Gold to Test 1200 Level Next Downside Target (Video)

By EconMatters


Had a lot of distractions recording this video, but some interesting analysis in between regarding some thoughts on the Gold Market. We discuss the Dollar, Bonds, Oil and the Carry Trade as well in this video. But the Gold Market has been under attack with the quarter change and repositioning ahead of the 25 basis point rate hike probably occurring at the December quarterly meeting unless the shit hits the fan after the election in November.

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle    

via http://ift.tt/2dLXY3w EconMatters

Mexican Peso Soars In Response To Trump Tapes Scandal

When it comes to the market, there is one instrument which reveals, perhaps better than any other asset class, Trump’s presidential chances: the Mexican Peso, or MXN.  As we reported in mid-September, the Mexican currency plunged to record lows at the same time as Trump’s presidential odds were rapidly rising and even briefly surpassed Hillary’s.

However, following the first presidential debate two weeks ago, the Peso spiked, erasing much of its recent losses. More importantly, market participants were looking at the MXN to see how the market would react to the Trump Tapes scandal. The answer came moments ago when in early trading, the Mexican Peso has soared, and the USDMXN tumbled out of the gate, an indication of Peso strength, and a confirmation that at least for now, the market’s reaction to the Trump Tapes is that his presidential chances have deteriorated substantially.

Specifically, in the premarket, the USD/MXN extended losses ahead of U.S. presidential debate at 9am Monday time in HK/Singapore. Spot was down as much as 1.6% to 18.9967, hitting 18.9883 earlier in session, lowest since Sept. 13 and past 19.00 technical support. As Bloomberg notes, a breach of 19.00 puts 50-DMA at 18.8878, 100-DMA at 18.7462 in sight

The inverted USDMXN chart below shows that as of early trading, Trump’s odds at least as indicated by the Peso, are back to levels seen on September 13 and sliding fast.

Just as interesting is how closely the inverted USDMXN tracks the Clinton-Trump spread, as shown below.

Just like during the first debate, for the best indication of how the market believes the second debate is going, look no further than the Mexican Peso.

via http://ift.tt/2d5c0uK Tyler Durden

HILLARY’S WARS (Pt. 1): Clinton Reset Button with Russia Goes Nuclear

This article by David Haggith was first published on The Great Recession Blog.

Hillary Clinton's reset button with Russia being pressed by Sergei Lavrov

The infamous Clinton reset button for US-Russian relations turned out this week to be the other proverbial red button used to launch nuclear missiles. Wikileaks documents that will be covered in this series of articles reveal a chain of wars that started due to Hillary Clinton’s diplomacy.

Hillary’s Wars exploded this week when Russian President Vladimir Putin terminated nuclear disarmament agreements that existed between Russia and the United States:

 

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated Monday as the Obama administration suspended talks over Syria’s civil war hours after Moscow announced it was ending cooperation with the U.S. on a 16-year-old program for the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium to curb the production of more nuclear bombs.

 

The Obama administration stopped pursuing diplomacy with Russia amid renewed attacks by Russian and Syrian forces on the city of Aleppo. Frustrated administration officials acknowledged that Syrian President Bashar Assad is making territorial gains with Moscow’s help after the collapse of a cease-fire negotiated by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. (The Washington Times)

 

Why Clinton reset button went nuclear

 

Putin stated that he is ending the Plutonium-elimination agreement because the United States has failed under Barrack Obama to hold up its end of the agreement.

 

Mr. Putin’s decree cited Washington’s “unfriendly actions” and the U.S. inability to fulfill its obligations under the 2000 deal as reasons for the move. Under the agreement, which was expanded in 2006 and 2010, Russia and the U.S. each were to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, enough material for about 17,000 nuclear warheads…. Russia said last year it had started up a plant that produces mixed-oxide commercial nuclear reactor fuel known as MOX from weapons-grade plutonium. Meanwhile, the construction of a similar U.S. plant in South Carolina has been years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The Obama administration wants to cancel the Savannah River Site’s MOX project…. Defending Mr. Putin’s move, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the U.S. has “done all it could to destroy the atmosphere encouraging cooperation,” citing U.S. sanctions on Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis and deploying NATO forces near Russian borders.

 

Unfriendly actions by the Obama Administration, in the Russian view, include the coup in Ukraine, which Russia believes was US sponsored, sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea (intended ostensibly to keep Crimea out of the hands of an illegitimate (coup) government), attacks made against Bashar Assad (whom Russia has long supported) aimed at regime change, not at stopping ISIS, and the long-term build-up of NATO artillery on Russia’s border, which accelerated after Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The Russians explaining their withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, the Russians stated particularly that, in order to resume the treaty, the US will have to pull back its military installments near Russian borders to where they were before the Bush years and that it will have to get used to the idea that “it cannot bring sanctions against us and at the same time continue selective cooperation in areas it sees as advantageous.”

 

“Russia has been observing the agreement unilaterally for quite a long time, but now it no longer sees such a situation as possible amid the tensions,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

 

Given the timing of the announcement and the statements about tensions, I think it’s clear Russia’s break from nuclear disarmament was triggered by the concurrent stalemate between the US and Russia over how the war in Syria should be handled, even though Russian statements show that it is the culmination of a great many earlier affronts.

The Obama administration also announced this week that it is talking about stepped-up military strikes in Syria as a “means of forcing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to pay a cost for his violations of the cease-fire.”

 

Clinton Reset button was a bad joke from day one

 

 

Hillary Clinton Reset Button by U.S. Department of State from United States ("Restart Button") [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Hillary Clinton’s Reset Button. The Russian word “perezagruzka,” written offensively in Roman alphabet, instead of Cyrillic, was intended to mean “reset” but actually meant “overload.” Turned out to be truer than intended.

