Mexico’s Richest Man Carlos Slim Calls Rare Press Conference As Trump Tensions Rise, Live Feed

Just over a month ago, President-elect Trump and Mexico’s richest man, Carlos Slim, enjoyed what was described by Trump as “a lovely dinner with a wonderful man” at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.  Many viewed the meeting a start toward thawing relations with Mexico after a hard-fought campaign in which Trump relentlessly hammered our southern neighbor over jobs and illegal immigration.   Per the Washington Post:

Trump and Slim’s dinner was designed to open a friendly line of communication rather than delve into policy details, according to people briefed on the discussions.

 

Slim’s visit to Mar-a-Lago came after Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager who remains a confidant of the president-elect, quietly visited Mexico City on Dec. 9 to meet with Slim.

 

After the election, Slim connected with Lewandowski — someone he saw as having Trump’s ear but not as a formal member of his staff — and arranged for them to discuss trade, economic and other issues, according to people with knowledge of the session.

Trump even commemorated the dinner with a tweet:

 

That said, all may not be well between the two billionaires who butted headed several times during the contentious 2016 Presidential campaign cycle after Slim’s TV station in Mexico referred to Trump as a “racist” and refused to cover his Miss Universe pageant.  Trump later released a statement accusing Slim of colluding with the New York Times and Hillary to undermine his campaign: “The New York Times strings are being pulled by Mexico’s Carlos Slim, a billionaire who benefits from Nafta and supports Hillary Clinton’s open border policies.”

Now, just yesterday the relationship between Trump and Mexican President Pena Nieto seemingly soured over Twitter starting with the following tweets…

…which sent the Mexican Peso gyrating all over the place as perplexed traders tried to figure out what the Twitter wars will actually mean from a practical perspective…

MXN

…and has culminated with Carlos Slim calling a very rare press conference scheduled for 2PM EST….will he call for an economic truce or take more of a Vicente Fox approach to the “fucking wall”?

via http://ift.tt/2k0XSI3 Tyler Durden

Join Reason’s Immigration Conference on January 30 to Discuss the Proper Reform Agenda for President Trump’s First 100 Days and Beyond

With Donald Trump going on a tear today in announcing his executive orders, the future of immigration policy in this country has assumed a new urgency. To take Trumpstock of these orders and also offer President Trump more humane ways to achieve his objectives of national security and economic growth that are consistent with freedom and limited government, Reason is assembling a top-notch roster of immigration experts to weigh in on January 30 in Washington, D.C. Editor-in-Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward will kick off the conference with opening remarks and Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia will discuss the leviathan state President Trump’s harsh enforcement approach will require.

Other speakers:

Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy
Theresa Cardinal Brown, Director of Immigration Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center
Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity
Dan Griswold, Co-Director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University’s Program on the American Economy and Globalization
Tamar Jacoby, President of ImmigrationWorks USA
Tim Kane, Fellow in Immigration Studies at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
Matthew La Corte, Immigration Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center
Liz Mair, President of Mair Strategies
Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst at Cato Institute
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University

What will they discuss?

Panel discussions on how President-elect Donald Trump can most effectively move ahead with Congress on immigration reform; the best policies to deal with undocumented workers already in America; and how immigration policies will impact economic growth.

When?

The event starts at 9:30 am ET on January 30, 2017. Complimentary lunch will be served. The full schedule is here.

Where?

Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center in Washington, DC

To get more details and register, RSVP:

Patrick McMahon
Communications Specialist
Reason Foundation, Reason magazine, Reason.tv
patrick.mcmahon@reason.org

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2jn9l2N
via IFTTT

What’s Behind The Collapse In Global Exports?

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Global export of goods (priced in US dollars) has collapsed in Japan, the EU, and emerging markets, since their recovery highs following the great recession.

The US is the best of the lot, but US exports of goods are down substantially as well.

What’s behind the move? Is it protectionism? Currency related? Take a guess before reading further. The answer is coming up.

