct in their concerns, they are ignoring a major cause of the rampant, growing inequality in America – currency debasement and instead blame capitalism. Let’s take a simple example that demonstrates Fiat Currency Debasement and how it can create wealth inequality mathematically.

In our hypothetical example, let’s take a simple real estate rental property asset (there are more sophisticated financial products on the markets that can do the same) vs. a Common person who merely places their money in a bank. Our starting financial position (rounded numbers for ease of explanation):

Smart investor:

• We purchase the property for $100,000.
• We place a 10% down payment of $10,000.
• At a 3% mortgage rate with taxes and insurance, we must pay $500 per month.
• We rent the property for $525 per month for the year.

The Common person:

• Places $10,000 in the bank, and we will give them a full 3% annual return on their money.

Results: Our smart investor’s net wealth position after a year is $10,300. The Common person is the same.

Now let’s advance the clock one year (normally this period would be longer to not make the scam so obvious) and assume a 50% currency debasement (or 100% price inflation). Here is what the financial position looks like now:

Smart investor:

• Property value is $200,000 – less the original mortgage; the net is $110,000.
• We now rent the property for $1050 – this yields a net (assuming no increases in tax and insurance) of 6,600 for the year. 

The Common person:

• Earns a 3% annual compounded interest return on their money – the investor still has the original $10,000.

Results after the two years: Our Smart investor’s net wealth position is $116,600. The Common person now has $10,609. Then we have to adjust downward (50%) for the net inflation-adjusted amounts of: for the Smart investor $58,300 and for the Common person $5,345.

Voila … wealth inequality. Note that in both the Smart and Common person investors, starting with the same amount of capital, neither added no value other than capital. One may say, but the Smart investor took risks. Partially true, and would deserve a higher return on capital – but to what extent? The risk should already be built into the asset purchase price, rental market value returns, and the borrowing interest rate within a truly free market. And is it much of a risk to know politicians will debase the currency? Then there is the issue of fractional reserve lending – often called financial leverage. In and of itself this is not necessarily bad. But when combined with the Fiat Currency Debasement, it provides the necessary tools to create this wealth inequality. It borrows money at today’s value and repaying tomorrow with deflated money.

Without currency debasement, the Smart investor would have never made the tenfold gains, compared to the Common person. At a greater economic level, those (bottom 50% have nothing) that can not even match the Smart investor’s capital commitment, can not even participate in the economy to gain wealth. Obviously, the amount of capital one has is the degree one can participate. Hence, this currency debasement is a distortion in the economy that favors one group over another. This is not a free market with equal opportunity for all. Under a fixed monetary system, this advantage goes away – the rules of the game do matter.

One can easily see this expanding wealth inequality that started in the 1970s when the U.S. went from a fixed monetary system to a fiat currency system – which now allows one to debase the currency. President Richard Nixon’s actions in 1971 to end dollar convertibility to gold and implement wage/price controls were intended to address the international dilemma of a looming gold run and the domestic problem of inflation. Many attribute the gold run due to the U.S. expansion of its federal budget, driven by the Vietnam war and the war on poverty expenditures in prior years.

How does one calculate the value of money? Has not the Dollar rates been reasonably stable against other major currencies? They have. But this is not the correct measure. For example, the Euro Dollar rate has been oscillating around the same levels for some time now. The issue here is that all central banks are playing the same game, and they are all devaluing mostly at similar rates. In other words, relative to each other, the rates are reasonably stable; most currencies are all falling at near the same rate – giving the appearance of stability. Though there are many issues in the valuation of a currency, here is a very high-level rule of thumb formula:

Currency Value = GDP / Money Supply 

With this simple formula, one can see that if both GDP and Money Supply rise at the same rate, the Currency Value will remain stable. Adjust one side or the other of this equation, will adjust currency valuations accordingly. But one hears that reports like employment, inflation, government budgets, and interest rate movements can affect currency valuations as well. Yes, this is because these reports are early warning signals that can affect the final outcomes of the GDP and Money Supply components of the formula. 

Take a look at the chart below and see this phenomenon in action. The broader measure of Money Supply growth has been around 5% between 2012 to 2019. With GDP rates of between 2 and 3%, this means about a 2% currency debasement rate – which also just so happens to be the Fed inflation target rate. Since Coronavirus, the measurements have gone whacky. GDP rates have dropped to less than -5%, and as you can see below, the Money Supply growth rate is near 30%. This is horrific, though it may be transitory. A single quarter or even a couple quarters is not the average, and the ship can be righted. But if the current situation is not recovered very soon, do the math – we could be conservatively looking at a dramatic currency debasement in excess of 20% within a year.

Listen to the rhetoric of Democrats under Joe Biden. The future could be frightening. Green New Deals, Universal free Health Care, college debt forgiveness, free universities, and a whole host of other Lefty items, would blow out government budgets and increase Money Supply with little GDP growth to show for it. Especially if Democrats hold back GDP growth with endless Coronavirus economic restrictions. Runaway inflation’s ugly head could reemerge after decades of hiding. The sad reality is the Democrat policies would exacerbate wealth inequality, not reduce it. One could assert that “IF” this scenario would occur, be prepared to have a 20 to 50% reduction of your standard of living over the next 2 to 5 years. Then think of the horrors of extending the fertile ground for Marxism to grow.

