Month: November 2019

It’s unclear exactly when it happened (the BBG story doesn’t say), but Jacky, a Hong Kong Police Officer was working during one of the weekend demonstrations/riots that have become typical of the city in recent months. He had worked many prior demonstrations. But this time, he was beginning to feel threatened.

For hours, his unit had been engaged in what increasingly felt like a battle with protesters. Several rounds of non-lethal weapons fire, including pepper spray and rubber bullets, but the crowd wouldn’t disperse.

So he decided to engage in an option commonly viewed as a last resort. He pulled out a gun, and fired a live round into the air.

“It was the first time I felt that way – not that I would necessarily die, but that something was going to happen to me and my unit,” he said, speaking to a news outlet for the first time since the incident. “It’s the thing I had to do at that moment.”

Nobody was hurt, but for Jacky, the danger was only just beginning. Protesters accusing him of police brutality quickly doxxed him, and began posting death threats online. Two days after the shooting, BBG reports, the calls flooded in filled with violent threats about his family.

One online post offered a bounty: 500,000 HKD to kill Jacky.

“Do you feel heroic?” one person asked. Others simply cursed at him. He switched off his phone after a day, but then the emails came in droves. Some were death threats: One message online offered a HK$500,000 ($64,000) bounty to kill him.

Police acted swiftly to increase his protection. He was moved to a secure location with his family. He doesn’t regret firing the round, which he says he did to save his colleagues. But the response has been baffling. The repercussions facing his family, even his young daughter, have been surprising.

Jacky quickly moved out of the police quarters where he was staying and into a secure location. He didn’t leave the room for three weeks afterward, he said. But for him, what happened to his daughter was even worse: Shortly after he pulled her from school, her desk was painted black and vandalized. She hasn’t been able to return.

“I don’t regret having to save my colleagues, but regret that it ended up having an effect on my daughter,” Jacky said, adding that the psychological pain of the personal attacks after his information was leaked was far worse than battles with protesters involving Molotov cocktails, bricks and corrosive acid. “I don’t know how our society has come to this.”

According to BBG, both police and protesters have been victims of this kind of ‘doxxing’. At least 11 people have been arrested for doxxing officers, which can lead to charges of disclosing personal information without consent, incitement or access to a computer with dishonest or criminal intent, BBG says. Nobody has been arrested for doxxing protesters.

Beyond the physical violence, protesters and police alike have been victims of “doxxing,” when personal information is maliciously leaked online. In August, former Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying promoted a website offering cash bounties to identify demonstrators. The following month, a Weibo account of China’s state-owned CCTV accompanied its post about a doxxing website with a call to “unmask” protesters.

Making his financial situation even more precarious, Jacky has been on leave since the incident as HK police investigate (standard procedure any time a weapon is discharged). It’s likely the investigation will clear Jacky, but protesters are more worried about the police using these incidents as a convenient excuse to bring “the Great Firewall” to Hong Kong. Though at this point, it seems like warm relations between the police and large swaths of the people won’t ever be restored. According to Jacky, the situation between police and the public has gotten persistently worse. When protests started in June, he said he heard some demonstrators swearing at police.

“That night, I still thought our job as police was to facilitate these protests,” he said, noting that he was struck by how young some of the protesters were. “I was asking them to leave. ‘Why don’t you go home? Do your parents know where you are?'”

But they turned increasingly violent and anti-police as the weeks wore on. To deal with this, Jacky says he constantly reminds himself that the protesters aren’t really shouting at him, they’re shouting at the government.

Authored by Alex Bruesweitz via HumanEvents.com,

Horse trading is the oxygen of politics; it is how politicians are persuaded to care about things that otherwise would not make their radar. Not only does it happen all the time, but it is a core feature of our political system; representative government relies on this kind of political trading to ensure a plurality of interests and needs are satisfied.

Members of Congress routinely trade “policy for policy.” You sponsor my bill, and I’ll sponsor yours, you vote for a road in my district, and vice versa. Members even trade policy for personnel and hiring purposes: you support my bill, and I’ll let so-and-so’s hearing move forward, you appoint me to this, and I’ll recommend your protege for that. These deals can even cross the blood/brain barrier between states and the federal government.

It is not corruption. It’s the warp and woof of a democratic political system. But in routinely branding President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine as potential “corruption,” and pointing to the exchange of unrelated asks as proof of that corruption, our friends in the fourth estate are acting in willful ignorance and bad faith.

