iftttwall – Page 20172

Gold $10,000 Coming – “Time To Prepare Is Now”

James Rickards: Long-Term Forecast For $10,000 Gold

James Rickards, geopolitical and monetary expert and best selling author of the ‘The New Case for Gold’ has written an interesting piece for the Daily Reckoning on why he believes gold will reach $10,000 in the long term.

Gold in USD Adjusted for Inflation 1970-2017 – Macrotrends.net

He warns of the many systemic and geopolitical risks including the EU elections, from nuclear North Korea, tensions with Iran and ”rapidly rising tensions between the U.S. and increasingly powerful China in the South China Sea.”

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2bG8Jlf” target=”_blank”>James Rickards</a> believes that the EU elections ”could potentially bring the future of the European Union into grave doubt” and that the ”bottom line” is that ”there are plenty of potential geopolitical shocks that could threaten the current system, in addition to existing concerns about a stock market collapse or debt crisis.”

”The time to prepare is now” advises Rickards.

From the <a href=”http://ift.tt/2mviKsb…” target=”_blank”>Daily Reckoning</a>:

I believe the Fed is preparing to raise into weakness and will have to reverse course in April or May. What happens to gold then? It’s going to go higher again, because the Fed will cheapen the dollar, and that’s very bullish for gold. So I expect gold to take off in the spring and finish the year very strongly. It could challenge $1,300 or $1,400.

Now, as many of my readers know, my long-term forecast is for $10,000 gold. We’re obviously not there now. So how do I arrive at $10,000?

I want to give the basis for that forecast. I never give any forecast without giving the analysis behind it. Anybody can pull a prediction out if a hat. If you don’t have the analysis to back it up I’m not interested.

So let’s go through the math, because there is a solid mathematical basis for $10,000 gold. It’s actually the implied non deflationary price of gold under a gold standard.

The combined M1 money supply in the world is about 24 trillion dollars. That includes the United States, China, the Eurozone and Japan. Those four entities combine for over 70% of global GDP.

Now, the official gold in the world is about 33,000 tons. That’s not counting private gold, because private gold is not part of the money supply.

So if you wanted to restore a gold standard, how much gold do you need to back up the money supply? My estimate is about 40%.

Historically, central banks have run successful gold standards with less backing. In the 19th century, for example, the Bank of England only had about 20% gold backing. In most of the 20th century, the U.S. had 40% gold backing.

I use the higher number, 40%, because I think a higher number might be needed to restore confidence in event of a collapse. The point is, 40% is a debatable, but reasonable figure.

Many people say there’s not enough gold to support the money supply. That’s one of the objections to gold standard. But my answer is that’s nonsense. There’s always enough gold to support the money supply. It’s a question of price.

Now, if you back 40% of the $24 trillion of money supply with the amount of official gold, it implies a gold price around $9,000 an ounce. But I predict $10,000.

So how do I arrive at $10,000 an ounce?

That’s because I expect central banks to print a lot more money by the time this issue comes to a head. So, by the time the printing presses stop running around the world, that $9,000 number will likely be in the range of $10,000.

The point is, $10,000 an ounce is not pie in the sky. It’s not a number I pulled out of a hat to get headlines. It’s the actual mathematical implied non deflationary price of gold. If you reintroduced a gold standard at a lower price, it would be deflationary. They’d have to reduce the money supply in order to bring it into alignment with the price of gold.

So I expect $10,000 is where gold will have to be, given the amount of official gold and the projected amount of printed money to give it 40% gold backing.

That’s the basis of my forecast. It’s rooted in history and sound monetary management. It’s rooted in simple mathematics. If anything, the number’s probably going to go higher. A year from now, that $10,000 figure might be even higher.

This is important because gold maintains a prominent place in the international monetary system, despite what elites say.

If gold is not money, if gold is not part of the monetary system, if gold is just a commodity that people trade, my analysis wouldn’t apply. But I believe that gold is money, and it always has been.

Gold has always been at the base of the international monetary system. To a certain extent it still is, whether or not central banks or the elites want to acknowledge it.

If gold was irrelevant, why does the U.S. have 8,000 tons? Why does the IMF have 3,000 tons? Why does Germany have 3,000 tons? Why has Russia tripled its gold supply in the last 10 years? Why has China more than tripled its gold supply in the last 10 years?

Why are they all hoarding and buying gold if it has no role in the monetary system?

The answer of course is that it does, but the monetary elites would just as soon not talk about <a href=”http://www.goldcore.com” target=”_blank”>gold bullion</a>.

If you had the power of a central bank, why would you want gold to be part of the equation? It takes away their freedom to print money. Nobody kind of gives up power voluntarily, but they many not have a choice. A monetary system anchored to gold might be required to restore gold in event of another financial collapse.

The next question is, what’s the catalyst that could send gold soaring from today’s levels to $10,000 an ounce?

There are several potential catalysts.

It goes back to the avalanche metaphor I’ve used many times. Once enough snow builds up on the mountainside, it becomes unstable. At some point one snowflake will be the trigger that creates an avalanche.

Do you blame the snowflake or do you blame the instability of the system? The answer is you blame the instability of the system. One particular snowflake may have caused it, but the instability of the system is the real cause.

The current monetary system is unstable, the snow is piling up, and any number of snowflakes could trigger the avalanche. It’s hard to know exactly which one will be responsible, but it could be a geopolitical shock.