I got to thinking about the above questions after following a Gavekal Capital tweet that World Trade has Increased by Less Than 1% Annually Since 7/07.

gavekal-exports

Gavekal Explanation

There are fears that the world is on the precipice of turning back the clock on globalization. In some ways, the case can be made globalization has been retreating since the financial crisis. One of the strongest supporting data points of that argument is world trade data. According to the CPB World Trade Monitor, the value of world exports (volume * price) has increased by less than 1% annually since making a high on 7/31/2007 compared to more than a 5% annualized growth rate since 1991 (beginning of the data series). If we look at just volume data, the story doesn’t improve very much. World export volume has increased at less than 1.5% annually since 7/31/2007. This is about 1/3 of the annual growth rate world export volumes has increased by since 1991. Even with extraordinary global monetary easing in the post financial crisis world, world trade has been unable to find the extra gear it hit during the pre-crisis era.

That explanation sounded quite reasonable when I first read it, but I wanted to see how the US fared vs. the rest of the world.

After I downloaded then plotted the data, I came up with a completely different answer.

Global Exports January 2000 to November 2016

global-exports-2000-2016

Global exports priced in US dollars has varied directly with the price of oil. Protectionism had not kicked in yet, but it will.

Falling currencies are supposed to lift exports but take a look at sorry Japan. Outside the Mideast (the CPB lumps Africa with the Mideast), Japan is the worst of the lot.

Export Collapse Since Recovery Peak

 

In the above table, WTIC is the price of West Texas Intermediate Crude.

The Mideast correlated nearly 1-1 to the price of oil because oil is essentially the Mideast’s only export.

Currency Factor

Conventional wisdom says a rising currency is bad for exports and a sinking currency is good for exports. Yet …

  • Despite a strong dollar, the US has fared the best in exports percentage-wise since November 2011.
  • Despite a 31.8% collapse in the price of the Yen vs. the US dollar, Japanese exports fell 28.1%.

Looking Ahead Questions

  1. Is a global trade bust coming?
  2. Will a global trade bust mean another decline in the price of oil as well?

I believe Trump’s massively protectionist policies will lead to a huge decline in trade. If so, the above chart suggests it will likely be accompanied by another oil bust as well.

via http://ift.tt/2kBP6za Tyler Durden

Trump, Mexican President Hold Hour-Long Phone Call, Agree Not To Discuss Payment For “The Wall”

Is the Mexican president looking to salvage something from yesterday’s dramatic diplomatic devastation?

According to AP, shortly before his meeting with Theresa May, President Donald Trump spent one hour talking on the phone to the president of Mexico, Pena Nieto, amid “rising tensions” over Trump’s proposed wall along the border. Two administration officials confirmed Friday’s call.

According to Reuters, citing the Mexican government, the conversation between the two presidents included discussions on the trade deficit between the US and Mexico, and also discussed the need for both to work together to stop trafficking of drugs and illegal arms. Furthermore, the president agreed not to speak publicly for now on the “controversial” subject of payment for the border wall. During the Theresa May press conference, Trump said that the call was “very good” and “friendly”, and has a “very good relationship” with Nieto, but added that “Mexico has made us look foolish” and the trade deals will be renegotiated.

Trump and Pena Nieto had been expected to meet in Washington next week, but the Mexican president abruptly canceled his visit on Thursday. His decision came after Trump moved forward with plans to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and have Mexico pay for construction. Following the cancellation, Trump’s spokesman said the White House would seek to pay for the border wall by slapping a 20 percent tax on all imports from Mexico, as well as on other countries the U.S. has a trade deficit with. The White House later cast the proposal as just one option to pay for the wall.

The strong reaction from Mexico signaled a remarkable souring of relations between Washington and one of its most important international partners just days into the new administration. The U.S. and Mexico conduct some $1.6 billion a day in cross-border trade, and cooperate on everything from migration to drug enforcement to major environmental issues.

* * *

Following his imminent press conference with Theresa May, later in the day, the president is expected to travel to the Pentagon, where he was expected to sign a trio of executive actions, including one to halve the flow of refugees into the United Sates and stop all entries from some majority-Muslim nations. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump also intended to sign actions related to military readiness and the National Security Council. Details of those directives were not immediately clear.