The President has taken a firm position that he did not hold out foreign aid to Ukraine as a condition for investigating Hunter Biden’s activities there. But, even if he did, bargaining isn’t corruption—it’s policymaking.

Rod Blagojevich.

GOVERNANCE WOULD HARDLY BE POSSIBLE

An esteemed panel of federal judges in Chicago made precisely this point a few years ago. You may recall the prosecution of former-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on various federal charges. And although the judges largely upheld his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commentary on the affair was crystal clear. At least one of the counts that the trial judge had sent to the jury was just politics, pure and simple, and could not have been a crime.

“[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment.”

In 2008, then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected to serve as President of the United States. Appointment of his successor in the Senate, until an interim election was held, fell by operation of statute to Governor Blagojevich. In the words of Judge Frank Easterbrook, writing for the court, the Governor saw this as a “bonanza.” Among other things, Governor Blagojevich (through intermediaries) was alleged to have asked President-elect Obama for an appointment to the Cabinet (for himself) in exchange for him appointing Valerie Jarrett to the interim seat in the Senate. Alternatively, he was alleged to have asked the President-elect to “persuade a foundation to hire him at a substantial salary after his term as Governor ended, or find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new ‘social welfare’ organization that he would control.”

The President-elect declined on all counts, but the lawyerly point is this: the trial judge told the jurors that if it found the Governor had proposed any of these three deals, it could return a verdict of guilty.

Not so fast, said Judge Easterbrook.

Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Easterbrook noted that, indeed, the trial judge’s instructions to the jury supported a conviction “even if [the jury] found that his only request of Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet.” But not all the Governor’s proposals were the same. According to the court, “[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment.”

In other words, swapping one policy for another is a political commonplace. “Governance would hardly be possible without these accommodations,” the court went on to observe.

Rudy Giuliani.

INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IS—AND SHOULD BE—POLICY

To be sure, some folks may disagree with the President’s foreign policy, but elections matter in a representative democracy, and President Trump was duly elected. Whether or not you agree with his politics, he has been elected to do a job: govern.

So let’s suppose—strictly for the sake of argument—that the President did withhold foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for a commitment to investigate allegations of corruption. This is, quite literally, the exchange of one policy for another—horse-trading in every sense. Does the United States have no policy interest in making sure that the countries with which it interacts—and to which it sends aid money—do not engage in corrupt practices? Of course, it does. The case for “corruption” would require that President Trump withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit—not policy gains that are ultimately good for American foreign policy.

At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham: it’s a misinformation campaign in which Democrats and their media are willfully ignoring the way our policy process works to prevent our President from governing.

Update (1805ET): President Trump was quick to react:

Oh no, Beto just dropped out of race for President despite him saying he was “born for this.” I don’t think so!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2019

*  *  *

Having plunged from over 10% to just 1% in the PredictIt betting, former Texas congressman (and failed Texas Senate seat contender) Beto O’Rourke is dropping out of the race to become the Democratic Party’s next Presidential candidate.

Quite a collapse since he entered the 2020 primary in the middle of March with the aura of a celebrity, cheered by rank-and-file Democrats, to being among the lowest polling of the many candidates – even after very strong fundraising efforts early on.

“My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee,” he said.

Source: Bloomberg

The New York Times reports that Mr. O’Rourke made the decision to quit the race in the middle of this week, on the eve of a gathering Friday of Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, according to people familiar with his thinking. He is not expected to run for any other office in 2020, despite persistent efforts by party leaders and political donors to coax him into another bid for the Senate.

A spokesman to Mr. O’Rourke reiterated that stance on Friday.

“Beto will not be a candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas in 2020,” said Rob Friedlander, an aide to Mr. O’Rourke.

His campaign has been under extreme financial strain, and Mr. O’Rourke’s advisers concluded that proceeding in the race might have meant making deep cuts to his staff in order to pay for advertising and other measures to compete in the early primary and caucus state.

What will the media do now that their once-favorite is gone?

But in a recent interview with Politico, Mr. O’Rourke said that if he did not prevail in the 2020 presidential primary he would not become a candidate again.

“I cannot fathom a scenario where I would run for public office again if I’m not the nominee,” Mr. O’Rourke said last month.

You promise!?