Iran recently deployed its navy to conduct exercises in all the important maritime choke points in the Middle East. President Trump has said if those Iranian speed boats get too close to our ships we’re going to blow them out of the water. We haven’t yet, as the navy’s rules of engagement have not permitted them to.

But now President Trump is apparently giving the green light. And the other day an American ship had to adjust course after an Iranian vessel came within 600 yards of it.

So with the Iranians testing us and the navy on full alert, how long will it be before there’s an incident where one of these boats is blown out of the water and maybe trigger something much larger?

That’s one example, but there are many others.

North Korea just conducted four ballistic missile tests that landed in the Sea of Japan. North Korean nuclear weapons will fairly soon be able to target the U.S, west coast. The U.S. is not going to allow that, and the State Department has said the U.S. is prepared “use the full range of capabilities at our disposal against this growing threat.” So we’ll probably have to attack North Korea if we can’t get China to rein them in.

The South China Sea is also another hotspot with rapidly rising tensions. China is flexing its muscles, pitting it against close American allies and American interests. One incident can easily escalate. There are many other geopolitical flashpoints that could trigger a major international crisis.

Another triggering snowflake could be a natural disaster. Or it could be a political earthquake.

The French elections are coming up over the course of two rounds in April and May. What if Marion Le Pen wins the election? I’m not forecasting that she’s going to win right now, but the market is underestimating her probabilities. We also have Netherland elections this month and German elections in October.

The outcome of these elections could potentially bring the future of the European Union into grave doubt.

The bottom line is, there are plenty of potential geopolitical shocks that could threaten the current system, in addition to existing concerns about a stock market collapse or debt crisis.

The time to prepare is now.

’The Path to $10,000 Gold’ can be <a href=”http://ift.tt/2mviKsb…” target=”_blank”>Read Here</a>

News and Commentary

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvrD50…“>Gold suffering its longest losing streak since last May—Some smell buying opportunity (CNBC.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mTq3MQ“>Bets on gold hold ground even as Fed rate hike looms large (Reuters.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvsbb0“>Dollar on track for winning week as U.S. jobs data awaited, euro firm (Reuters.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvvaAd…“>Nikkei leaps amid global bond selloff (MarketWatch.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvhCod…“>Ron Paul to AZ lawmakers: End capital gains tax on gold coins (Tucson.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvb2hz…“>Huge Gold Rally Expected In Spring 2017 (BusinessInsider.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mXZQxb“>Indian demand will recover from 2016’s lows (Gold.org)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mviM3h“>2017 Platinum market deficit forecast increases (PlatinumInvestmnet.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mDOoWF“>Noah’s Flood of Cash Coming – Interview with Price (USAWatchDog.com)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvrEG6…“>Bond yields just hit the level that Bill Gross said would signify a bear market (CNBC.com)</a>

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

10 Mar: USD 1,196.55, GBP 983.56 & EUR 1,127.15 per ounce

09 Mar: USD 1,204.60, GBP 991.39 & EUR 1,140.64 per ounce

08 Mar: USD 1,213.30, GBP 997.70 & EUR 1,149.00 per ounce

07 Mar: USD 1,223.70, GBP 1,003.56 & EUR 1,157.62 per ounce

06 Mar: USD 1,231.15, GBP 1,004.74 & EUR 1,162.82 per ounce

03 Mar: USD 1,228.75, GBP 1,005.12 & EUR 1,168.05 per ounce

02 Mar: USD 1,243.30, GBP 1,013.17 & EUR 1,181.14 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

10 Mar: USD 16.89, GBP 13.91 & EUR 15.92 per ounce

09 Mar: USD 17.14, GBP 14.10 & EUR 16.23 per ounce

08 Mar: USD 17.40, GBP 14.32 & EUR 16.48 per ounce

07 Mar: USD 17.70, GBP 14.52 & EUR 16.74 per ounce

06 Mar: USD 17.81, GBP 14.53 & EUR 16.83 per ounce

03 Mar: USD 17.66, GBP 14.44 & EUR 16.76 per ounce

02 Mar: USD 18.33, GBP 14.93 & EUR 17.42 per ounce

Recent Market Updates

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mTsOhb…“>- Silver Very Undervalued from Historical Perpective of Ancient Greece</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mTmCpp…“>- Gold Investing 101 – Beware Unallocated Gold Accounts With Indebted Bullion Banks and Mints (Part II)</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mTvD1y…“>- Gold Investing 101 – Beware eBay, Collectibles and “Pure” Gold Coins that are Gold Plated</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2maTbfM“>- “Think About and Prepare For” Euro Catastrophe</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvx8R1…“>- Silver On Sale – 4% Fall On Massive $2 Billion of Futures Selling</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvscM6…“>- Trump Avoid Debt Crisis ? “Extremely Unlikely” – Rickards</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvvbUW…“>- Art Market Bubble Bursting – Gauguin Priced At $85 Million Collapses 74%</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvq3QA…“>- Gold’s Value – Weight, Beauty, Rarity, Peak Gold and Secure Storage – Interview</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvv9w9…“>- Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvpLZW…“>- Gold Up 9% YTD – 4th Higher Weekly Close and Breaks Resistance At $1,250/oz</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mgMGYe“>- The Oscars – Worth Their Weight in Gold?</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2lzAWlk“>- Gold To Benefit from Rising Inflation and Higher Than “Official” China Gold Demand</a>

<a href=”http://ift.tt/2mvkuBu…“>- Russia Gold Buying Is Back – Buys One Million Ounces In January</a>

via http://ift.tt/2mvAP9y GoldCore

Gold $10,000 Coming – “Time To Prepare Is Now”

James Rickards: Long-Term Forecast For $10,000 Gold

Gold in USD Adjusted for Inflation 1970-2017 – Macrotrends.net

He warns of the many systemic and geopolitical risks including the EU elections, from nuclear North Korea, tensions with Iran and “rapidly rising tensions between the U.S. and increasingly powerful China in the South China Sea.”

