The US is losing 9.5 acres of farmland per minute

Agriculture field The US is losing 9.5 acres of farmland per minute

November 19, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

More than six thousand years ago, the most advanced civilization on planet was Sumer, rulers of the fertile plains of ancient Mesopotamia in modern day Iraq.

The Sumerians weren’t powerful from their military strength or political system; rather, it was agriculture that developed their civilization.

Quite simply, the ancient Sumerians had developed techniques to produce far more agriculture than they could possibly consume.

This food surplus meant that they could build up a large pool of savings to be used in trade, or to feed workers who could pursue other careers like science and architecture.

Nearly every great civilization ever since has shared the same characteristics– being able to produce more than it consumes.

In fact, no society can survive without the ability to feed itself. We’ve seen this throughout history.

When the Sumerians’ complex , centrally-planned network of canals failed to adequately irrigate their farmland, the civilization quickly declined.

The Roman Empire was notorious for routinely invading other lands looking to secure additional sources of food.

During the American Civil War, a large part of the Union’s strategy was to cut off the South from its food sources, and burn to the ground every acre of farmland they could find.

And despite decades of economic hardship, the French Revolution finally kicked off in 1789 because the nation could no longer feed itself… and people were starving.

Early on in US history, the country’s strength came from this same ability to produce more than it consumed.

And over the centuries the US became farmer to the world, exporting interminable quantities of food like a never-ended breadbasket.

But that trend peaked long ago.

Over the past five years, for example, the amount of farmland in the US has decreased by 5 million acres each year, often due to land development or aging farmers quitting the business.

This is equivalent to losing nearly one square mile of farmland every hour, or 9.5 acres per minute.

The same trend is taking place in China, where more than 40% of the country’s arable land has been lost in recent years due to development, drought, and topsoil erosion.

Yet while we’re seeing a dramatic decline in the amount of farmland available per person in the world’s largest powers, demand is rapidly increasing.

I’m not just talking about population growth, which is a given. There’s also the growth in demand that comes with economic development.

As a nation’s wealth increases, so does its demand for food.

The billion people across Asia being lifted out of poverty into the middle class are consuming more Calories than ever before, and consuming meat for the first time ever.

Raising animals for meat production requires far more land per Calorie than growing fruits, vegetables, and grains.

So not only are people consuming more Calories, but they’re also requiring more land per Calorie.

This is a clearly unsustainable trend: the world needs more farmland per capita to meet food production needs at a time when the amount of farmland is in decline.

On top of all this are the water challenges that many parts of the world are experiencing. California is a great example.

It’s well known that the entire state of California is experiencing EXTREME drought conditions.

What’s less known is that, along with many other crops, California is the world’s top almond producer.

The state produces 80% of the global almond supply, completely dwarfing production in the rest of the world combined.

Yet at the same time, California almond growers consume nearly 10% of the state’s water supply.

Think about it– when you export agriculture, you are also exporting all the resources and inputs that go into producing that agriculture.

So at a time when the entire state is suffering from extreme drought, California almond farmers are essentially exporting 10% of the state’s dwindling water supply.

This math doesn’t add up. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, at a minimum, the price of almonds is due to rise dramatically in the coming years.

Almonds are just one example. We can see this across the board with food in general.

For most crops, yields peaked long ago; in other words, human beings are already extracting the maximum amount of tons, kilos, bushels, etc. per acre.

And thanks to absurd government and monetary policy, we’re simultaneously seeing rising production costs, as well as idiotic incentives to turn food into inefficient fuel. Or subsidies which pay farmers to not grow at all.

These trends are all converging at the same time, suggesting a long-term rise in food prices, and in some cases even shortages.

This isn’t some sensational, headline-grabbing nonsense. It’s simple arithmetic based on objective, publicly available data.

And it’s a trend that will affect nearly everyone on the planet.

On a small scale, you can do well for yourself by planting a small garden with some fruit and nut trees in your own backyard. Worst case you enhance your property value and have a small supply of organic food.

On a larger scale, owning productive farmland and selling food across the value chain may turn out to be one of the best investments of the decade.

But with farmland prices at all-time highs in the US, and water availability highly questionable, the real opportunities lie overseas. More on that tomorrow.