There is an endpoint to all this. Just ask the Romans. Roman officials found a way to make currency debase. By decreasing the purity of their coinage, they were able to make more “silver” coins with the same face value. With more coins in circulation, the government could spend more. And so, the content of silver dropped over the years. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, the denarius was only about 75% silver. Caracalla tried a different method of debasement. He introduced the “double denarius,” which was worth 2x the denarius in face value. However, it had only the weight of 1.5 denarii. By the time of Gallienus, the coins had barely 5% silver. Each coin was a bronze core with a thin coating of silver.

The shine quickly wore off to reveal the poor quality underneath. Hyperinflation, soaring taxes, and worthless money created a trifecta that dissolved much of Rome’s trade. The economy was paralyzed. By the end of the 3rd century, any trade that was left was mostly local, using inefficient barter methods instead of any meaningful medium of exchange. 

The Romans played the game of currency debasement, all the way to the end until their empire collapsed. We have seen this as well with other smaller countries around the world today – Zimbabwe and Venezuela, to name a couple. So the currency debasement trick of many elites and their governments is a well-established method to rob the people for millennia. 

Solutions? Massive socialist redistribution schemes? No! This would just make it worse via exploding government budgets. Quite simply – return to a fixed monetary system. This does not necessarily mean currencies need to be gold-backed or even a fixed currency that never expands. It merely means that one can not allow the money supply to grow in far excess of GDP growth – which causes the currency debasement in the first place. It also means government expenditures must stay in line with tax revenues. Balanced budgets are something politicians would obviously hate, as they would no longer be able to scheme to buy votes today at the expense of tomorrow.

Do elites understand this scheme? Sure they do. Most common people do not. Unfortunately, the common people do not look far enough into the future and focus on today’s money and whatever they can get immediately from the government. Understanding this phenomenon puts today’s events into perspective. As wealth inequality rises, for sure Marxist envy politics can become very attractive to the common people. If we do not fix this problem, for sure, Marxism will take root.

Furthermore, instead of wallowing in class warfare, it is better for elites to divert the attention away from the real issues and get people fighting over race. Politically it is not a good argument to attack producers – it is part of the American work ethic. Better to talk about “systemic racism.” It’s an easier sell. This explains why so many elites are Leftists … it is a good scam to keep them in their positions of wealth and power.

Remember the legend of Payasam at Ambalappuzha? The king made a deal with the traveling sage that the king thought was a good deal – at least in the short run. It goes something like this – for my payment, give me one grain of rice on the first square of this chessboard, then two grains on the second square, four grains on the third square, eight grains on the fourth square and so on, so that each square contains double the amount of rice of the previous square. The total number of grains of rice needed to fill the chessboard would have been 18 quintillion grains of rice, which would weigh approximately 210 billion tonnes and would be enough rice to cover the entire country of India with a meter high layer of rice. Obviously, the king did not understand the math, and the scheme was not hidden, it was in plain sight.

There is a reason when Thomas Jefferson said, “Big banks are more dangerous than standing armies, and the practice of borrowing and spending money to be paid back by the next generation is stealing from their future.” Many are quick to bash banks. Even the Federal Reserve – citing conspiracy theories of the Illuminati, the Rockerfellers, and various other groups. You have heard it before, “There is no Federal in Federal Reserve.” It is a private agency used by the government. All this may be true. But it is also true that central banks, banks, and financial service companies do provide needed services. The scam is not just this – it is rather a small part – it is not just the institution rather its policies. It is the scam right in front of your face that is the most harmful. It is the ignorance of not understanding the basic math of Fiat Currency Debasement. 

Is the Federal Reserve sowing seeds of Marxism? The simple answer is yes, though one may debate whether knowingly or not. The Federal Reserve is like many organizations, they take on a life of their own and grows, perhaps initially thinking they are doing good. Today their policies could be just one of “extend and pretend” and hope the music does not stop on their watch. Or perhaps it is all nefarious – at least at the top level. Either way, the end results are the same.  But the Federal Reserve gets its authority from our politicians and ultimately from those who voted for them.

President Trump understands well this monetary system dynamic. After all, he is a real estate magnate. Trump has, in the past, talked about “Sound Money.” Trump has had little to say about sound money since the election. Trump has been focused in his first term on draining the swamp and trade. Perhaps in a second term, this may come into focus. There is a trifecta of economic, moral hazard, Fiat Currency Debasement, trade, and government-corporate corruption. More on these other moral hazard issues in the future.

So just how much moral hazard has Fiat Currency Debasement distorted our economy today? This would be a hard number to come by, but using the wealth inequality chart of this article, and just using the gage of your eyes, project a more linear line in terms of wealth inequality (since the mid-1970s) on an more equal basis. One could say that this moral hazard could be as high as 30% – understanding that the growth of wealth inequality is expanding each year. Median family income in inflation-adjusted dollars has not moved a lot in 50 years. Jut think what an additional 30% would do in building the middle class – adding support for free-market capitalism. And yes, the rich would still be rich – just with a narrower gap. Having a more vibrant middle-class would also help all economic classes to move up.

A caution to both our major political parties – if Fiat Currency Debasement is not handled in an effective way, the dark cloud of social dis-cohesion and Marxism will lift its ugly head. Once you understand well Fiat Currency Debasement, all the events of today start to fall into place.