James Rickards believes that the EU elections “could potentially bring the future of the European Union into grave doubt” and that the “bottom line” is that “there are plenty of potential geopolitical shocks that could threaten the current system, in addition to existing concerns about a stock market collapse or debt crisis.”

“The time to prepare is now” advises Rickards.

From the Daily Reckoning:

I believe the Fed is preparing to raise into weakness and will have to reverse course in April or May. What happens to gold then? It’s going to go higher again, because the Fed will cheapen the dollar, and that’s very bullish for gold. So I expect gold to take off in the spring and finish the year very strongly. It could challenge $1,300 or $1,400.

Now, as many of my readers know, my long-term forecast is for $10,000 gold. We’re obviously not there now. So how do I arrive at $10,000?

I want to give the basis for that forecast. I never give any forecast without giving the analysis behind it. Anybody can pull a prediction out if a hat. If you don’t have the analysis to back it up I’m not interested.

So let’s go through the math, because there is a solid mathematical basis for $10,000 gold. It’s actually the implied non deflationary price of gold under a gold standard.

The combined M1 money supply in the world is about 24 trillion dollars. That includes the United States, China, the Eurozone and Japan. Those four entities combine for over 70% of global GDP.

Now, the official gold in the world is about 33,000 tons. That’s not counting private gold, because private gold is not part of the money supply.

So if you wanted to restore a gold standard, how much gold do you need to back up the money supply? My estimate is about 40%.

Historically, central banks have run successful gold standards with less backing. In the 19th century, for example, the Bank of England only had about 20% gold backing. In most of the 20th century, the U.S. had 40% gold backing.

I use the higher number, 40%, because I think a higher number might be needed to restore confidence in event of a collapse. The point is, 40% is a debatable, but reasonable figure.

Many people say there’s not enough gold to support the money supply. That’s one of the objections to gold standard. But my answer is that’s nonsense. There’s always enough gold to support the money supply. It’s a question of price.

Now, if you back 40% of the $24 trillion of money supply with the amount of official gold, it implies a gold price around $9,000 an ounce. But I predict $10,000.

So how do I arrive at $10,000 an ounce?

That’s because I expect central banks to print a lot more money by the time this issue comes to a head. So, by the time the printing presses stop running around the world, that $9,000 number will likely be in the range of $10,000.

The point is, $10,000 an ounce is not pie in the sky. It’s not a number I pulled out of a hat to get headlines. It’s the actual mathematical implied non deflationary price of gold. If you reintroduced a gold standard at a lower price, it would be deflationary. They’d have to reduce the money supply in order to bring it into alignment with the price of gold.

So I expect $10,000 is where gold will have to be, given the amount of official gold and the projected amount of printed money to give it 40% gold backing.

That’s the basis of my forecast. It’s rooted in history and sound monetary management. It’s rooted in simple mathematics. If anything, the number’s probably going to go higher. A year from now, that $10,000 figure might be even higher.

This is important because gold maintains a prominent place in the international monetary system, despite what elites say.

If gold is not money, if gold is not part of the monetary system, if gold is just a commodity that people trade, my analysis wouldn’t apply. But I believe that gold is money, and it always has been.

Gold has always been at the base of the international monetary system. To a certain extent it still is, whether or not central banks or the elites want to acknowledge it.

If gold was irrelevant, why does the U.S. have 8,000 tons? Why does the IMF have 3,000 tons? Why does Germany have 3,000 tons? Why has Russia tripled its gold supply in the last 10 years? Why has China more than tripled its gold supply in the last 10 years?

Why are they all hoarding and buying gold if it has no role in the monetary system?

The answer of course is that it does, but the monetary elites would just as soon not talk about gold bullion.

If you had the power of a central bank, why would you want gold to be part of the equation? It takes away their freedom to print money. Nobody kind of gives up power voluntarily, but they many not have a choice. A monetary system anchored to gold might be required to restore gold in event of another financial collapse.

The next question is, what’s the catalyst that could send gold soaring from today’s levels to $10,000 an ounce?

There are several potential catalysts.

It goes back to the avalanche metaphor I’ve used many times. Once enough snow builds up on the mountainside, it becomes unstable. At some point one snowflake will be the trigger that creates an avalanche.

Do you blame the snowflake or do you blame the instability of the system? The answer is you blame the instability of the system. One particular snowflake may have caused it, but the instability of the system is the real cause.

The current monetary system is unstable, the snow is piling up, and any number of snowflakes could trigger the avalanche. It’s hard to know exactly which one will be responsible, but it could be a geopolitical shock.

Iran recently deployed its navy to conduct exercises in all the important maritime choke points in the Middle East. President Trump has said if those Iranian speed boats get too close to our ships we’re going to blow them out of the water. We haven’t yet, as the navy’s rules of engagement have not permitted them to.