PS. You might also be interested in our latest post on how to protect yourself from Civil Asset Forfeiture.

from SOVEREIGN MAN http://ift.tt/11CwhTe
via IFTTT

Civil Asset Forfeiture: What you can do about it

Civil Asset Forfeiture Civil Asset Forfeiture: What you can do about it

November 19, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

Tan Nguyen was stopped on the highway for driving three miles over the speed limit. The policeman searched the car and found a briefcase of money that Tan said he just won at a casino.

There weren’t any drugs to be found, but suddenly the cop said he smelled marijuana and confiscated the money.

Now, if you or I were to have taken Tan’s money at the point of a gun, it would be called armed robbery, and we’d go to jail.

But when the state does it, it’s called Civil Asset Forfeiture. And it’s perfectly legal.

What’s more, they’re able to commit this highway robbery without a shred of proof or evidence. And then it’s up to the victims to prove their innocence to get the money back.

It’s not surprising that the system is being abused. It’s such easy money.

And what do these police departments do with the money that they steal? Whatever they want, as it turns out.

Police departments in the Land of the Free have used seized funds for things like a margarita machine, a Zamboni (that thing that cleans the ice on a rink), hiring a clown, or a trip to Hawaii.

And as infuriating as these examples all are, often overlooked are the more sinister examples of what these funds have been used for.

Take the $227,390 used to purchase an 8-ton Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck (yes, that spells BEARCAT).

Or the $54,000 spent on twenty-seven military grade M-4 assault rifles. (Both by of these were in Georgia).

Between $382,000 on license-plate readers, $208,000 on electronic surveillance tools, and an undisclosed amount on a “cell site simulator” that can surreptitiously track cellphones—you can see that the stolen money is being used to get better at cracking down on your liberties even further.

The institution that claims to be there to protect is now among the biggest threats to liberty.

Think about it– you have a far greater chance of having your assets wrongfully seized than being the victim of some terrorist attack.

What can you do about it? First off– don’t drive around with a lot of cash. And definitely don’t try to leave the country with a lot of cash.

Leaving the country with more than $10,000 requires making a report with the federal government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), as if it’s some sort of crime to move cash overseas.

Bottom line, if you want to move a lot of wealth, there are better options.

For smaller amounts under $25,000, a few gold coins in your briefcase are a lot less conspicuous than bricks of cash.

If you have trustworthy sources (premium members- see our previous alerts about this), you can buy rare coins and collectibles that are worth much more.

For example, a single five cent buffalo nickel in excellent condition can be worth half a million dollars or more. This is something that you could stick in your pocket and walk out of the country, and no one would ever know.

Digital currency is another option. Through cold storage and paper wallets, millions of dollars worth of digital currency can be held in a simple, random string of characters.

Civil asset forfeiture is clearly a growing problem. But all of the tools and technology already exist to take back your freedom and make sure you don’t become another statistic.

from SOVEREIGN MAN http://ift.tt/11u2FXd
via IFTTT

John Stossel on Government Control Freaks

Rule-makers always want more. At
first, they just asked for bans on TV’s cigarette ads. Then they
demanded no-smoking sections in restaurants. Then bans in
airplanes, schools, workplaces, entire restaurants. Then bars, too.
Now sometimes even apartments and outdoor spaces. Can’t smokers
have some places?, John Stossel asks. 

So far, smokers just … take it. But maybe that’s changing. The
town of Westminster, Massachusetts, recently held hearings on
whether to ban the sale of tobacco products altogether, and 500
angry people showed up. One said, “I find smoking one of the most
disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. On top of that, I find
this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing.” Good for
him.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1vpHRht
via IFTTT

It’s Not a Typo: Michael Cannon on Obamacare’s Exchange Subsidy Provision

When
Obamacare goes back to the Supreme Court next year, the nine
justices on the court will be hearing a case built in large part by
Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael
Cannon.

For the last three years, Cannon has been working on a
challenge, not to Obamacare, but to the way it has been implemented
by the Obama administration, which has allowed insurance subsidies
to be offered through exchanges run by the federal government
despite clear legislative language saying that those subsidies are
meant only for state-established exchanges. Cannon’s 2012 paper on
the IRS rule authorizing subsidies in federal exchanges, co-written
with Case Western Reserve Law Professor Jonathan Adler, is the
foundation of the legal argument the court will be
hearing. 