Hillary’s crudely made toy reset button for relations with Russia was defective from the day she had it made. It said “reset” in English for Americans who would see photos of it and “peregruzka” for Russians. Undoubtedly, a lot of thought went into putting the Russian word first in order to make the Russian’s feel good, since the button was being presented to Russians, not to Americans. However, not much thought went into how the word was written. Hillary Clinton’s state department missed the little detail that Russians read in Cyrillic alphabet, not in Roman. As a result, Russians had to read their own language in the American way. Rather symbolic, I think, of the ham-fisted way in which America has approached Russia on many issues from George Bush onward. “We’ll work with you … our way.”

 

Russians also found the Clinton reset button amusing because the Russian word Hillary Clinton and her Department of State chose actually meant “overload.” Oops. A truer word for Clinton’s relations with Russia during her time as US secretary of state and Obama’s relations from that point forward could not have been chosen.

What Hillary apparently didn’t foresee when she presented her toy reset button back in March of 2009 was that she brought the wrong button to her meeting with Russia’s foreign minister. Without realizing it, she was holding out the opportunity for her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to put his finger on the nuclear button. Ironically, it said “reset” in English only because the policies of the Clinton state department and the subsequent Kerry state department would ultimately reset Russian-American relations back to Cold War status.

 

Hillary miscalculated Russian response in Syria

 

While the next article in this series will establish from Wikileaks archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails that the Clinton State Department always intended a war against Syria for the sake of regime change, I want to point out one part of that masterplan that shows how Hillary’s strategies clearly misfired.

The Department of State, under Hillary’s lead, put out a document recommending war against Syria, that assured President Obama — based on Hillary’s close experience with her Husband’s war in Kosovo — that Russia would never involve itself in a Syrian War if the Obama administration chose to take the State Department’s advice and pursue regime change:

Russia will never support such a mission [as regime change in Syria], so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. (Wikileaks)

 

Oops! I guess Russia thought differently after years of feeling pushed around its borders by the US and realized that it needs to do more than complain if the US is going to take its objections seriously and not discount them as the State Department did above. Rather than just complain Russia leaped directly into the Syrian Civil War with its own bombers.

This week, it took another leap and ended cooperation on its nuclear treaty with the US, taking both nations deeper into Cold War status. Oops again in terms of Hillary’s calculations about how Russia would respond to US efforts to turn over the Assad regime.

As the next article will show (“Wikileaks Proves Syria about Iran and Israel“), the cost of getting a tenuous nuclear “deal” with Iran was the loss of an established nuclear treaty with Russia. I’ll leave it to you to decide if that’s a winning outcome; but it is clearly a case where Hillary’s state department miscalculated how much the US can keep pushing Russia around, which the next step in Russia’s warnings makes even more clear:

 

Hillary’s War in Syria becomes a proxy war with Russia

 

While a few have claimed US involvement in the Syrian war was really intended as a proxy war against Russia, I think the next article will show that the US simply miscalculated how involved Russia would get in Syria because they show the state department clearly had a different (but equally imperial) motive than engaging with Russia. In the statement above, they show they didn’t believe Russia would get involved at all.

That said, the proximity of war with Russia in Syria certainly intensified Friday. Russia has placed anti-aircraft artillery in and around areas where Assad’s forces are located, and then issued the following warning late last week:

 

An extraordinary warning tonight from Russia to the US against conducting military strikes in Syria. In a strongly worded statement, a spokesperson for the Russian defense minister said any [US] strikes against President Bashar Assad’s regime … could result in American aircraft being shot down. (ABC)

 

US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter responded Friday that Russia will face the consequences for its growing involvement in Syria. (See, they are surprised Russia has had the boxy to involve itself in a way that endangers US aircraft as a result of earlier advice from Hillary that said it wouldn’t. Thus, the Obama administration professes outrage that things have taken this seriously dangerous turn.)

The Pentagon this week has been presenting the Obama administration with options for potential strikes on Assad’s air force bases to punish the regime for its failure to abide by the recent ceasefire agreement. (And, as the next article shows, because overthrowing Assad was always Plan One as a measure of support for Israel.) State Department officials, however, have said that Obama is unlikely to approve the strikes, though the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in favor of them.

To this news of recommended air strikes directly against Assad, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian defense ministry spokesman, responded,

 

I would recommend our colleagues in Washington to thoroughly consider the possible consequences of the realization of such plans.

 

This is about as close as you get to a hot war with Russia without actually being in one. Russia is not just saber rattling. It is saying its missiles will be in the air, and Russia won’t have time to coordinate missile flight plans with the US. So, if the US happens to be in the air in the same place and same time, its planes could get shot down.

I think there is even more to this warning than concern that US planes may accidentally get caught in the fire:

 

Konashenkov, however, suggested Russia would target any unidentified aircraft attacking Syrian government targets and warned “American strategists” not to assume a covert intervention would go unanswered…. Konashenkov also warned that Russian troops were now widely deployed across Syria, implying any strikes could hit them, pulling the U.S. into conflict with Russia. Konashenkov referred again to a strike on Sept. 17, when U.S. military aircraft killed dozens of Syrian government troops accidentally. The Pentagon has said the strike was a mistake, but Konashenkov said Russia was prepared to prevent “any similar ‘mistakes’” against Russian troops.

 

In other words, all stealth aircraft (by nature “unidentified”) that attack Assad will be targeted and shot down, even though they most likely belong to the US if they are not planes Russia can identify as its own; and any US attacks against Assad that wind up endangering Russian troops will receive a direct Russian counter-attack.

Russian bombardment of the besieged city of Aleppo during the past week was described as the most intense in this war to date. At the same time, the fact that the talk of targeting by the US has been directed at Assad’s air bases says that clearly regime change is the only order of the day for the US. ISIS seems to have become a sideshow compared to US rage against Assad. (It was, in fact, a sideshow from the beginning of Clinton’s recommendations for a US war against Assad.)

 

Was the US also the destabilizing force in the Ukrainian coup d’etat?