Read his full statement below:

Our campaign has been about seeing clearly, speaking honestly and acting decisively in the best interests of America.

Though it is difficult to accept, it is clear to me now that this campaign does not have the means to move forward successfully. My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. Acknowledging this now is in the best interests of those in the campaign; it is in the best interests of this party as we seek to unify around a nominee; and it is in the best interests of the country.

I decided to run for President because I believed that I could help bring a divided country together in common cause to confront the greatest set of challenges we’ve ever faced. I also knew that the most fundamental of them is fear — the fear that Donald Trump wants us to feel about one another; the very real fear that too many in this country live under; and the fear we sometimes feel when it comes to doing the right thing, especially when it runs counter to what is politically convenient or popular.

I knew, and I still know, that we can reject and overcome these fears and choose to instead be defined by our ambitions and our ability to achieve them.

I knew that we would have to be unafraid in how we ran the campaign. We’d have to run with nothing to lose. And I knew that our success would depend not on PACs or corporations but upon the grassroots volunteers and supporters from everywhere, especially from those places that had been overlooked or taken for granted.

We should be proud of what we fought for and what we were able to achieve.

Together we were able to help change what is possible when it comes to the policies that we care about and the country we want to serve. We released the first comprehensive plan to confront climate change of any of the presidential candidates; we took the boldest approach to gun safety in American history; we confronted institutional, systemic racism and called out Donald Trump for his white supremacy and the violence that he’s encouraged against communities that don’t look like, pray like or love like the majority in this country; and we were one of the first to reject all PAC money, corporate contributions, special interest donations and lobbyist help.

We proposed an economic program that focused on both equality and equity and would give every American the certainty that one job would be enough; and a healthcare plan that would guarantee that every one of us is well enough to live to our full potential.

We knew the only way our country would live up to its promise is if everyone could stand up to be counted. We released the most ambitious voter registration and voting rights plan, one that would bring 55 million new voters into our democracy, and remove barriers for those who’ve been silenced because of their race, ethnicity or the fact that they live with a disability.

We spoke with pride about El Paso and communities of immigrants. We elevated the plight and the promise of refugees and asylum seekers. And we proposed nothing short of rewriting this country’s immigration laws in our own image, to forever free from fear more than 11 million of our fellow Americans who should be able to contribute even more to our shared success.

And at this moment of truth for our country, we laid bare the cost and consequence of Donald Trump: the rise in hate crimes, the terror attack in El Paso, the perversion of the Constitution, the diminished standing of the United States around the world. But we also made clear the common responsibility to confront him, to hold him accountable and ensure that he does not serve another term in office. Committing ourselves to this task not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first before we are anything else.

I am grateful to each one of you, and to all the people who made up the heart and soul of this campaign. You were among the hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans who made a donation, signed up to volunteer or spread the word about this campaign and our opportunity to help decide the election of our lifetime.

You have been with me from the beginning, through it all. I know that you did it not for me personally, not for the Democratic Party, but for our country at this defining moment. Though today we are suspending this campaign, let us each continue our commitment to the country in whatever capacity we can.

Let us continue to fearlessly champion the issues and causes that brought us together. Whether it is ending the epidemic of gun violence or dismantling structural racism or successfully confronting climate change before it is too late, we will continue to organize and mobilize and act in the best interests of America.

We will work to ensure that the Democratic nominee is successful in defeating Donald Trump in 2020. I can tell you firsthand from having the chance to know the candidates, we will be well served by any one of them, and I’m going to be proud to support whoever that nominee is.

And proud to call them President in January 2021, because they will win.

We must support them in the race against Donald Trump and support them in their administration afterwards, do all that we can to help them heal a wounded country and bring us together in meeting the greatest set of challenges we have ever known.

I’m confident I will see you down the road, and I look forward to that day.

Thank you for making this campaign possible, and for continuing to believe that we can turn this moment of great peril into a moment of great promise for America and the world.

With you always, and forever grateful.

Beto

Maybe a little more Spanish-speaking, a little more gun-grabbing, a few more dentist appointment videos, and a little more swearing would have done the job… hey, you know what they say – 3rd time’s the charm (just ask Hillary)!

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

Officials at Saudi Aramco believe that Iran used satellite maps from Google Maps to precisely attack the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia in the middle of September, a U.S. Senator who visited the Kingdom after the attacks said, raising concerns that no energy infrastructure is safe.