Sarah Kliff of Vox.com
interviewed
Cannon about the challenge. It’s worth reading in
full, but I want to highlight two sections in
full. 

In the first, Cannon explains why the section of the law in
question is not just a minor typo, as several
not-very-well-informed commenters have suggested:

Sarah Kliff: You and Adler initially thought that this was
a glitch or a typo, that it was a drafting error where legislators
were sloppy and forgot a word. But you’ve since become convinced
that it was the intention of Congress to withhold subsidies from
states that don’t build exchanges. How did your viewpoint change on
that?

Michael Cannon: We first thought that it was a mistake,
that it was a drafting error. And it is still a glitch in the sense
that it’s a snag or something that complicates implementation. The
reason I didn’t initially think they wrote it this way was it would
give states a lot of power to block the law.

But we started doing a lot of research into this, the most
research that I think anyone has done. And if you look at the
tax-credit eligibility rules, they are very tightly worded. It’s
not in one place, but in two places, it says that the credits are
only available “through an Exchange established by the State.” Then
there are seven different cross-references to that language. They
never mentioned any other type of exchange. They never mentioned
exchanges generally. It’s all very tightly worded to refer only to
exchanges “established by the State.”

Then if you look at the legislative history, you’ll find that
that was the language in the Finance Committee’s bill and when it
passed the Finance Committee. But that bill only had one of those
explicit “Exchanges established by the State” phrases. They added
the other one in Harry Reid’s office while it was being merged with
the HELP bill under the direction of the Senate leadership and
White House staff — Peter Orszag and Valerie Jarrett and Nancy-Ann
DeParle, and everyone else who was going in and out of that room.
So this restriction was added to the statute in multiple places at
multiple points in the drafting process.

The history and the repetition make it hard to argue that the
language was just a fat-finger oopsy. I would also add
that the law doesn’t just say that subsidies are allowed in
exchanges “established by the State.” It also explicitly defines
“State” as being one of the fifty states or the District of
Columbia (conspicuously leaving out the federal government), and it
also extends that phrase to say “established by the State under
[Section] 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
It refers to this section twice. Section 1311, notably, is the
section that deals with state-run exchanges. There’s a whole
different section—1321—for federal exchanges, and that section
isn’t mentioned.

This was no mere typo, no careless wording error. It is how the
law was purposefully and intentionally written. And this is the
language that Congress voted to pass. 

In the interview, Cannon also addresses the question of whether
he’s to “blame” if the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers
that the subsidies in the federal exchanges are illegal:

Sarah Kliff: What do you think of the people who put the
blame on you? There are people who are going to say, if your case
wins, “Why did you guys take away health coverage from millions of
people?”

Michael Cannon: The first thing I’d say in response is, “If
those subsidies are illegal, would you favor or oppose ending
them?” So far, no one has said they would favor allowing the
president to subsidize people illegally.

Then the question becomes, “Are they legal or are they not?”
That’s what we’ve been debating all this time. I’m convinced that
they’re illegal.

Then I ask, “If you were convinced the president was doing
something illegal, what would you do?” Well, this is what I would
do. This is what I’m doing. Any dislocation, any disruption, any
harm that is caused by those people losing those subsidies, the
responsibility for that falls at the feet of the president
himself.

The question that matters here is whether or not the law is
being implemented in a way that is legal under the statute. If the
administration’s implementation is illegal, then it needs to be
stopped.  

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qX5dUz
via IFTTT

New International Gang Of Thieves Make Somali Pirates Look Like Amateurs

Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,

When the two young petty thieves, Rinconete and Cortadillo, came to Seville they were quickly censured for stealing.

 

To their surprise, it wasn’t for the theft itself, but instead because they were not registered with the local thieves’ guild.

 

In this upside-down world imagined by Miguel Cervantes, theft was not a crime, but a craft—performed in the name of God and justice.

 

And like any other craftsmen of the day, the thieves had formed a guild. There they provided training and support to their members, while maintaining an exclusive right to engage in the trade.

This past month, a real-life guild of thieves was formed. With 51 governments pledging their support to each other for the protection of their ignoble craft of theft. And another 30 pledging to join by 2018.