 

Predictably, the US defended itself from accusations that it is at fault for the breakdown in relationships with Russia by trying to pit the blame on Putin:

 

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters Monday. The U.S. “seeks a constructive dialogue with Russia on strategic issues, but it is Russia instead who continues to engage in destabilizing activities. (Bloomberg)

 

But is it really Russia that is initiating destabilizing activities? Part Two of this series shows that the US Department of State saw the Syrian Civil War as an opportunity to work covertly for regime change in order to help Israel and in belief that regime change in Syria will transform the Middle East into a more friendly place for the US.

Syria’s Civil War is not a war the US needed to be involved in for its own protection any more than the US needed to change regimes in Iraq in order to protect itself (another war Hillary Clinton fully supported). Syria has also become a hardened training ground for ISIS, just as Iraq became an incubator for ISIS.

Putin has maintained for years that the US is moving imperially to reshape the Middle East in a manner best suited to US interests. So, who is the destabilizing force, given that neither of these countries ever brought an attack agains the US or its NATO allies? Who is destabilizing things by trying to change the entire Middle Eastern map?

And US efforts at regime change (or, at least, backing of illegitimate regime changes) are not just happening in the Middle East. The Obama administration worked through the UN in 2014 to censor Russia with sanctions for involving itself in Ukrain’s civil war by annexing Crimea, even though there is good reason to believe the US sponsored the coup d’etat that started the civil war by throwing over Ukraine’s democratically elected government.

Putin’s suspicion of US support for the coup is warranted, given that the Obama administration’s full approval and support of the insurrectionist government that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government was almost instantaneous.

So much for supporting democracy … if it winds up electing a government that is much more aligned with Russia than with the US. How could the US assess and support an uprising that happened almost overnight if the Obama administration didn’t know a lot about the group behind the coup to begin with? In the very least, from Putin’s standpoint, the US is fully supporting a government that took over Ukraine by insurrection, directly in conflict with Russian interests.

Wether the US can be proved to have been directly funding the coup or not, it certainly supported an insurrection that moved against Russian interests in the region.

During that time, Hillary Clinton (no longer secretary of state) had to defend her reset button against criticism that Russia’s annexation of Crimea proved the reset had obviously failed. In defending the Clinton reset button, Hillary pointed out how Russia had subsequently agreed to sanctions against Iran and to allowing US planes to fly over Russia in order to supply NATO troops in Afghanistan.

True it had, but the beginning of a serious tear that happened over Ukraine does not have to mean that all attempts by Russia toward good relations were immediately terminated. These kinds of tears get worse and worse over time (like a deteriorating marriage) until they are complete. This past week, however, put the US and Russia much closer to complete breakdown of the relationship. The only way it can become any more complete is if we start actually intentionally shooting at each other.

In 2014, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that a “reset of relations” between Russia and the US was impossible due to the United States’ “destructive” and “stupid” sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea. Russia, of course, says that it annexed the predominantly Russian-speaking Crimea to keep it out of the hands of an illegitimate coup government.

 

Has Clinton’s reset button reset the US and Russia to Cold War status?

Duck-and-Cover drill photo by Creator:Walter Albertin [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

 

That same year (2014), the man who ended the first cold war, Mikhail Gorbachev, warned that the United State’s conflict with Russia over Ukraine was likely to reset relations back to a cold war status. After that, some politicians and pundits argued that calling Russian-American relations a return to cold-war status was unwarranted because things had not deteriorated that far.

Gorbachev, however, was not saying relations had returned to a cold war status, but that Hillary Clinton’s reset strategies were marching everyone down that path.Now that Russia has stepped away from this nuclear disarmament treaty, a lot of weight has been added to the argument that we are moving back into a cold war position.

How much does the following article this week sound like the days of “duck and cover” during the Cold War?

 

Amid growing international tensions, particulary over Russia’s conduct in Syria, the Defence Ministry-run Zvezda TV network announced last week: “Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow.” (The Independent)

 

That comment was prelude to other announcements this past week that Russia’s Ministry for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM) will be running a three-day emergency drill with 40 million civilians and 200,000 emergency responders to assure the nation is prepared for nuclear, chemical or biological attacks from the West.

Sounds like the Cold War “duck and cover” drills to me:

 

 

Russia also stated its plans this week to build underground nuclear shelters in Moscow sufficient to house the city’s entire population, and it has begun building a new generation of nuclear bombers and ICBM’s, missile launchers and nuclear-armed subs. The Kremlin is reportedly seeking nuclear fire power superior to that of the US.

That doesn’t sound like the Cold War?

In Syria, these tensions advanced this week very close to becoming a hot war — about as hot as the Cuban Missile Crisis. As soon as US Secretary of State John Kerry terminated diplomatic relations with Russia in the Syrian war this past week, the Syrian war began to look and sound all the more like the “very, very familiar proxy war cycle from the bad old days of the Cold War” (Vox) that some said it was.

The Clinton reset button looks more and more like the proverbial nuclear button that launched a purposeful chain of regime-change wars that is turning out to be more of chain reaction.

via http://ift.tt/2dXZYcQ Knave Dave

Time Magazine Goes Full Propagandist

Submitted by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,

Time magazine’s parent company is a top donor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — a factor that may help explain the publication’s obsession with blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for “rigging” the U.S. presidential election.

This year, alone, Time Inc., the organization behind Time — one of the most prestigious American weekly news magazines in history — donated nearly $15,000 to the Clinton campaign. A second organization, Time Warner, which was deeply tied to Time until 2014, is also a major Clinton fan. The company gave her campaign $327,308 in individual contributions in 2016, alone.

But perhaps most telling of the organization’s preferences is the presence of Nancy Gibbs as Time’s managing editor. At the tender age of 53, she “shattered a glass ceiling” by taking over for Richard Stengel, who in 2013 “[stepped] down from his news magazine job to join the Obama administration at the Department of State,” Politico reported.

Gibbs is a competent writer, whose impressive resume includes writing for Time for 28 years. This makes her “one of the most published writers in the history of the magazine, having been an essayist and lead writer on virtually every major news event of the past two decades,” according to Magazine.org.