According to a draft of the refugee order obtained by The Associated Press, Trump would move to indefinitely stop accepting Syrian refugees. The order also calls for a pause in the nation’s broader refugee program for at least 120 days. While at the Pentagon, Trump was expected to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and attend a ceremonial swearing-in for Defense Secretary James Mattis.

via http://ift.tt/2kaIPh4 Tyler Durden

Which Is Worse for Poor Americans: Energy Efficiency Mandates or Energy Taxes?: New at Reason

ManCrushedAlphaspiritDreamstimeU.S. automakers are asking the Trump administration to relax the vehicle efficiency standards imposed on them by the Obama Administrtion. Ratcheting up the mandatory energy efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances was a major part of Obama’s effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Energy calculated that the Obama administration’s energy efficiency standards would save consumers more than $520 billion on electricity costs by 2030.

But not all consumers are alike. In a new study contrasting the effects on consumers of energy efficiency standards versus energy taxes, the Georgetown economist Arik Levinson notes that both energy efficiency standards and energy taxes function as a regressive tax, taking a larger percentage of a lower income and a smaller percentage of a higher income. His analysis aims to find out which is more regressive—in other words, which is worse for poor Americans.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2k12KNm
via IFTTT

Texas Attempts End Run Around Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling

gay marriageWe’re seeing either an attempt to resurrect gay marriage discrimination policies in Texas or its death throes. Hopefully it’s the latter, but it could also be a useful case to bring about a discussion of the extent and fiscal consequences of expansive government employee benefits! (Spoiler: That’s not going to happen.)

A couple of taxpayers, supported by the Texas Republican establishment, are suing to stop the City of Houston from extending spousal benefits to partners in same-sex marriages. This would seem to go against the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that mandated that the federal government and the states recognize same-sex marriages as they do heterosexual marriages.

Indeed, Texas courts initially rejected the case, but the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general submitted briefs arguing that this case is an opportunity to “examine the scope” of how broad the Obergefell ruling is. So the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in March.

At the heart of the case is a claim that gets really odd, really quickly: They are arguing that legally recognizing a same-sex couple doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to extend the same employee benefits as they do to heterosexual married couples: “No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a ‘fundamental right’ to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse. It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others.”

While it’s true that no city employee has a “fundamental right” to spousal benefits, this line of argument is a bit of a straw man. The justification for denying benefits and subsidies matters—the government can’t just withhold them arbitrarily. Access to marriage benefits was part of the meat of what both the Obergefell and the previous Windsor ruling (which required the federal government to recognize gay marriages performed in states where it had been legalized) were about. From the majority opinion in Obergefell:

The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians.

Whether or not politicians in Texas support or “approve” of same-sex marriage should not be relevant to a decision of whether spouses should have access to benefits. It would certainly be deemed discriminatory to withhold benefits on the basis of the spouse’s race or political affiliation or any number of other categories.

If taxpayers have an objection to the cost of extending benefits to spouses of government employees, then the discussion truly should revolve around reducing those benefits as a class. But that’s not what this is about (which is a shame, really). If the government is going to offer a legal benefit or a privilege to a spouse, it needs to have a legitimate reason for discriminating against a particular couple. Not liking gay marriage isn’t a legitimate reason.

Read through the case files here. While it seems likely that this lawsuit must be doomed, courts can be tough to predict.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2jFA2Ao
via IFTTT

US Crude Production Nears 10-Month Highs As Rig Count Soars Most In Over 6 Years

Following last week's massive 29 rig jump in the US oil rig count (the largest since April 2013), Baker Hughes reports another 15 rig surge to 566 in the last week (with the entire rise dominated by horizontal/Permian rigs). US Crude production continues to track the surging rig count and that is weighing on WTI futures prices (back below $53 once again).

 

From the 316 count lows on May 27th, US oil rigs are up 250 overall (up 15 to 566 this week).. This is the biggest 2-week surge in rig counts since Dec 2011

 

And US Crude production is tracking the lagged oil rig count…

 

The surge in oil rig counts since May 2016 has been dominated by Permian…

 

Horizontal rigs…

 

And WTI Futures are back below $53…

 

via http://ift.tt/2ku6Ddu Tyler Durden

Reagan-Thatcher 2.0? President Trump & UK PM May Joint Press Conference – Live Feed

Following his first face-to-face meeting with a foreign leader, President Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May will hold a joint press conference to discuss establishing stronger economic and strategic ties having vowed to revive the closeness of their countries during the Reagan-Thatcher years.