From day one, governments have been pilfering their citizens’ assets through taxation, claiming a monopoly on thievery.

From the largest institution to the pettiest pickpocket, anyone else who tries to engage in theft is severely punished, as governments work to protect their exclusive right to steal.

Frighteningly, they do this all out in the open, believing that they actually have a moral right to commit theft.

You can see this delusion in the US government’s claims that last year they “lost out” on $337 billion from people avoiding taxes. As if they have some moral claim to the money they’d failed to pilfer.

Nonetheless, they use this claim to justify actively hunting down and penalizing anyone who takes action to avoid being stolen from.

The ones that are doing this are the bankrupt countries, and the deeper they slide into debt, the more desperate they become.

Which is why these broke governments are now joining forces, pledging to to collect and share information amongst themselves about citizens’ bank accounts, taxes, assets and income outside local tax jurisdictions.

Basically—I’ll help you steal from your citizens if you help me steal from mine.

Both the punishment and the likelihood of getting caught for tax evasion are growing. Don’t even bother trying.

However that doesn’t mean that you have no choice but to sit there and let your self be stolen from.

While there are still ways of legally reducing your tax burden from within a country, your best option is to move and diversify.

Diversification is key, because if you have all your eggs in one bankrupt basket, you are really taking on extraordinary risk.

Moving some assets abroad can legitimately reduce some of this risk. And an even greater strategy is considering moving yourself.

Citizens of most countries have the benefit of divorcing themselves from the tax system simply by moving abroad.

It’s a bit more onerous for US citizens. But for Americans living abroad, it’s still possible to earn roughly $100,000 without paying income tax.

In fact, between the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, Foreign Housing Exclusion, SEP IRA contributions, and more, an American couple can sock away roughly $300,000 per year while paying almost zero income tax.

And if you become a resident of Puerto Rico (which any American can do), it’s possibly to completely eliminate US federal income tax on any amount of money.

By doing so, not only are you taking yourself out of the reach of this gang of thieves, but you are also casting a vote with your feet.

More important than the ballot box, this is a vote that actually counts. And one you have complete control over.

(Don’t worry– if you can’t move, there are still plenty of options to reduce your tax burden and take back your freedom. More on this in upcoming letters.)

*  *  *

Our goal is simple: To help you achieve personal liberty and financial prosperity no matter what happens.

If you liked this post, please click the box below. You can watch a compelling video you'll find very interesting.

Will you be prepared when everything we take for granted changes overnight?

Just think about this for a couple of minutes. What if the U.S. Dollar wasn't the world's reserve currency? Ponder that… what if…

Empires Rise, they peak, they decline, they collapse, this is the cycle of history.

This historical pattern has formed and is already underway in many parts of the world, including the United States.

Don't be one of the millions of people who gets their savings, retirement, and investments wiped out.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vpF9sw Tyler Durden

The Next Round of the Great Crisis is Just Around the Corner

The financial system is lurching towards the next round of the Great Crisis that began in 2007.

 

The 2007-2008 phase occurred when investment banks flooded the financial system with toxic derivatives. All told the derivatives market was over $1 QUADRILLION (that’s 1,000 TRILLIONS) in notional value when the crisis hit.

The Central Banks, knowing that the very banks they are meant to govern, were insolvent, began a series of emergency measures to deal with this. In the simplest form, they moved the banks’ garbage debts onto the public’s (read sovereign nations’) balance sheets.

 

The banks, knowing that they were given a green light, have since begun leveraging up again. Today, the financial system’s leverage is in fact even greater than it was in 2007.

 

Moreover, this time around, entire countries are on the verge of being bankrupt.

 

Consider Japan.

 

Japan is the third largest economy in the world. And the Bank of Japan is buying ALL of its debt issuance. This is precisely what triggered Germany’s Weimar Hyperinflation. The Japanese Bond market has become in the words of a financial insider “a giant Ponzi scheme”

 

We all know how Ponzi schemes end. They implode. Japan is on the verge of this.

 

In Europe, we already know the economy is in tatters. Italy is back in recession for the third time since 2008. Germany’s economy contracted in the second quarter of 2014 and will likely be in recession before the first quarter of 2015. France has registered zero growth for six months now.