But now President Trump is apparently giving the green light. And the other day an American ship had to adjust course after an Iranian vessel came within 600 yards of it.

So with the Iranians testing us and the navy on full alert, how long will it be before there’s an incident where one of these boats is blown out of the water and maybe trigger something much larger?

That’s one example, but there are many others.

North Korea just conducted four ballistic missile tests that landed in the Sea of Japan. North Korean nuclear weapons will fairly soon be able to target the U.S, west coast. The U.S. is not going to allow that, and the State Department has said the U.S. is prepared “use the full range of capabilities at our disposal against this growing threat.” So we’ll probably have to attack North Korea if we can’t get China to rein them in.

The South China Sea is also another hotspot with rapidly rising tensions. China is flexing its muscles, pitting it against close American allies and American interests. One incident can easily escalate. There are many other geopolitical flashpoints that could trigger a major international crisis.

Another triggering snowflake could be a natural disaster. Or it could be a political earthquake.

The French elections are coming up over the course of two rounds in April and May. What if Marion Le Pen wins the election? I’m not forecasting that she’s going to win right now, but the market is underestimating her probabilities. We also have Netherland elections this month and German elections in October.

The outcome of these elections could potentially bring the future of the European Union into grave doubt.

The bottom line is, there are plenty of potential geopolitical shocks that could threaten the current system, in addition to existing concerns about a stock market collapse or debt crisis.

The time to prepare is now.

‘The Path to $10,000 Gold’ can be Read Here

News and Commentary

Gold suffering its longest losing streak since last May—Some smell buying opportunity (CNBC.com)

Bets on gold hold ground even as Fed rate hike looms large (Reuters.com)

Dollar on track for winning week as U.S. jobs data awaited, euro firm (Reuters.com)

Nikkei leaps amid global bond selloff (MarketWatch.com)

Ron Paul to AZ lawmakers: End capital gains tax on gold coins (Tucson.com)

Huge Gold Rally Expected In Spring 2017 (BusinessInsider.com)

Indian demand will recover from 2016’s lows (Gold.org)

2017 Platinum market deficit forecast increases (PlatinumInvestmnet.com)

Noah’s Flood of Cash Coming – Interview with Price (USAWatchDog.com)

Bond yields just hit the level that Bill Gross said would signify a bear market (CNBC.com)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

10 Mar: USD 1,196.55, GBP 983.56 & EUR 1,127.15 per ounce
09 Mar: USD 1,204.60, GBP 991.39 & EUR 1,140.64 per ounce
08 Mar: USD 1,213.30, GBP 997.70 & EUR 1,149.00 per ounce
07 Mar: USD 1,223.70, GBP 1,003.56 & EUR 1,157.62 per ounce
06 Mar: USD 1,231.15, GBP 1,004.74 & EUR 1,162.82 per ounce
03 Mar: USD 1,228.75, GBP 1,005.12 & EUR 1,168.05 per ounce
02 Mar: USD 1,243.30, GBP 1,013.17 & EUR 1,181.14 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

10 Mar: USD 16.89, GBP 13.91 & EUR 15.92 per ounce
09 Mar: USD 17.14, GBP 14.10 & EUR 16.23 per ounce
08 Mar: USD 17.40, GBP 14.32 & EUR 16.48 per ounce
07 Mar: USD 17.70, GBP 14.52 & EUR 16.74 per ounce
06 Mar: USD 17.81, GBP 14.53 & EUR 16.83 per ounce
03 Mar: USD 17.66, GBP 14.44 & EUR 16.76 per ounce
02 Mar: USD 18.33, GBP 14.93 & EUR 17.42 per ounce

Recent Market Updates

– Silver Very Undervalued from Historical Perpective of Ancient Greece
– Gold Investing 101 – Beware Unallocated Gold Accounts With Indebted Bullion Banks and Mints (Part II)
– Gold Investing 101 – Beware eBay, Collectibles and “Pure” Gold Coins that are Gold Plated
– “Think About and Prepare For” Euro Catastrophe
– Silver On Sale – 4% Fall On Massive $2 Billion of Futures Selling
– Trump Avoid Debt Crisis ? “Extremely Unlikely” – Rickards
– Art Market Bubble Bursting – Gauguin Priced At $85 Million Collapses 74%
– Gold’s Value – Weight, Beauty, Rarity, Peak Gold and Secure Storage – Interview
– Oscars Debacle – Movies More Costly As Dollar Devalued
– Gold Up 9% YTD – 4th Higher Weekly Close and Breaks Resistance At $1,250/oz
– The Oscars – Worth Their Weight in Gold?
– Gold To Benefit from Rising Inflation and Higher Than “Official” China Gold Demand
– Russia Gold Buying Is Back – Buys One Million Ounces In January

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

Gold $10,000 Coming – “Time To Prepare Is Now”

James Rickards: Long-Term Forecast For $10,000 Gold

Gold in USD Adjusted for Inflation 1970-2017 – Macrotrends.net

“The time to prepare is now” advises Rickards.

From the Daily Reckoning:

Now, as many of my readers know, my long-term forecast is for $10,000 gold. We’re obviously not there now. So how do I arrive at $10,000?

So let’s go through the math, because there is a solid mathematical basis for $10,000 gold. It’s actually the implied non deflationary price of gold under a gold standard.

The combined M1 money supply in the world is about 24 trillion dollars. That includes the United States, China, the Eurozone and Japan. Those four entities combine for over 70% of global GDP.