But Time’s praise for Clinton since Gibbs became managing editor, much like her former colleague Stengel’s dedication to President Obama as the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is also part of her legacy. Gibbs, herself, has praised Clinton in her articles, and on one occasion, she participated in a Clinton Foundation annual meeting.

Keeping that in mind, it’s apparent the writers under her watch are likely steered toward writing pieces she would see fit, ignoring facts and reporting hearsay as truth despite a lack of evidence.

The magazine’s latest effort to paint Clinton and the DNC’s leadership as the victims of media bias comes in the form of a cover piece entitled “How Russia Wants to Undermine the U.S. Election.”

Amid reports of electoral fraud perpetrated by the Democratic Party, which places Clinton as the top beneficiary, the story suggests the Obama administration, along with U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, haveseen mounting evidence of an active Russian influence operation targeting the 2016 presidential election.” The article does not acknowledge the DNC’s own meddling and manipulation.

Admitting “the Russians” would have a hard time “[swaying] the actual vote count, because our election infrastructure is decentralized and voting machines are not accessible from the Internet,” Time’s Massimo Calabresi argues they may still “sow disruption and instability up to, and on, Election Day.”

Basing an entire report on testimonials given to Time by “a dozen senior U.S. officials” who were left unnamed, the piece mostly dwells in metaphysical “mumbo-jumbo,” claiming the dangerous Russians could “[undermine] faith in the result [of the elections] and in democracy itself.” [emphasis added]

Still, Calabresi adds that U.S. officials do not have evidence to support their allegations regarding Russia’s role in “rigging the election.” Instead, the article suggests that “while U.S. officials have ‘high confidence’ that Russia is behind what they describe as a major influence operation, senior U.S. officials tell TIME, their evidence would not yet stand up in court.” He added that the two main hacking groups, believed to be tied to Russian intelligence, prove Russia is involved in rigging the election.

Despite Time’s wishful thinking, the only three characteristics officials have used to connect the hackers to Russia are:

[E]xpensive digital tools, suggesting state sponsorship; an interest in pursuing sensitive, embarrassing or strategically significant information, rather than financially beneficial data; and a choice of targets that align with Russian political objectives.”

Further, Calabresi adds, “U.S. law-enforcement agencies are scrambling to uncover the extent of the Russian operation, counter it and harden the country’s election infrastructure.” This is all while “a murky network of Russian hackers and their associates” works to “[step] up the pace of leaks of stolen documents designed to affect public opinion and give the impression that the election is vulnerable, including emails from the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).” Here, he effectively but subtly ties Julian Assange, the Australian computer programmer, publisher, journalist, and editor-in-chief of the organization he founded, WikiLeaks, to “the Russians.”

In an August interview, Assange gave a compelling explanation as to why members of the mainstream U.S. media, who are often backers of Democratic presidential nominees, have repeatedly accused him of being a Russian intelligence plant.

Everyone accepts that the emails that we published, the 20,000 leaked DNC emails, are accurate. Nobody is saying that they did not say something that was listed in the emails,” he told RT.com. Over the past ten years, Assange added, “WikiLeaks has [had] a perfect … record of never getting it wrong — it is an impressive record and it is the reason why it takes a while before we publish information — because we want to keep that record.”

He continued:

Given that the real source is known, in this case it is the DNC, it is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it is Luis Miranda the Communications Director — we know these are their emails so there’s quite a difficulty for the Clinton campaign to try to outmaneuver WikiLeaks. The content itself is unquestionable so instead you have to bring in another actor, so they had to bring in Russian intelligence agencies.”

Unfortunately for Time and its managing editor, these emails, which come from the DNC and its top-ranking officials, “show the DNC rigged and manipulated the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton,” and that is a problem for the Clinton campaign and its narrative.

Instead of discussing these matters — which would all be tied to the story’s main theme of “election rigging” — Time’s Calabresi chooses to slam Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for comments made after the DNC leak was publicized.

After being part of a classified intelligence briefing on the Russian “threat,” Calabresi admits, Trump said “nobody knows with definitive certainty that [the hackers behind the DNC leak were] in fact [from] Russia. It may be, but it may also be China, another country or individual.”

Ignoring the fact the presidential nominee had been part of a classified briefing on the matter, Time’s Calabresi still condemns the candidate for choosing not to blame Russia without evidence — again choosing to ignore facts and, instead, using solely speculative arguments to defend his story.

President Obama once mocked 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for claiming Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat facing America. At the time, Obama hit the candidate by saying:

The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Well President Obama, how about that? Ronald Reagan called and asked you to bring that wall down and wipe that smirk off your face. You’re now a cold war instigator, and your mouthpieces can’t wait for Mrs. Clinton to win. After all, her campaign has already promised to go full force against Syria, prompting the beginning of a conflicting period that could put the United States and Russia on a warpath.

Unless solid proof linking these hacks to Russian intelligence is produced, former National Security Administration (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden once tweeted, it’s hard to believe Russia is behind all this. After all, if the Kremlin were behind it, the NSA would know. And if the NSA knows, why won’t it show us proof?

via http://ift.tt/2doQB0s Tyler Durden

MidEast Massacre As Saudi Bank Stocks Crash To Crisis Lows

It's probably nothing but… Saudi banking stocks have been halved in the last year and crashed to their lowest level since the March 2009 lows. Middle East stock markets began the week with a big downturn as China comes back from its Golden Week holiday…

Just when you thought it was safe to buy the f##king dip…

 

Saudi Bank stocks collapse to financial crisis lows…

 

And while Saudi interbank rates surge to multi-year highs, relative to US LIBOR, Saudi counterparty risk has never been higher…

 

As The National reports, The central bank has told commercial banks to postpone for a month receiving payments on consumer loans to customers whose incomes have been hit by cuts to public sector allowances, the Okaz newspaper reported on Sunday, citing unnamed sources. Central bank officials were not available to comment.