 

Things are heating up on the political front as well. Separatist movements are rapidly growing in Spain, Italy, Belgium, and even France. Small wonder when even the individual Central Banks for the EU are fed up with the European Central Bank and its policies.

 

Then there is the US.

 

While the US in no better shape than Japan or Europe, the fact remains that our economy is almost flat-lining. The “official” data claims we’re in good shape as far as unemployment, but we all know that the “official” data is a work of fiction.

 

 Moreover, we’re now sitting on the biggest stock market bubble of all time. By some measures, stocks are MORE overvalued today than they were in 2000. Small wonder than corporate insiders (the folks who know more about their companies’ growth prospects than anyone) are dumping shares at a pace not seen since the peak of the Tech Bubble.

 

On top of this:

 

1.     Corporate debt is back to 2007 PEAK levels.

2.     Stock buybacks are back to 2007 PEAK levels.

3.     Investor bullishness is back to 2007 PEAK levels.

4.     Margin debt (money borrowed to buy stocks) is at 2007 PEAK levels.

5.     Numerous investment legends have warned of a coming crash.

6.     Investor complacency is at a record LOW.

 

Between the US, Europe, and Japan, you’ve got over 50% of the world’s GDP in recession or approaching it. And this is happening at a time when the financial system is in an epic bubble.

 

Buckle up, it’s coming.

 

If you’ve yet to take action to prepare for the second round of the financial crisis, we offer a FREE investment report Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines easy, simple to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from a market downturn, but actually produce profits.

 

You can pick up a FREE copy at:

http://ift.tt/1rPiWR3

 

Best Regards

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1tf8fDn Phoenix Capital Research

Go Tell Your Meddling City Council: ‘Vape’ Is Word of the Year

Oxford Dictionary has declared “vape”—the verb used to describe
smoking electronic cigarettes—as
its word of the year
. It added the word to its dictionary in
August and charted a spike in the use of the term over the spring
as it became a hot-button issue in cities:

Usage of vape
peaked in April 2014 – as the graph below indicates – around the
time that the UK’s first ‘vape café’ (The Vape Lab in Shoreditch,
London) opened its doors, and protests were held in response to New
York City banning indoor vaping. In the same month, the issue of
vaping was debated by The Washington Post, the BBC, and the British newspaper The Telegraph, amongst others.

It could have been "bae" [shudder]

The word beat out “normcore” and “slacktivism,” so we should all
be grateful at the dodged bullts there. Reason should get part of
the credit, yes? Reason writers have been beating the drum
throughout 2014 (and earlier) about how local governments are
overreacting to the rise of e-cigarettes, attempting to treat them
exactly the same as traditional cigarettes even though the harms
(especially to bystanders) are not the same and that it could serve
as a useful tool to help people quit smoking traditional tobacco.
Reason hosted one of those aforementioned protest events in New
York City. Here’s some recent Reason pieces:


“Smoking by Teenagers Continues to Fall As Vaping Continues to
Rise”


“If It Tastes Good to Kids, Ban It”


“Study: E-Cigarettes Offer Far More Benefits Than Harms to Smokers
and Bystanders”


“Jay Rockefeller’s Vaping Vapors”

And many more pieces here.

And below from Reason TV, New Yorkers fight the city’s ban on
e-cigarettes in public places and bars:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1uJw4so
via IFTTT

President Obama To Dictate Immigration Executive Order In Vegas On Friday

While what normally happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas; President Obama's decision to dictate his Immigration Executive Order from sin city will likely have repurcussions across the entire nation. As NY Times reports, Obama is preparing to use his executive authority to provide work permits for up to five million people who are in the US illegally, and to shield them from deportation. But these new arrivals will not receive one key benefit: government subsidies for health care available under Obamacare. The immigrants would also be unlikely to receive benefits like food stamps, Medicaid coverage or other need-based federal programs offered to citizens and to some legal residents. "The costs of extending these programs to millions of low-wage illegal immigrants would be enormous," said Senator Jeff Sessions "this is yet another danger posed to Americans by the president’s unconstitutional action."

 

As AP reports,

A Democratic official says President Barack Obama will visit Las Vegas on Friday.

 

The trip comes amid anticipation that the president will announce executive orders on immigration as soon as this week. Obama used a stop in Las Vegas in 2013 to outline his blueprint for immigration legislation.