As USA Today noted, many are comparing Trump and May to Reagan and Thatcher…

He was a skilled communicator and a celebrity. She was strong-willed and shared his disdain for big government.

 

 

They were the power political couple of the 1980s: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Now a similar pairing is emerging three decades later in President Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May, who meet at the White House on Friday.

Here are five key points that The Hill believes will be top-of-mind during the meeting and the press conference…

U.S.-U.K. trade deal

Trump has said that he wants a trade agreement between the United States and Britain “very quickly,” and May has expressed a similar eagerness to forge a deal. But the United Kingdom must complete negotiations to leave the European Union before it can sign any new trade agreements. That process is expected to begin in March and could take upward of two years to complete. The U.S. and the U.K. can hold discussions and lay the groundwork parallel to the Brexit process so they are prepared to move quickly.  May has said in recent days that she wants the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU to remain strong.  “I’m confident we can look at areas even in advance of being able to sign a formal trade deal,” she said, according to media reports.

 

Here is MEP Daniel Hannan offering a brief overview of what could be possible…

 

The future of NATO

The long-standing alliance is a top priority for May, who is expected to challenge Trump over his lack of support for the 28-member treaty.  Trump sent mixed messages in a recent interview with two European publications — The Times of London and Bild, a German newspaper — calling NATO  “obsolete” while at the same time saying the alliance “is very important to me.” The president has criticized members for failing to pay their bills and leaving the United States holding the check. But newly confirmed Secretary of Defense James Mattis pledged during his confirmation hearing to “maintain the strongest possible relationship with NATO.” NATO leaders will meet for a major summit in Belgium this summer. Whether Trump will choose to attend remains to be seen, but his decision either way will send a strong message throughout the world.  For her part, May argues that NATO must “evolve to be able to effectively counter the biggest threats of the day, in particular terrorism and cyberattacks.” So expect the British prime minister to not only try to clear up any confusion about where Trump stands but to work to win his support for keeping NATO running at full speed. During her remarks to congressional Republicans, May said, “America’s leadership role in NATO, supported by Britain, must be the central element around which the alliance is built.”

 

The battle against terrorism

Trump made defeating the ISIS and fighting terrorism a central tenet of his campaign.  May told congressional Republicans on Thursday that she joins the U.S. in its “determination to take on and defeat Daesh and the ideology of Islamic extremism that inspires them and many other terrorist groups in the world today,” using another name for ISIS. “It is in both our national interests to do so.”  She said it would require intelligence gathering and “military might” to defeat ISIS.  “But it also demands a wider effort because one of the lessons of fighting terrorism in the last 15 years or so is that yes, killing terrorists can save innocent lives, but until we kill the idea that drives them, the ideology, we will always have to live with this threat.”  In that vein, May is expected to challenge Trump over his widely condemned remarks that the U.S. would consider renewing the use of torture to gather intelligence. During her trip to the U.S., May told reporters: "We condemn torture and my view on that won't change, whether I am talking to you or talking to the president."  Top congressional lawmakers have said that they don’t support the legalization of waterboarding or other methods.

 

Conflict in Syria

May said that defeating ISIS hinges on a “secure a political solution in Syria and challenging the alliance between the Syrian regime and its backers in Tehran.” “We must employ all of the diplomatic means at our disposal,” May told Republican lawmakers.  But the situation in Syria, and the two countries’ approach, is in flux. U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said Thursday that Syrian leader Bashar Assad could remain in power if a peace accord is reached, a big shift from the previous demand that he step down. And Trump has signaled a willingness to work more closely with Russia, which is backing Assad’s regime. Johnson said the U.K. needs to get a clearer picture on where the U.S. stands. “We need to understand exactly where the White House is coming from,” Johnson said on the eve of the Trump-May meeting. “We need to understand how they see the end game here and we need to help shape that conversation.”  Trump is suspending new visas for Syrians and asking the Pentagon and State Department to craft a plan for setting up safe zones for civilians inside war-torn Syria, a move that Russian officials on Thursday said should be thoroughly evaluated. The Obama administration previously had ruled out the move. 