But it wasn't just Saudi Arabia.. and not just the banks… Bloomberg's Middle-East/Africa index tumbled

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

IMF Wants to Spend Billions on Global Trade to Reduce Populist Anger

Submitted by the Daily Bell

World Finance Officials Pledge More Resources to Aid Growth … World finance leaders pledged Saturday to use more resources to try to bolster economic gains as they confront stubbornly slow growth and a rising backlash against globalization. The policy committee for the 189-nation International Monetary Fund said the world has “benefited tremendously from globalization” but that protectionism is a threat. Increasing anger over globalization dominated the annual meetings of the IMF and its sister lending agency, the World Bank. – ABC/AP

What’s the solution to Brexit? More spending on international trade.

Because people are angry about globalism, the IMF has decided its member states need to spend more money counteracting the “globalist” backlash.

We’ve been following the “populism versus globalism” meme closely and have written it is justifying increased spending on globalist programs, as you can see from this excerpt above.

We have always been suspicious of the Brexit outcome, believing that elites in Britain could have manipulated votes against Brexit if they’d wished to do so.

Apparently, they did not. Instead, Brexit passed in order to create “directed history.”

More:

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said “growth has been too low for too long, benefiting too few,” and that’s what officials need to address. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin said global leaders must address concerns of inequality and injustice caused by globalization, such as tax evasion by big corporations and job losses by workers.

 

“We must fight against this immorality of globalization, this inequality, to again give our people the taste for openness and multilateralism,” Sapin told reporters. “There can be an unhappy globalization and we must fight against it.”

 

In their statement, IMF officials committed to designing and putting in place policies “to address the concerns of those who have been left behind and to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from globalization and technological change.”

The article mentions both Brexit and the U.S. presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump as evidences of disgruntled populism. This is one reason why we think there is the possibility that Trump could win in November.

Perhaps Trump could win the popular vote on his own. But it seems to us, given the dispersal of easily hacked voting machines around the US, that the election can be tipped in whatever the direction elite political forces choose. A Trump victory would further justify globalist spending to counteract the pernicious impact of Trump and Brexit.

The article warns, as others have, that the effects of Brexit have not been consequential in the short term but that in longer term, there will be significant difficulties for Britain, Europe and the world.

Mario Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank … said a lot will depend on how prolonged the post-Brexit uncertainty lasts as Britain and the EU negotiate next year over the terms of separation. “It’s a matter of this political uncertainty that clouds the outlook for growth,” Draghi said … U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew urged the IMF to “more boldly and forcefully” push member countries to pursue all economic policy options to spur growth.

According to this article, The Obama administration wants countries with trade surpluses like Germany, to spend more to boost global commerce.

Over and over we are seeing these themes in the mainstream media. Lagarde sums up succinctly, saying that global trade must be “fostered” to make sure “global trade works for all.”

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim mentioned “tremendous anger against trade.” But added that poverty could not be lifted around the world without “more robust trade.” This would include increased spending to support additional immigration and emigration.

What we are seeing with the “populism versus globalism” meme is classic elite propaganda. Create the problem and then counteract it by creating new and costly programs (paid for by common taxes) that can be integrated into the fiber of elite-controlled international relationships.

Conclusion: The outcome of Brexit must be a coordinated campaign of worldwide spending to ensure the benefits of globalization – even though Brexit was an emphatic statement against such globalization. Thesis, antitheses, synthesis … and so it goes.


IMF’s Christine Lagarde shares a laugh with Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso
after IMFC family photo during the IMF/World Bank annual meetings in Washington

via http://ift.tt/2e1TOEc Tyler Durden

There’s One Very Simple Reason Why Precious Metals Were Pummelled This Week

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

If you are a precious metals investor then you may be wondering why the price of gold and silver were absolutely massacred this week. Ask the expert pundits on financial media and you’ll get a swath of explanations for how the strength of the dollar or the improving health of the global economy are to blame. One could reasonably argue that dollar strength this week could certainly put downward pressure on the gold price. So, too, could one make the point that mainstream perspective is such that the economy is improving, which means investors aren’t in panic mode and have no reason to hold a safe haven asset. But neither of these arguments could realistically lead to the smack down we witnessed this week.

So what happened? Well known gold and silver analyst Andy Hoffman suggests the answer could be much simpler than we have been led to believe.

There’s no reason… there’s not even a propaganda meme of why [gold has been smashed]… there isn’t even a such thing as negative news for precious metals anymore…

 

The fact is, [lik eth elast few years, when prices collapsed], China is closed for the week.

Had you been listening only to the big financial news sites, you would have noticed that they made no mention of this very important fact. With China closed the markets were open for rampant manipulation, which is exactly what happened as several billion dollars in leveraged paper assets were dumped on the market.

Easy money for The-Powers-That-Be.

Hoffman explains in the latest precious metals update with Future Money Trends:

On Monday, China will be back in business, and that means the Shanghai Gold Exchange, which opened last year to counter Western manipulation of precious metals, will likely help re-balance prices to where they were before this week’s takedown.

We could be wrong, but something tells us gold and silver prices won’t stay this low for much longer and that they could well see a complete turnaround next week.

What does that mean for investors? This could be one of our last buying opportunities before the long-term bull market trend makes another move like it did in the first part of this year which saw precious metals rise amid market panic.

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

Bill Clinton Alleged Rape Victim Juanita Broaddrick Speaks In Dramatic New Interview

As the main stream media works itself into a frenzy over Trump’s “lewd” comments, Breitbart conducted the following interview with alleged Bill Clinton rape victim, Juanita Broaddrick.  Within the interview, an obviously shaken Broaddrick offers vivid details of the 1970’s encounter with the then Governor of Arkansas that left her traumatized for decades and has her frightened, to this very day, by the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the White House.

 

Here are some of the vivid details from the interview.

BROADDRICK: And then as he points over my shoulder, he grabs me and turns me to him. And that was a shock. And I tried to push him away. And I only weighed about 120 pounds at that time. He was a very large man. And I kept telling him, “No. I don’t want this at all.”

 

And he grabbed me again, very forcefully. And started biting on my top lip. And this was extremely painful. I thought he was going to bite my lip off. And that’s when he pushed me back onto the bed.