Joe Manchin, Senator for West Virginia, visited Saudi Aramco facilities two weeks after the attacks. The U.S. Senator spoke to Aramco officials and shared part of his conversation during the North American Infrastructure Leadership Forum in Washington, as carried by the Washington Examiner.

On September 14, the Abqaiq facility and the Khurais oil field in Saudi Arabia were hit by attacks, which resulted in the temporary suspension of 5.7 million bpd of Saudi Arabia’s crude oil production, or around 5 percent of global daily oil supply.

U.S. President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry all blamed Iran for the attack. Saudi Arabia has also pointed the finger at Iran.

Senator Manchin was shown a video of the missile attacks in Saudi Arabia, he said at the forum.

The Senator asked a Saudi Aramco official whether the oil giant is concerned about someone working at the facility getting the information or the coordinates of possible strikes to hostile actors.

“He looked at me and said, ‘If we thought that was a problem, we would be, but basically it’s all Google, Google Maps.’ He said, ‘It’s so accurate,’” the Senator said, as carried by Washington Examiner.

The revelation that clear images on Google Maps can help terrorists target oil and gas facilities had Senator Manchin worried about the state of the U.S. energy infrastructure, especially natural gas pipelines.

An attack on a single natural gas pipeline in the United States could lead to mass blackouts, Neil Chatterjee, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), said last month, discussing America’s energy infrastructure in the aftermath of the attacks in Saudi Arabia.  

In an interview with the Financial Times, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said he’s not ready to kneel down and accept Goldman Sachs’s first offer in its attempt to settle a civil case stemming from the bank’s involvement in the 1MDB scandal, one of the biggest financial frauds to rock the region in modern history.

As was rumored in earlier reports, Goldman offered Malaysia “less than $2 billion” to settle the suit. In a series of three bond offerings, Goldman raised $6.5 billion for 1MDB, a sovereign wealth fund that was supposed to finance major public works projects across Malaysia.

But the money never made it that far.

A group of senior government officials, including former Prime Minister Najib Razak, led by shadowy financier Jho Low, looted billions from 1MDB and hid it from the people of Malaysia. How much did they take? The DoJ put the number at $4 billion; Malaysia believes its closer to $6 billion.

Mahathir Mohamad

Mohamad said that Malaysia’s negotiators (led by AG Tommy Thomas) are still talking with Goldman.

“Goldman Sachs has offered something like less than $2bn,” Mahathir Mohamad told the Financial Times in an interview on Friday. “We are not satisfied with that amount so we are still talking to them…If they respond reasonably we might not insist on getting that $7.5bn.”

And he’s not stopping there. Mohamad said Malaysia has also reached out to DB and UBS over their involvement with 1MDB, as it strives to work with whatever banks it can to recoup any money stolen from 1MDB. DB has also found itself caught up in the criminal end of the scandal: Malaysia is investigating the recidivist German lender over whether it violated AML statutes while raising $1.2 billion for 1MDB back in 2014 (a deal that came after offerings underwritten by Goldman). UBS has been reprimanded by the Swiss government over transactions related to 1MDB that the bank helped facilitate.

Goldman earned more than $600 million in fees from the 1MDB deal, and Malaysia has made it clear that it wants every cent of that money returned.

But US prosecutors have already seized billions of dollars in assets pertaining to the case. On Thursday, reports emerged claiming that Low, now a fugitive believed to be hiding in China under the Communist Party’s protection, has settled a flurry of civil suits with the DoJ, agreeing to hand over more than $900 million. Mohamad said Malaysia isn’t in contact with Low, who admitted no guilt in his deal with the US. Malaysia doesn’t know where Low is: “He’s not staying in any one place.”

“The amount [Mr Low embezzled from 1MDB] is much bigger,” said Mr Mahathir. “If he had the full amount we would be very happy…We are still going after the rest of the money.”

“The DoJ has indicated that, if we can prove claim of ownership, then we will be able to get the money for ourselves.”

Goldman’s strong earnings over the past two quarters have helped ease investors’ worries about 1MDB, and the scandal has largely faded into the background since late last year, when revelations that senior Goldman execs, including Lloyd Blankfein, had personally intervened to greenlight the 1MDB deals despite numerous red flags from compliance. But we imagine that many insiders are waiting for the next shoe to drop. Right now, prosecutors have the leverage. Goldman just might get stuck paying the bulk of Malaysia’s ask.