 

Relations with Russia

Trump has spoken warmly about Russian President Vladimir Putin, a position that has created unease in the U.S. and around the world.  The new president has said he hopes to make a deal with Putin to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles that would ease tensions and lead to the lifting of economic sanctions against Moscow. But May warned on Thursday that when it comes to Russia and talks with Putin, her advice is to “engage but beware.” “There is nothing inevitable about conflict between Russia and the West,” she told lawmakers. “And nothing unavoidable about retreating to the days of the Cold War.” "But we should engage with Russia from a position of strength. And we should build the relationships, systems and processes that make cooperation more likely than conflict — and that, particularly after the illegal annexation of Crimea, give assurance to Russia’s neighboring states that their security is not in question,” she said.  

President Trump and Prime Minister May are expected to start their joint press conference at 1300ET…

via http://ift.tt/2kaox7d Tyler Durden

Fourteen Years AFTER Bernanke Defined the U.S. Dollar as Worthless

Hold your real assets outside of the banking system in one of many private international facilities  –>    http://ift.tt/2cyFwvQ;

 

 

 

 

Fourteen Years AFTER Bernanke Defined the U.S. Dollar as Worthless

Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

 

 

 

History can be a cruel mistress – at least when one is able to find it via Google’s increasingly “forgetful” search engine. Who was it that made the following remark, on November 21, 2002?


“Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply.” [emphasis mine]


Here is a hint for regular readers. It’s the same person responsible for the chart below.

 

 

 

That’s right, B.S. Bernanke. The same Federal Reserve Governor who stated that the U.S. dollar can only have value as long as it is strictly limited in supply quintupled the supply of U.S. dollars in less than five years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve: the Bernanke Helicopter Drop.


Strictly limited in supply.


Did Benjamin Shalom Bernanke even understand those words, either when he first uttered them 14 years ago, or six years later when he began hyperinflating the supply of U.S. dollars? As anyone with a sophisticated understanding of mathematics knows, the chart above is the mathematical representation of the phrase “out of control”.


As a chart of the money supply of a major currency, the message above could not possibly be clearer. This is a one-way trip to worthlessness, an illustration of a hyperinflation-in-progress. However, the quoted sentence above is not when Bernanke defined the U.S. dollar as being worthless. Bernanke did this in the sentence immediately following, in what could be the most incongruous two sentences ever uttered in sequence.


But the U.S. government has a technology,called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. [emphasis mine]


The first quotation is utterly shocking in that it was made by the same person who would quickly become the least-responsible Chairman of the Federal Reserve in its 104 year history, in terms of not strictly limiting the supply of dollars.


The second quotation is even more shocking, but for an entirely different reason. It is so shocking because it is certain that Bernanke did not understand his own words, or he would have never advertised the worthlessness of the dollar.


As an elementary proposition of logic, anything that can be produced in infinite quantities and at zero cost must be worthless. Why? Because if this infinitely abundant, free commodity was not worthless, one could literally use that infinitely abundant commodity to buy every asset on the planet. No matter how microscopic the unit value of the infinitely abundant (free) commodity, its total supply would represent infinite wealth – more than enough to purchase every asset on the planet.


This is why, as a basic principle of economics, all fiat currencies must be worthless. They can be created in infinite supply, at zero cost. It is (not surprisingly) why every fiat currency ever created has plunged to worthlessness, or been removed from circulation before that final death-spiral could occur.


Worthless by definition.


Ponder those words. Now ponder that one of the premier authorities for this proposition of logic/economics is a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Newer readers always respond to such logic with the same retort.


If the U.S. dollar is worthless, why has its exchange rate risen (dramatically) versus other fiat currencies?


The facetious reply to that question is that 1,000,000 X 0 is still equal to zero. Saying that one (worthless) fiat currency is “more valuable” than another (worthless) fiat currency brings to mind the old joke about the man who jumps off the roof of a 100-storey building.


A man jumps off of the roof of a 100-storey building. As he sails past an open window on the 50th floor, someone sitting in an office inside hears him exclaim, “so far, so good.”


How does this joke relate to the world of worthless fiat currencies? Picture two men jumping off of a 100-storey building, with one man standing on the shoulders of the other. What is the only real difference between the two men? One goes “splat” slightly sooner than the other.