Now, the official gold in the world is about 33,000 tons. That’s not counting private gold, because private gold is not part of the money supply.

So if you wanted to restore a gold standard, how much gold do you need to back up the money supply? My estimate is about 40%.

I use the higher number, 40%, because I think a higher number might be needed to restore confidence in event of a collapse. The point is, 40% is a debatable, but reasonable figure.

Now, if you back 40% of the $24 trillion of money supply with the amount of official gold, it implies a gold price around $9,000 an ounce. But I predict $10,000.

So how do I arrive at $10,000 an ounce?

So I expect $10,000 is where gold will have to be, given the amount of official gold and the projected amount of printed money to give it 40% gold backing.

This is important because gold maintains a prominent place in the international monetary system, despite what elites say.

Gold has always been at the base of the international monetary system. To a certain extent it still is, whether or not central banks or the elites want to acknowledge it.

Why are they all hoarding and buying gold if it has no role in the monetary system?

The answer of course is that it does, but the monetary elites would just as soon not talk about gold bullion.

The next question is, what’s the catalyst that could send gold soaring from today’s levels to $10,000 an ounce?

There are several potential catalysts.

But now President Trump is apparently giving the green light. And the other day an American ship had to adjust course after an Iranian vessel came within 600 yards of it.

That’s one example, but there are many others.

Another triggering snowflake could be a natural disaster. Or it could be a political earthquake.

The outcome of these elections could potentially bring the future of the European Union into grave doubt.

The bottom line is, there are plenty of potential geopolitical shocks that could threaten the current system, in addition to existing concerns about a stock market collapse or debt crisis.

The time to prepare is now.

‘The Path to $10,000 Gold’ can be Read Here

News and Commentary

Gold suffering its longest losing streak since last May—Some smell buying opportunity (CNBC.com)

Bets on gold hold ground even as Fed rate hike looms large (Reuters.com)

Dollar on track for winning week as U.S. jobs data awaited, euro firm (Reuters.com)

Nikkei leaps amid global bond selloff (MarketWatch.com)

Ron Paul to AZ lawmakers: End capital gains tax on gold coins (Tucson.com)

Huge Gold Rally Expected In Spring 2017 (BusinessInsider.com)

Indian demand will recover from 2016’s lows (Gold.org)

2017 Platinum market deficit forecast increases (PlatinumInvestmnet.com)

Noah’s Flood of Cash Coming – Interview with Price (USAWatchDog.com)

Bond yields just hit the level that Bill Gross said would signify a bear market (CNBC.com)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

Silver Prices (LBMA)

Recent Market Updates

www.GoldCore.com

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

Dr. Oz Rebuffs First Amendment Challenge by Olive Oil Industry: New at Reason

Do you love the First Amendment but detest Dr. Oz? What about fraudulent olive oil? Read on!

Baylen Linnekin writes:

Last week, a Georgia state judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against talk-show host Dr. Oz over claims made on his show last year that much of the olive oil sold in U.S. grocery stores is fraudulent. The suit alleged that Oz wrongly disparaged the corrupt olive oil industry.

The lawsuit was brought against Oz by an industry trade group, the New Jersey-based North American Olive Oil Association (NAOOA), under Georgia’s so-called veggie libel law. It’s one of about a dozen states with these awful laws—which allow a party to sue for damages if a person allegedly disparages their agricultural products—on the books.

Oz won in court thanks to Georgia’s anti-SLAPP law. Such laws gives people who speak out on issues of public concern a useful tool to counter lawsuits that seek to intimidate them into silence. (“SLAPP” is an acronym that stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”)

Several domestic olive oil brands had also been sued alongside Oz.

Fraud in the olive oil business is, in fact, a longstanding problem.

View this article.

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

Trump’s Schwarzenegger Problem: New at Reason

January marked the first time in American history that a president-elect launched a Twitter feud with his celebrity replacement on a reality TV show.

“Wow, the ratings are in and Arnold Schwarzenegger got ‘swamped’ (or destroyed) by comparison to the ratings machine, DJT,” Donald Trump tweeted after the 2017 debut of Celebrity Apprentice, the show he long hosted before obtaining new employment. “So much for being a movie star…But who cares, he supported Kasich & Hillary.”

Anyone who has watched the classic documentary Pumping Iron could have predicted that Schwarzenegger would find a clever way to respond to Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice taunts. Sure enough: “There’s nothing more important than the people’s work, @realDonaldTrump,” the new host tweeted out. “I wish you the best of luck and I hope you’ll work for ALL of the American people as aggressively as you worked for your ratings.” Get to the chopper!

In any B-grade action movie, this is the part where the antagonist says, “We are not so different, you and I.” For in fact, writes Matt Welch, Trump and Schwarzenegger have even more in common than hosting the same television show, taking the same unusual career path from celebrity to executive office, and surviving the same type of sexual allegations.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2na0p7b
via IFTTT

Preppers Stuck In Cities: Elite Chartering “Getaway Boats In Case Of Manhattan Emergency”

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

There is an inherent dilemma for most of the people living in cities.

Even those who are aware of the extremely fragile fabric of society are often stuck living urban lives. Perhaps they plan to retire to a country abode, or construct a hideaway to escape to if the need ever arises, but for now, they are stuck in the city making a living.

This is true even for the rich, but now, they have a back-up plan.