 

Legislation passed in the Senate, but gained no traction in the Republican-led House. Obama announced this summer that he would instead move forward with executive action on immigration, but delayed the measures until after the midterm election.

 

People familiar with the president's proposals say the policy could shield from deportation as many as 5 million people in the country illegally, and grant them work permits.

 

The official insisted on anonymity because this person wasn't authorized to confirm the president's trip by name.

But, as The NY Times reports, it appears the immigrants won't get the entire largesse of American dependency…

Millions of undocumented immigrants who are set to be granted a form of legal status by President Obama as early as this week will not receive one key benefit: government subsidies for health care available under the Affordable Care Act.

 

Mr. Obama is preparing to use his executive authority to provide work permits for up to five million people who are in the United States illegally, and to shield them from deportation. But an official familiar with the administration’s deliberations said on Tuesday that such people would not be eligible for subsidized, low-cost plans from the government’s health insurance marketplace, HealthCare.gov.

 

 

The decision would reflect the political sensitivities that arise when there is a collision between two of the most divisive issues in Washington: health care and immigration. It would also underline the White House preference for not risking the fury of conservative lawmakers who have long opposed providing government health care to illegal immigrants, and who fought intensely to deny such immigrants coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

 

 

But a White House decision to deny health care benefits to the immigrants would also fall far short of the kind of full membership in American society that activists have spent decades fighting for. The immigrants would also be unlikely to receive benefits like food stamps, Medicaid coverage or other need-based federal programs offered to citizens and to some legal residents.

However, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services,  said that

federal aid — including health care benefits — could be available to children who are United States citizens but living with parents who are illegal immigrants. Such so-called mixed families “should not be scared,” she said, because they may be eligible for coverage and financial assistance.

*  *  *

Source: CaglePost

*  *  *

We leave it to Senator Jeff Session of Alabama – the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee to conclude:

"The costs of extending these programs to millions of low-wage illegal immigrants would be enormous… This is yet another danger posed to Americans by the president’s unconstitutional action."

 

“It is plain that President Obama has no authority to grant lawful status to those declared unlawful by the duly passed laws of the United States,” he said. “Nor does the president have any authority to declare such individuals eligible to receive health benefits that have been restricted to lawful residents.”




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1t53AoC Tyler Durden

Attn, Obama: Three Reasons to Build Keystone XL Pipeline

So a bill to push the Keystone XL Pipeline failed to get enough
support in
the Senate yesterday
. It’s likely that when the new,
GOP-controlled Congress takes over in 2015, something similar will
sail through and President Barack Obama will veto or otherwise
quash plans to build the thing.

A year and change ago, Reason TV released “3 Reasons to Build
the Keystone XL Pipeline.” Take a look above and go here for

a full writeup
.

Vote or no vote, veto or no veto, this much is pretty clear:
There’s something seriously wrong when the government is able to
stymie the building of a private project. Yes, there are
eminent-domain abuse issues surrounding some aspects of the
pipeline and those should be dealt with. But there’s simply no good
argument for the government holding up things. This isn’t about
jobs (the numbers, real and imagined, in those sorts of scenarios
are always guess work and it’s not the government’s job to create
jobs anyway) and it’s not about the environment (the Canadian
petroleum products are going somewhere, so the idea that this will
to global warming or whatever is simply cant). But given their
willingness to support any sort of taxpayer-funded boondoggle (and
the temp jobs those useless projects generate), the liberal
Democratic opposition to building the pipeline is really
just bald hypocrisy
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1F3J2o7
via IFTTT

Commodities Are Crumbling – Gold Fixing Or Another Fed Minutes Leak?

Because nothing says unrigged like a collapse across the commodity complex (gold, silver, copper, and crude) as London’s Gold Fixing Company auction takes place… Or did the Fed leak its minutes like it did in 2013?

 

*  *  *

Subtle!!

* * *

There is a 3rd possibility…

SRG SWISS REF poll will be announced unofficially at around 11am EST.

 

It is a private survey so might be out already…

 

The last survey had 17% undecided (with 44% supported “Save our Gold”, 39% were opposed)

*  *  *




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1AibdzC Tyler Durden