Both Malaysia and the US have accused senior Goldman bankers of bribing corrupt Malaysian politicians to secure the bond deal business for the bank.

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, your finances and your prosperity.

*  *  *

Appeals court overturns child pornography conviction because criminal is transgender

Right up front– to be absolutely clear, we have absolutely no issues whatsoever about the personal decisions that people make in their lives.

We couldn’t care less if someone chooses to identify as a seedless watermelon, and we support anyone’s right to be whoever they want to be.

But a person’s right to self-identify shouldn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. And that’s where today’s identity politics really become completely ridiculous.

Here’s a great example–

In January 2016, an Australian male-to-female transgender person was caught with child pornography on her phone.

Now, possession of child pornography is a serious crime anywhere, especially in Australia where it carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

But the woman received an unbelievably light sentence– just two years of probation.

Shockingly, the woman appealed the punishment. And the appeals court ruled that even the two-year probation was too harsh because the woman was confused about her gender identity at the time of the crime.

Allow me to be blunt: this person was in possession of child pornography– images of boys as young as FIVE posing naked or engaging in intercourse.

But in Australia, being confused about your gender apparently justifies the exploitation of children.

Click here to read the judge’s opinion.

*  *  *

College conference names biological male their female athlete of the week

An affiliate of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) called the Big Sky Conference named a biological male as their female athlete of the week.

The student is now called June Eastwood, and placed second in a recent women’s cross country race.

But the same student was dominating the mens’ cross country courses as little as two years ago as Jonathan Eastwood.

The NCAA has no minimum standard for the amount of testosterone in an athlete’s system when they compete in the women’s category. For the NCAA, anything goes: as long as the student says they are female, the athletic association allows them to compete as a woman.

You can be male today, and compete as a female tomorrow, and set every world record in the sport overnight..

This is just the latest in a string of incidents we have been highlighting where biological men are dominating women’s sports like weightlifting, cycling, and running.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Another school suspends student for picture with a gun

A 17 year old high school girl posed with her Army veteran brother for a Snapchat picture.

In it, they held up guns, and flipped off the camera– a gesture meant towards the brother’s enemy in combat, she said.

This, of course, happened outside of school, on her own time. Nothing depicted was illegal.  The photo and caption made no reference to the teen’s school or violence in any way.

But school officials said they got complaints from students and parents who feared that the girl would do something violent. So the school suspended her for five days.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Equifax used “admin” as username and password

Do you remember the giant Equifax data breach? In September 2017,  Equifax announced a that the personal information of 147 million people had been stolen by hackers.

It turns out that Equifax was completely hapless in its security; in fact the company’s head of cybersecurity was an ex-musician who had little IT training or experience.

Now we’ve found out from court documents (Equifax has been sued by EVERYONE) that the  company used the word “admin” as both the username and password for a portal which stored sensitive information.

Equifax also used an unencrypted, public-facing server to store sensitive personal information.

And when they did encrypt data, they left the key in the open so that it could be easily stolen.

Their security would be absurdly relaxed for a coffee shop, let alone a company that deals with the most sensitive possible personal and financial information of hundreds of millions of people.

Click here to see the court documents for yourself.

Economic issues have always been an important factor in American elections. After all, people who feel prosperous typically want things to continue just as they are, and electing a new leader might feel like rocking the boat.

So far, President Trump has shined when it comes to economic issues, according to most public opinion polling. And he’s taken steps to ensure the good times never end, like browbeating the Fed into changing course and bringing interest rates back down.

President Trump’s tax plan had a different impact depending on factors like whether you own property and where the property is located. But does the average American really feel that much different? To try and find out, BankRate.com did a  study and found that most people believe their financial situation hasn’t changed all that much.

As far as what issues matter most to voters in the upcoming election, most said health care and employment.

Still, when asked who they credit for the 10-year run of economic growth that followed the financial crisis, most respondents to the Bank Rate survey said Trump.

While most young people have struggled to build wealth in the aftermath of the crisis, BankRate found that, unsurprisingly, people who were already wealthy have fared better over the past 10 years.

 

In keeping with other evidence showing that millennials are still struggling with the aftermath of the recession, millennial respondents to the survey expressed the most concern about their financial position, when compared with Gen X and Boomers.