The biggest of American cities, and one of the most gridlocked, is New York City, with Manhattan and Long Island both isolated islands – trapped during emergencies from the rest of the world.

That’s why those with means, and forethought, are now chartering emergency charters to get out of the city – probably a good idea, especially if the helicopter is out of your price range.

via NY Post:

“A lot of people don’t want to wait on a line to get on a ferry, and they don’t want to worry about walking off of Manhattan, as people had to do in the past,” [Chris Dowhie, co-owner of Plan B Marine] told The Post.“They know a boat is the fastest way, and we take the worry out of maintaining and preparing and always readying your vessel,” he added.

Not only does the company promise a speedy getaway, it plans individual evacuation routes for each person, depending on their personal needs.

[…]

“You don’t have a captain. You have to drive this boat yourself,” Dowhie told The Post, adding that in a crisis, people are more concerned with helping their own families than maneuvering someone else’s escape vehicle.

[…]

The unique evacuation service costs an annual fee of $90,000 and is catered toward wealthy individuals and corporations who don’t have time to mastermind their own escape.

Clients access the boats with an individual punch-in number, and should they need to abandon it at any time, Dowhie’s company will locate it.

Interesting concept, and the fact that this has become a business model is also telling of the times.

Estimates have placed evacuation from major coastal cities at more than 24 hours:

Estimated evacuation times during major emergencies.

For Long Island, where millions of New Yorkers live, it would be 20-29 hours to get off the island – during that time, people will lose their patience, run out of gas, become hungry, be denied access to medications and drugs, need emergency services, resort to crime, etc.

The one percenters have long been serious about their prepping, for they know too well about the very real dangers being constructed, and the house of cards that is ever poised to collapse.

There has been a steady rise in the upper class investment into underground bunker communities – typically decked out with furnishings and amenities that nearly compare with above-ground living.

They have also been the high profile investors buying up getaway farms in places like New Zealand or South America, and hedging with mountain retreats and fortified safe rooms.

While the amount of money they are spending remains mostly pocket change the biggest players, it represents a serious consideration of the high risk for social disruption, chaos and mega-disasters, such as the collapse of the power grid.

The good news is that while the rich may indeed be living the high life, with escape hatches built in, there are many steps that the average, and more modest, individual can also take to increase your chances of survival during modest times.

Todd Savage, who specializes in strategic relocation, says that finding balance is key. For some, a permanent move isn’t possible because of work, medical needs or family life:

Not everyone will prepare for the same threats. It’s a personal choice. Some folks think that a nuclear exchange is imminent, others a socioeconomic collapse, maybe an EMP (solar or military), or a worldwide pandemic.

Everyone who is concerned with a potential disaster should perform a personal threat assessment. It can help you decide to either relocate permanently to a rural homestead or acquire a bug-out survival property.

(Survival Retreat Consulting)

When it comes to elite prepping, you have to always ask yourself: ‘Do they know something that I don’t know?‘

Considering their access to power, and their insider vision of human affairs, the chances are very good that they may.

Boats and hideaway properties can be arranged at lower prices as well, or DIY. If you’re not on an island, there are likely some back roads that can save your life, and keep you out of the major chaos. Plan your escape route, with several alternate routes, that avoid the major intersections with highways, bridges and other points at which the majority of traffic is forced to flow, at a slow, grinding and dangerous pace.

Safe rooms can been adapted to almost any space, and for relatively little money, and fortifications can be retrofitted where ever you need them. Just food for thought, better now than too late.

Something big is coming.

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

Sessions Considering “Outside Special Counsel” To Review “Highly Politicized” Actions Of Obama DOJ

Even though Obama spent the waning days of his administration boasting about how he had managed to spend 8 years in the White House without a single ‘scandal’, current Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems to have a slightly different view of how to define ‘scandal’.

But perhaps Obama just “did not recall” some of the highly controversial efforts of his administration including the intentional IRS targeting of conservative political groups, Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious” gun running program which ultimately resulted in him being held in contempt of Congress and, of course, that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix just as the DOJ and FBI were contemplating whether or not to press charges against Hillary Clinton over her email scandal.

Appearing on the air with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Sessions was asked if he would consider designating an outside counsel “not connected to politics” to take a second look at Justice Department actions that provoked Republican ire over the last eight years. Hewitt contended during his radio interview that the department had become “highly politicized” during the Obama administration and floated the idea of a special review by an attorney with the authority to bring criminal charges and “just generally to look at how the Department of Justice operated.”

While Sessions was somewhat noncommittal, he did leave the door open, saying he would do everything he could to “restore the independence and professionalism of the Department of Justice.” According to the AP, Sessions said that “generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made” but continued on to say that he “would have to consider whether or not some outside special counsel is needed.”

Hewitt: Now let me switch to the Department itself, Mr. Attorney General. It has a bad eight years. I’m a proud veteran of the Department of Justice as you are, but the IRS case, the Fast and Furious case, Secretary Clinton’s server. The Department of Justice came under great criticism. How about an outside counsel, not connected to politics, to review the DOJ’s actions in those matters with authority to bring charges if underlying crimes are uncovered in the course of the investigation, and just generally to look at how the DOJ operated in the highly politicized Holder-Lynch years.

Sessions: Well, I’m going to do everything I possibly can to restore independence and professionalism of the DOJ, so we’re going to have to consider whether or not some outside special counsel is needed. Generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made.