This is what the “high value” of the U.S. dollar really means: splat – a little bit later.


However, there is a much more serious rebuttal to that previous question: currency manipulation. Western Big Banks have been convicted of serially manipulating all of the world’s currencies, going back to at least 2008. Look again at the chart above and see if that date strikes a familiar chord.


Since 2008; these convicted currency manipulators have (primarily) manipulated the U.S. dollar higher, and manipulated all other currencies lower. That’s not a “theory”, that’s a fact, verified by a criminal conviction.


This is the world of fiat currencies, confirmed by 1,000 years of history, confirmed by an inadvertent admission from no less than the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. It is not only the U.S. dollar which is worthless. All of these Western fiat currencies are worthless, because they have all been conjured into existence in grossly excessive (i.e. reckless) quantities. But if we were to rank all of this worthless paper, the U.S. dollar would rank at the bottom of the heap, debauched to an even greater extreme than all the rest of this banker paper.


It is a mere 46 years since Paul Volcker assassinated the last vestige of our gold standard. Regular readers understand the significance of this as well.


“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to prevent the confiscation of savings through inflation.”

Alan Greenspan, 1966


It is an infamous quotation from another Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but a confession which was uttered by Greenspan before he had the slightest understanding of who would “confiscate” all our savings (i.e. steal all of our wealth).


In 1971; the U.S. dollar was still relatively fully valued. By implication, so were other major currencies, since their value was a direct derivative of the value of the dollar. Forty-six years later; the U.S. dollar is worthless, meaning that the entire supply of U.S. dollars no longer holds any wealth. Forty-six years later; none of these Western currencies hold any wealth.


To where did all that stolen wealth disappear? Into the pockets of the Criminals in control of the U.S. printing press – as well as the other printing presses of the Western world. Theft by money-printing. Regular readers also know the identity of those Criminals.


Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812)


One of these criminals (Greenspan) warned us what would be done to us if we were ever foolish enough (and weak enough) to allow our governments and their central bank overlords to rob us of our gold standard. Another one of these Criminals (Bernanke) accidentally told us what was being done to us, shortly
before the crime was finally completed.


What is the lesson to be learned from these events? It is the same lesson explained to readers in a recent commentary, entitled The Secret of Wealth Preservation.


Our currencies are already worthless. Our wealth has already been stolen. But like a collection of cheap magicians, these convicted currency manipulators have created the illusion of value in our paper currencies.


They have been greatly assisted by the treasonous acts of our own governments. “There is no inflation,” the bankers hiss, as food and housing costs spiral out of control. The bankers get away with this lie because of the laughably fraudulent inflation statistics produced by our governments, with the U.S. government in a league of its own when it comes to lying about inflation.


Thank the bankers for this. It is because the bankers continue to maintain the illusion of value in these worthless Western currencies that we still have a last chance to exchange this worthless paper for assets of real value. Which assets?


For over 4,000 years; the answer has always been the same when seeking a “safe haven” from economic calamity (and/or the financial crimes of bankers): gold and silver. As explained in that recent commentary, gold and silver have a multi-thousand-year track record of perfectly preserving our wealth (and they have never plunged to zero value).


In contrast, in 46 years the U.S. dollar has lost almost all of its value. And fiat currencies have a perfect track record over the last one thousand years: they always plunge to zero value.


How desperate have the bankers become as they see their precious fiat currencies entering their final death throes? At the eleventh hour, these Criminals are seeking to engage in a sleazy hand-off: banishing their present collection of worthless, paper currencies, only to be replaced by something that is not even a currency.


Ask any Western banker where the future is heading with respect to our monetary system, and he or she will simply parrot three letters, S-D-R: the “special drawing rights” of the IMF. What makes this so special? Nothing. It is simply a line of credit.


It is not even possible to logically envision how a line of credit could be stretched and twisted, and end up being called a “currency”. Special Drawing Rights are nothing of the kind. They are not units – of anything – they are simply an amount.


However, in our Wonderland Matrix, where the Corporate media oligopoly censors any/all discussion which contradicts these serial frauds, the bankers simply believe that they can now call anything “money”. Note that this desperate crusade also explains a concurrent obsession of the banking crime syndicate: the War on Cash.