Perhaps the 2010s will fare better for them. Though with banks already bracing for another downturn, it’s possible that the coming years could be some of the most difficult in a decade.

Via SchiffGold.com,

As expected, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates another 25 basis points on Wednesday.

The mainstream read the post FOMC meeting comments to be relatively hawkish, saying Powell and Company seemed to indicate that future rate cutting is on pause.

Peter Schiff opened up his podcast reminding us that just one year ago, the Fed was raising rates and telling us it would continue to do so through 2019. It also claimed that quantitative tightening was on “autopilot.”

And they said this with a straight face. And everybody believed them.”

At the time, Peter was saying it wasn’t going to happen. He said the central bank would start cutting rates and relaunch QE. And here we are.

The central bank removed the phrase saying it was committed to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion” from its forward guidance. This was widely viewed as a more hawkish stance. The Fed replaced that language, instead saying, “The Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook as it assesses the appropriate path of the target range for the federal funds rate.” Powell was more emphatic during his press conference, saying bank officials “see the current stance of monetary policy as likely to remain appropriate.”

Of course, Powell again claimed that the Fed is not engaged in quantitative easing despite the repo operations and bond-buying program. He tried to draw a distinction between QE and today’s operations by pointing out that the central bank is buying short-term bonds today while it bought longer-term debt during QE.

This is really a distinction without a difference. I mean, who cares what the maturity of the bonds are?”

If the Fed was going to simply let the bonds fall off the books once they matured, the length of the term might be relevant. But Peter said that’s not what’s going to happen.

They’re just going to keep rolling these bonds over … This is another source of financing, of the Fed financing government debt. That’s quantitative easing. I mean, why did the Federal Reserve do QE in the first place? To keep interest rates lower than they would have been had they not done quantitative easing. And, by extension, to prop up asset prices.”

And why is the Fed doing what it’s doing today?

For the exact same reason. To keep interest rates artificially low, to suppress the cost of borrowing, to help out all debtors so they can make payments on their debt and to keep the stock market elevated, to keep real estate prices elevated.”

We also got the GDP numbers on Wednesday. Growth came in at 1.9%. That was better than expected. But a big chunk of that growth was consumer spending and a revived housing market. This was a function of Fed policy.

The Federal Reserve is basically doing now what it was doing then, for the same reason it was doing it then, except it doesn’t want to admit. Powell doesn’t want to say that the Fed is doing quantitative easing. The main reason is he doesn’t want to admit the economy needs it.”

In fact, Powell keeps saying the economy is good.

Well, if everything is good, why do we need the emergency monetary policy when everything wasn’t good? When we were trying to get the economy out of a bad place, we did QE. And if it’s now in a good place, why are we doing it again? So, that’s why he wants to deny he’s doing it.”

When asked, Powell did admit that the current monetary policy is “accommodative.” Peter said it may even be more accommodative than it was when rates were at zero because inflation is higher. In fact. Powell admitted core CPI is finally above 2%. So, if inflation, even as the government measure it is above 2% and the Fed just dropped rates to 1.5%, we’re talking about negative real interest rates.

That is highly accommodative. I mean, why would the Fed be accommodating the strongest economy in the history of our country? Clearly, the reason Powell thinks we need so much support from the Fed is because he knows the economy is weak, that without the Fed’s help, it would implode. A strong economy doesn’t need the help of the Fed.”

Peter also talked about the fact that the Fed basically admitted that inflation is going to go a whole lot higher. Powell said the Fed would need to see a “really significant” and persistent move up in inflation before considering rate hikes. Basically, Powell conceded that the Fed wasn’t going to be vigilant about inflation. It is willing to let the genie out of the bottle. The question then becomes, how will it ever get the inflation genie back in the bottle? In short, it won’t. Think about what it took for Paul Volker to put the inflation genie back in the bottle in the 1980s. We saw 20% interest rates. Can you imagine that in this debt-riddled, overleveraged economy?

The only key is when is the market going to wake up to this game, this con. When are they going to realize the box the Fed has put itself in? That it is completely impotent when it comes to inflation-fighting? That it is all bark and no bite, and it basically, it’s not even barking yet? It’s only talking about the prospect of barking in the future, but it will never bite. And when the markets figure this out, the bottom is going to drop out of the dollar. Gold is going to absolutely go through the roof.”