Sessions went on to say the outcome of the IRS case, in particular, remained “of real concern.” The Justice Department in 2015 found mismanagement at the tax agency but no evidence that it had targeted a political group based on its viewpoints or obstructed justice.

But we’re sure this is just all ‘much ado about nothing’ as they say…after all Loretta Lynch already said Bill just stopped by her plane to chat about his grandkids for 30 minutes…surely she wouldn’t attempt the mislead the American people just to protect her administration, right?

via http://ift.tt/2np11BP Tyler Durden

Dear Washington Post: Costco Carrying Orwell’s ‘1984’ Is Not A F**king Joke

Authored by James Holbrooks via TheAntiMedia.org,

“Next time you’re at Costco, you can pick up a jumbo bag of Cheetos and a copy of ‘1984.’ Doubleplus good!”

That’s how the Washington Post opened its quick little entry on Wednesday. Continuing, Ron Charles, editor of Book World for the Post, wrote:

“The discount store is now stocking Orwell’s classic novel along with its usual selection of current bestsellers.”

If the significance of the fact that a dystopian masterwork can now be purchased alongside a three-ton bag of cheese puffs instantly strikes you, it should. Strangely, though, Charles and the Post don’t seem to see it.

In fact, it seemed to be a joke to them. The entry closed in the manner it opened. With humor:

“Appropriately, Costco is offering a reprint of the 2003 edition of ‘1984,’ which has a forward by Thomas Pynchon. That reclusive satirist must love the idea of hawking Orwell’s dystopian novel alongside towers of discounted toilet paper and radial tires. SHOPPING IS SAVING.”

In the one and only instance Charles even approached something that could be considered commentary, he linked the surge in the book’s sales to “alternative” news items:

“Last month, amid talk of ‘alternative facts’ from the Trump administration, Signet Classics announced that it had reprinted 500,000 copies, about twice the novel’s total sales in 2016.”

Note Charles was certain to use the word “alternative” when mentioning Trump. Why? Very clearly, “fake news” is the man’s go-to phrase when speaking of the media. So why go with “alternative” instead? Hell, the Post itself was the driving force behind the “fake news” frenzy in the first place.

I could go on about how this is the Washington Post, corporate media juggernaut, attempting, rather pathetically, to poison the notion of “alternative” in the minds of its readers — or, I should say, what’s left of them — but that’s not really what this is about.

What it’s really about is journalism. The fact that “1984” is being sold at Costco, the fact that demand for the classic tale has skyrocketed, is significant. It’s societal. And journalists are supposed to write about things like that.

And what does the Post do? They make a joke of it.

This is an organization that, as recently as January, has been busted publishing false news stories. You would think that with its credibility among a growing division of society hanging on by a thread — at best — the Post would turn an event like this into social commentary. This was an opportunity to speak about a changing world.

But instead, the Post went for laughs.

Let it sink in, friends. George Orwell’s “1984,” a dystopian tale about a society being crushed under the boot of authoritarian regime, is, once again, flying off bookshelves. To the extent that you can now get it at Costco. Let the significance of that truly dig in deep.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post is talking about Cheetos and toilet paper.

via http://ift.tt/2mS2mV9 Tyler Durden

Credit Suisse: Customer Blowback Over Starbucks’ Refugee Hiring Spree Could Crush Same Store Sales

A few weeks ago we wrote about how the controversial decision of Starbucks’ CEO Howard Schultz to hire 10,000 refugees, a clear shot at the Trump administration’s immigration policies, seemingly backfired as his “brand perception” took a sudden and massive hit, a clear signal once again that coffee drinkers would prefer to not have a side of political propaganda with their $5 morning java (see “Starbucks’ ‘Brand Perception’ Takes A Massive Hit After Announcing Plans To Hire 10,000 Refugees“).

Now, Credit Suisse’s Restaurant team, led by Jason West, is warning that Schultz’s latest attempt to cram his political opinions down the throats of his customers could cause the company to miss upcoming same-store-sales estimates.

We have analyzed online “net sentiment” data (positive vs. negative online mentions) provided by NetBase to gauge changes in Starbucks’ brand perception. This follows recent media reports that SBUX’s decision to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years could have upset some customers, perhaps negatively impacting sales trends. Our work shows a sudden drop in brand sentiment following announcement of the refugee hiring initiative on Jan. 29th, to flattish from a run-rate of ~+80 (on an index of -100 to +100). Net sentiment has since recovered, but has seen significant volatility in recent weeks. While this is only one data point, the analysis leaves us incrementally cautious on SBUX’s ability to meet consensus US SSS forecasts, which call for SSS to accelerate from +3% in F1Q17 (Dec. qtr.) to ~+3.5% in F2Q and ~+5.5% in 2H17.

Potential impact to F2Q SSS: NetBase data show that net sentiment remained depressed for 10 days in late Jan. and early Feb. and was particularly volatile through the remainder of Feb. We see potential for a scenario in which US SSS slowed for a few weeks following news of the refugee hiring initiative, negatively impacting full-quarter SSS by ~70-80bps under a reasonable bear case. This assumes that (1) SSS during the initial 10-day stretch were ~flat, (2) SSS averaged +2% during the remaining 3 weeks of Feb. (when net sentiment saw particularly high volatility) and (3) SSS during the rest of the qtr (Jan. and Mar.) average +3.5% (in line with consensus forecasts for F2Q), putting F2Q US SSS at ~+2.8%. We caveat that we found little to no correlation over longer time periods between the net sentiment data and US SSS. However, in our past work on Chipotle (CMG: Neutral), we found that large and sudden spikes in net sentiment coincided with similar shifts in SSS trends.