Can you imagine walking around with a pocket full of Special Drawing Rights? Almost certainly not. Who can imagine walking around with a pocket full of credit? But, in a world where we are no longer allowed to hold currency, where the very concept of “money” becomes totally ethereal, then in that world, perhaps the bankers can pass off their “SDR’s” as money – or at least currency.


Note also how this nearly obliterates the distinction between debt and value. By definition; SDR’s are increments of debt. The bankers are attempting to pass them off as instruments of value. Even for these Machiavellian criminals, this ranks as one of their most audacious attempted crimes.


Readers have a choice. They can play Russian Roulette with their wealth and financial stability, and hope that the bankers can perpetrate their SDR hand-off, and delay the final collapse of the bankers’ fiat currency Ponzi-scheme. Or; you can flee to safety. The only safety.

 

 

 

Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

 

 

 

 

Fourteen Years AFTER Bernanke Defined the U.S. Dollar as Worthless

Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

via http://ift.tt/2kbDer6 Sprott Money

Gorbachev: ‘It Looks As If The World Is Preparing for War’

Some troubling observations from the last leader of the USSR, first posted in Time.

The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss.

But no problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

The current situation is too dangerous.

More troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers are being brought to Europe. NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other, as if to shoot point-blank.

While state budgets are struggling to fund people’s essential social needs, military spending is growing. Money is easily found for sophisticated weapons whose destructive power is comparable to that of the weapons of mass destruction; for submarines whose single salvo is capable of devastating half a continent; for missile defense systems that undermine strategic stability.

Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defense doctrines more dangerous. Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.

It could have been different

In the second half of the 1980s, together with the U.S., we launched a process of reducing nuclear weapons and lowering the nuclear threat. By now, as Russia and the U.S. reported to the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference, 80% of the nuclear weapons accumulated during the years of the Cold War have been decommissioned and destroyed. No one’s security has been diminished, and the danger of nuclear war starting as a result of technical failure or accident has been reduced.

This was made possible, above all, by the awareness of the leaders of major nuclear powers that nuclear war is unacceptable.

In November 1985, at the first summit in Geneva, the leaders of the Soviet Union and the U.S. declared: Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Our two nations will not seek military superiority. This statement was met with a sigh of relief worldwide.

I recall a Politburo meeting in 1986 at which the defense doctrine was discussed. The proposed draft contained the following language: “Respond to attack with all available means.” Members of the politburo objected to this formula. All agreed that nuclear weapons must serve only one purpose: preventing war. And the ultimate goal should be a world without nuclear weapons.
Breaking out of the vicious circle

Today, however, the nuclear threat once again seems real. Relations between the great powers have been going from bad to worse for several years now. The advocates for arms build-up and the military-industrial complex are rubbing their hands.

We must break out of this situation. We need to resume political dialogue aiming at joint decisions and joint action.

There is a view that the dialogue should focus on fighting terrorism. This is indeed an important, urgent task. But, as a core of a normal relationship and eventually partnership, it is not enough.

The focus should once again be on preventing war, phasing out the arms race, and reducing weapons arsenals. The goal should be to agree, not just on nuclear weapons levels and ceilings, but also on missile defense and strategic stability.

In modern world, wars must be outlawed, because none of the global problems we are facing can be resolved by war — not poverty, nor the environment, migration, population growth, or shortages of resources.

Take the first step

I urge the members of the U.N. Security Council — the body that bears primary responsibility for international peace and security — to take the first step. Specifically, I propose that a Security Council meeting at the level of heads of state adopt a resolution stating that nuclear war is unacceptable and must never be fought.

I think the initiative to adopt such a resolution should come from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin — the Presidents of two nations that hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenals and therefore bear a special responsibility.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that one of the main freedoms is freedom from fear. Today, the burden of fear and the stress of bearing it is felt by millions of people, and the main reason for it is militarism, armed conflicts, the arms race, and the nuclear Sword of Damocles. Ridding the world of this fear means making people freer. This should become a common goal. Many other problems would then be easier to resolve.The time to decide and act is now.

via http://ift.tt/2kaBCh0 Tyler Durden