 

KLEIN: He bit you at the top of your lip. He pushed you onto the bed. And then what happened?

 

BROADDRICK: It’s been so long and it is just so hard to go into. I need to stop.

 

(crying)

 

BROADDRICK: You, know, why? Why is it still so painful?

 

(crying)

 

KLEIN: What is going through your mind right now?

 

BROADDRICK: That I am afraid of him.

 

KLEIN: You are still afraid of him?

 

BROADDRICK: Yes. That I am still afraid. Especially if she becomes president. And I know it’s looking that way. So it’s frightening, Aaron. It’s frightening.

 

 

I was completely dressed. I had a skirt and a blouse. He tore the waist of my skirt. And then he ripped my pantyhose. And he raped me. It was very vicious. I was just pinned down… I did not know what to do. I was so frightened. I was only 35 at the time. And it was horrible. I just wanted it to be over with. So he would go away.

 

KLEIN: He got up?

 

BROADDRICK: No, he held me down for a long time. And then he did it again. I was so ready for him to leave me alone. When he started raping me again. And it was very brief… And he did get up and he straightened himself. And my mouth was bleeding and it was hurting. And he just straightens himself and goes to the door.

 

KLEIN: With you still on the bed?

 

BROADDRICK: Yes, crying. He straightens himself and he goes to the door. And puts on his sunglasses. And tells me to get some ice on that on my lip. And goes out the door.

 

 

He would push down on my left clavicle and it hurt so much I thought my clavicle was gonna break. And my lip was just ballooning out four times the size that it should have been.

 

KLEIN: While he was raping you?

 

BROADDRICK: Yes.

What are the chances that this interview gets any coverage on the mainstream media?

via http://ift.tt/2dDu8SP Tyler Durden

America Is On A Slippery Slope

Submitted by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

It hadn’t happened before, at least not since US presidents started visiting foreign countries after the Second World War.

In early September, when President Obama landed at Hangzhoi for the G-20 summit in early September, the CIA security men were told in no uncertain terms by the Chinese that they were not in charge of landing arrangements, and that the President would disembark by the rear exit. It had the hallmarks of a calculated snub, as did the obligatory photograph of the world’s leaders, where the President was placed firmly on the far left, and not near the centre, which is customary.

Barack Obama suffered a further indignity, when ahead of his visit to Laos the following week, the new Philippine President, Rodrigo Duterte, referred to him as “a son of a whore”. The official meeting between the two was cancelled, though they did meet privately. So not only are ordinary Americans showing signs of rebelling against the status quo at home, but foreigners, some of them very important, are as well.

What follows is an assessment of today’s geopolitical situation, based on a mixture of obtainable facts, background information, informed opinions, and reasoned deduction. Guesswork, eliminated as much as possible, is inevitably involved, particularly in assessing outcomes. The conclusions are not something anyone in the deep states of America and elsewhere will admit to or endorse, which paradoxically gives this article its importance.

This article assesses the failing American empire and the current state of the global power-play between China and Russia on one side, and America on the other. It summarises the importance of gold which is central to China’s financial strategy, and concludes that America is likely to be an accumulator of bullion, for strategic if not monetary reasons. It also looks at the challenges the top three major currencies will face next year, in the context of geopolitical developments to date.

Decline and fall

All empires eventually decline and usually their fiat currencies fall with them, which is what westerners are seeing today. In modern times, it has happened to the British, and now it is happening to the Americans. And when the decline starts, it proves impossible to stop. Either you accept it and retreat gracefully, as the British did giving up her colonies under Macmillan, or you fight it. The Americans are fighting it, which means the decline will be increasingly messy and dangerous. At the centre, directing strategy, is America’s deep state, the senior officials mostly in the intelligence services, who guide the President on security matters. They are obsessed with impeding by fair means or foul the foreign forces that in their paranoia they believe oppose them.

Every significant country has its own deep state. Presidents and prime ministers are not omniscient and need the guidance of experts in both domestic and international affairs. Naturally, this is why intelligence services are central to government, because they provide and present the most important information concerning risks to the state. It is these people who can wield the ultimate power behind elected politicians when it comes to external relations and domestic security, by managing information and influencing their decisions.

External relations are effectively under the control of the CIA in America, and MI6 in the UK. The world saw how dangerous these intelligence services can become when they fabricated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Make no mistake, these two intelligence services took it upon themselves to take us to war. It was clearly intended to pave the way for Saddam’s removal, and led to an appalling civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, as these religious factions sought supremacy in the power vacuum left by Saddam’s overthrow. Tony Blair was discredited, and is reviled by his former supporters. George W Bush was marginally luckier, only because America did not have a damaging Chilcot inquiry.

Then there was Libya, where Hillary Clinton took much of the rap, which could lose her the cherished presidency. The Arab Spring revolt, which started in Tunisia and was encouraged by developments in Libya, spread to Egypt and from there to much of the Arab world, including Syria. In Syria, formally a thriving, peaceful country tolerant of all religions, the CIA stirred up trouble, with the intention of overthrowing President Assad, whose crime was to be loyal to Russia. The lack of any foresight by the Americans has led to a refugee crisis that threatens to destabilise Europe, and was a major factor in the British referendum vote for Brexit. There is also Ukraine, and before that Georgia-Ossetia.

One could go on, listing the CIA’s failures and pyrrhic victories, which are all well documented if you are prepared to dig for the information. With hindsight, we can date the peak of American power to the second invasion of Iraq thirteen years ago. It has been gently downhill ever since, driven by the groupthink in the deep state that advises the President, rather than by China and Russia becoming a threat to the security of the west, as many might suppose.

The mistakes have been all America’s, assisted by her NATO handmaidens, and will continue to be so, and that was the point behind China’s snub at the G-20 meeting, and why a maverick politician in the Philippines can insult the greatest leader on earth and get away with it. It was a public signal that the new kids on the block, China Russia and the emerging economies in the Pacific, are fully aware that the world’s dominatrix is now an aging has-been, unable to crack her whip like she used to. Their own deep states probably saw this coming some time ago, and have played their cards defensibly, rarely being wrong-footed. They understand the dangers created by the power vacuum left on the world stage, and are responding not by seeking America’s dying role for themselves, but by securing their homelands, which in the case of China and Russia is most of the Eurasian continent.