For those who missed it, here are some excerpts from the politically charged message drafted by Schultz to his employees with “deep concern and a heavy heart”:

I write to you today with deep concern, a heavy heart and a resolute promise. Let me begin with the news that is immediately in front of us: we have all been witness to the confusion, surprise and opposition to the Executive Order that President Trump issued on Friday, effectively banning people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, including refugees fleeing wars. I can assure you that our Partner Resources team has been in direct contact with the partners who are impacted by this immigration ban, and we are doing everything possible to support and help them to navigate through this confusing period.

Hiring Refugees: We have a long history of hiring young people looking for opportunities and a pathway to a new life around the world. This is why we are doubling down on this commitment by working with our equity market employees as well as joint venture and licensed market partners in a concerted effort to welcome and seek opportunities for those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination. There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.

Building Bridges, Not Walls, With Mexico: We have been open for business in Mexico since 2002, and have since opened almost 600 stores in 60 cities across the country, which together employ over 7,000 Mexican partners who proudly wear the green apron. Coffee is what unites our common heritage, and as I told Alberto Torrado, the leader of our partnership with Alsea in Mexico, we stand ready to help and support our Mexican customers, partners and their families as they navigate what impact proposed trade sanctions, immigration restrictions and taxes might have on their business and their trust of Americans.

Unfortunately, Schultz quickly found out the hard way that while most adult-aged Americans can agree that they like coffee, roughly 50% disagree with his leftist political opinions.

Meanwhile, the only folks that don’t seem to be noticing the controversy surrounding Starbucks’ latest mishap are the company’s shareholders.

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

Tech Privacy a Top Concern in Early SXSW Government Panels

smart phone South by Southwest attendees may not be able to recite the Fourth Amendment on command (unlike yours truly), but two early panels on technology, privacy, and surveillance indicate that protecting this right is important to quite a few of them.

Today officially launches the start of this year’s South by Southwest conference here in Austin. Peter Suderman blogged earlier the opening address by Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey). His piece launched the “government” track segment of the conference, running up through Monday. Reason is represented here not just as journalists covering the conference: Suderman, Jacob Sullum, and I are also moderating panels on important policy issues.

Conider my panel, “Get a Warrant: The Fourth Amendment and Digital Data” as a sort of table-setter for tech privacy and surveillance issues that are going to be popping up at several other panels over the next few days. That’s how we decided to approach it anyway. Assisted by Sean Vitka of Demand Progress and the advisory committee of Congress’ Fourth Amendment Caucus, Neema Singh Guliani, of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Mike Godwin, the media/internet lawyer who helped start the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and also has a famous law you may have heard of), we offered up a sampler platter of top tech surveillance issues in America today.

Our ultimate goal, though, was to help people attending the conference understand that legislators play a key role in helping restrain the surveillance and data collection authorities law enforcement and federal intelligence services have brought to bear against America’s own citizens.

Of course, those who read Reason regularly could have nodded along at the information passed along by our panelists. We only touched on each issue for a few minutes, but you can read more about why President Donald Trump’s claims of being illegally wiretapped matter about more than just Trump lashing out or some sort of power play over who controls the government (though that does matter, too). An important provision that gives the intelligence community a significant amount of surveillance authority needs to be renewed this year or it will expire. Congress has a vote coming, and Trump’s administration has said they don’t want anything changed. But civil liberties and privacy groups are calling for reforms.

We touched on border tech searches and the attempts by federal officials to try to essentially intimidate travelers—both foreign visitors and Americans—into granting access to their tech devices. Vitka noted in the panel encryption plays an important role of trying to restrain the government here and likened it to vaccinations and herd immunity. These searches happen because the possibility of access remains. If more or most Americans used tougher encryption to access devices, they’d be denied enough to stop trying. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) is trying to get a law passed to require warrants for these border tech searches.

And we used the Email Privacy Act to help highlight some of the challenges facing privacy supporters in Congress. The Email Privacy Act, which would close an old legislative loophole that allows warrantless access to old emails, passed unanimously in the House of Representatives, but has not been able to get through the Senate. Established Senate leaders (and not just Republicans) have stood in the way of reforming the law, even when it has massive bipartisan support. (And when we polled the audience, many people who followed Edward Snowden’s leak coverage nevertheless had no idea that this act even existed.)

Following on the heels of my panel was “Are Biometrics the New Face of Surveillance?” The panel drew a large crowd, given that it’s probably the latest “hotness” in how technology is facilitating government snooping. The panel was moderated by Sara Sorcher of the Christian Science Monitor. Panelists included Christopher Piehota of the FBI, there to assure us that the federal government does not violate our privacy with its databases of images, Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, there to point out that in order for us to trust Piehota the government has to be more transparent about how it’s using the databases and to provide us all a dire warning that information collected for one purpose can and will be eventually used for others. He went full Godwin by reminding folks that collected government data that was innocuous at the time was used by the Nazis to track down and round up Jews.

Now that my own panel is done and over with, I’ll be spending the next few days attending and covering other panels of interest to those who love both liberty and privacy and want to make sure those values come through when exploring tech innovation.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2n8SB5p
via IFTTT