Global power in 2017

In the thirteen years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, China in partnership with Russia has evolved the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) from its roots as an intelligence-based anti-terrorist committee into a fully-fledged forum for economic cooperation. Importantly, China had the prescience to acquire as much gold as she could, having appointed the Peoples Bank for that function thirty-three years ago in 1983 (more on this below).

China has shown up the extent of America’s decline, by rising to become the world’s largest supplier of goods and user of commodities, purely based on providing the world with the goods it wants. In the last eighteen months she has laid much of the groundwork for her own financial security. With Russia, she has led the establishment of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will be the financing channel for the future infrastructure development and industrialisation of all Asia.

China is modernising her own territory and expanding the middle class, which will soon be larger than the entire population of the United States. Her citizens, who are strong savers, are accumulating wealth, while westerners are seeing theirs destroyed. Additionally, China plans an industrial revolution encompassing the whole of Asia, starting with land and sea Silk Roads. What took Britain two hundred years for the Asian backwaters she plans to complete in a series of five-year plans. The demand generated for copper, cement, steel and energy will be massive and prolonged, which is why China is keen to deal directly with resource-rich suppliers. China plans to finance this incredible project using any money but dollars. So it is hardly surprising that some of America’s most dependable allies were quick to sign up to the AIIB as partners, because very big money talks very clearly.

With these ambitious projects in mind, China is establishing a new BRICKS bank, a potential rival for the IMF which will allow China and Russia to arrange their own supra-national financing, independently from any US interference. She has even persuaded, some would say blackmailed, the IMF to include the yuan in the SDR in order to accelerate the yuan’s international acceptability. Increasingly, she is settling trade in yuan, and planning sovereign-to-sovereign loans repayable in her own currency. While further depth is needed in her capital markets, much of the groundwork has already been laid, such as setting up new currency pairs, bypassing the dollar in the foreign exchanges, and by pricing oil and gold in yuan. And all this has occurred despite America’s firm grip on global trade settlement through the dollar with its reserve status.

2017 is shaping up towards a new phase. China now has the means to start funding resource-rich countries against their future income flows, much of which will be underwritten by Chinese demand. Target countries typically have high levels of government debt, and are acutely aware that they will be destabilised by the inevitable rise in dollar interest rates. Obvious candidates are Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, both major oil suppliers. They could include Canada, where intriguingly, Justin Trudeau only last week received Premier Li Keqiang after extending his own visit to China for a whole week over the G-20 meeting. China already controls the economies of much of sub-Saharan Africa, where she is building railways, and loans in yuan against future commodity supply are also likely to be extended.

If Canada is on China’s list, that will take her provokingly into America’s back yard, risking a response from America. But how is this all to be paid for, before BRICS becomes fully operational? The answer is simple. Initially, China will draw on her official currency reserves, estimated to be $3.2 trillion equivalent, the bulk of which is in US dollars. US Government debt can be sold down or transferred under swap deals for other parties to liquidate, at least until the US refuses to authorise the transfer of ownership. But this is an interim measure, which will ease the way to the yuan being more widely used for key commodity pricing and for Pan-Asian trade settlement.

The importance of gold

It is easy to forget that China’s economists thirty years ago were taught the Marxist line, that capitalism will destroy itself. Yet from about 1980 onwards, they found that supplying yuan for inward investment left the Peoples Bank accumulating growing quantities of dollars, which according to Marxian philosophy would one day be worthless. This led to regulations appointing the Peoples Bank as sole manager of the State’s precious metal acquisition programmei. So for China, the acquisition of gold would have originally been a logical diversification from accumulating dollars. But, presumably not wanting to create friction with the anti-gold Americans, gold purchases were not declared as official reserves, and were hidden in undeclared accounts.

China also embarked on a drive to increase mine output, and today she is the largest producer in the world by far, at about 460 tonnes last year. Refining has always been a state monopoly as well, taking in gold doré and ore from Mongolia and other countries. Much of this gold appears to be absorbed by the state, because state-refined bullion bars, as opposed to branded bars recast from SGE deliveries for retail, are rarely seen on international markets.

In the past I have speculated that this covert accumulation of gold over the last thirty-three years could amount to over 20,000 tonnes, taking into account the scale of inward investment flows, subsequent trade surpluses, contemporary prices, and supplies from western central banks and investors during the great gold bear market of 1981-2000. What originally started out as diversification from exposure to western fiat currencies at some stage became a strategic imperative, presumably when it became obvious to the Chinese that western central banks were leasing and swapping physical gold to be sold into the market. Whatever the total accumulated, the state obviously felt it had acquired enough gold by 2002 to permit the Chinese public to begin buying. The Peoples Bank established the Shanghai Gold Exchange that year for this purpose, and so far has delivered an additional 11,000 tonnes into public hands, net of scrappage.

It is clear that Russia places a similar importance on the accumulation of gold, having in recent years surprised western analysts by adding gold to her reserves, when the preservation of dollar reserves as ammunition to support a falling rouble was deemed to be more important. The extent of her undeclared holdings is obviously not known, but could be significant, though not on China’s scale. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the US’s Exchange Stability Fund has in the past sold physical gold with a view to supporting the dollar, leading to speculation that the US’s official reserves are considerably less than stated.

Why does this matter? It matters because, despite the wishful thinking of the macroeconomists in the west, gold is still the ultimate form of money, at least in the eyes of the central banks which maintain and add to gold reserves, and more importantly the people and governments of the bulk of the Eurasian land mass. And given that today’s geopolitics is all about China and Russia versus the US, gold is the primary strategic money in a future financial conflict. Chinese analysts also know that the west is badly short of physical metal, with bullion banks running unallocated accounts on a fractional reserve basis for their customers. Bullion banks also suppress gold prices by supplying large quantities of paper gold in futures and options markets out of thin air to soak up speculative demand, positions either hedged into other paper, or not at all.

If China chose to do so, she could bring the west to its knees just by squeezing the market for physical gold. A western financial collapse would be a disaster for all, but China and Russia, together with their SCO partners would be the last men standing, so in that sense the ownership of gold bullion is the ultimate financial weapon. So what does America’s deep state do about it? It must accumulate physical gold as a matter of urgency. This is why, if the stories are true, it made sense for the CIA to smuggle out Libya’s and Ukraine’s gold under cover of the prevailing chaos, and why, far from suppressing the price, the new priority must be for the deep state to accumulate physical gold as rapidly as possible.

Currency implications

The gold story rumbles on, but the more visible topic is the growing likelihood of the old Marxian prediction about capitalism destroying itself turning out to be true, at least for the highly corrupted form we call western capitalism today. By a process of stealth, the economies of Europe and America have actually evolved towards a national socialist model, where the means of production remains in private hands, but the state controls and directs it through regulation. The collapse, if it happens, will have more in common with the failings of socialism, than with anything to do with free markets. And with economic collapse, so too goes the purchasing power of fiat currencies.

The most obvious currency danger is from the euro, for all the reasons we don’t need to go into here. However, Western Europe is seen by China as a trade partner at the end of her Silk Roads, potentially in need of her assistance. She has already bought control of Piraeus, Greece’s largest port, which will become one of her Silk Road terminals. The lesson here was rather like a spider with its web, China just waits patiently for opportunities to come her way.

When individual EU countries need rescuing from future banking and debt crises, it is reasonable to assume China will be willing to help, on her terms of course. At that point, NATO members, such as Italy and Germany, will be faced with a choice: is their future to be a vassal of America, or will it be better to be in a commercial partnership with China and Russia?

If the Eurozone disintegrates politically, the accompanying debt crisis is bound to undermine the euro. It seems unlikely that China will seek to support the euro, instead looking to benefit from the opportunities emerging from distress. She can support systemically important banks if it is in her interest to do so, despite the complete destruction of the euro. This, surely is already under discussion in Beijing. The question is one of price, which will involve both trade considerations and the use of the yuan. Japan is also at a crossroads, but is both physically and culturally closer to China. For the moment, the issue is not so much about currency, but about the failure of monetary and economic policy while in the American sphere of influence. At the political level, relations with China are volatile, reflecting both history and Japan’s alliance with America. But big Japanese corporations, the zaibatsu, work with China very well, employing many people in their manufacturing plants and buying other Chinese goods. The tension between Japan’s political and commercial objectives is therefore increasing all the time, which leads one to speculate how long it will be before commerce triumphs over politics. When that happens, we can expect Japan to join the AIIB, and move away from America’s political domination.

But we return to America, and her deep state. Not only has she made a frightful mess of Syria, opening the way for Russia to dominate the region politically, but she will see her Middle Eastern allies deserting the dollar, simply because they have little use for it, trade having shifted to China and now India. As China develops her parallel international financial markets, surplus dollars outside the US from the Middle East and elsewhere will almost certainly return home in growing quantities. This will obviously put enormous pressure on its purchasing power, necessitating a significant rise in interest rates to offset the price inflation effect. If this is allowed to happen, it will threaten to bankrupt big business in America, and even government itself. So what does America do?

These are the deep state’s likely options.

1. Accept reality and revise foreign strategy accordingly. Given the high level of groupthink and the remnants of cold war philosophy, it is difficult to envisage this being taken as an early option, if at all.

2. Prevent the Chinese from selling Treasuries by refusing bond transfers, and/or banning US banks from allowing currency transfers. The intention would be to hinder China’s plans to provide finance to commodity suppliers by transferring dollars and Treasury bonds to them, or simply selling down their holdings. The danger is this course of action will eliminate the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency for all foreign holders. The subsequent dollar crisis would likely escalate out of control.

3. Introduce exchange controls, restricting the return of offshore dollars in the belief that domestic purchasing power would be preserved. That would simply accelerate a collapse of the purchasing power of external dollars, increase the attractions of the yuan and gold as settlement currencies, and create shortages of imported raw materials for the US economy. The ghost of Smoot-Hawley would rattle its chains again.

4. Create more false flag operations, severe enough to encourage foreign speculators to maintain their dollar reserves.

The deep state is unlikely to accept that it’s Check Mate to China and Russia. Increasing desperation and the deep state’s groupthink place a high probability on the fourth option, another false flag operation, or a variant thereof. The world is at a critical juncture already with Syria, where the super-powers are at war through their proxies. Let’s just hope the fears expressed in this article over the senselessness of America’s future actions are overstated.

via http://ift.tt/2dPrcR3 Tyler Durden

Apprentice Producer Warns There Are “Far Worse” Trump Tapes To Come

There has been much speculation about how much “dirt” the Clinton campaign has on Trump…we all know the Clinton’s are the best in the business at “doing their homework.”  Perhaps the best indication that they’re sitting on a treasure trove of Trump dirt, is the fact that the Washington Post timed the release of Trump’s hot mic mishap with the latest WikiLeaks dump of the Podesta emails.  The coordination of the release obviously implies the Hillary campaign is sitting on dirt just waiting for the best opportunity to maximize the leverage of new releases to squash their own scandals.

Which is why it’s not terribly surprising that Bill Pruitt, producer of “The Apprentice”, recently took to twitter to warn that “when it comes to the #trumptapes there are far worse.”

 

Even Ben Carson told Fox News that The Donald knows there are more leaks to come and the Hillary campaign intends to “drip them out.”

 

Of course, the real question isn’t whether there will be new Trump leaks but whether anyone really cares.  Yes, he is crass and he makes a lot of controversial comments…that has been true of the Trump campaign since he first entered the race.  That said, he has continued to prevail simply because, at least up to this point, there is a large swath of the American electorate that is simply fed up with the establishment and are intent upon sending an outsider to shake up Washington…the more crass the better.

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