Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

When Will the Fed Act?

Given the massive swing in rate hike sentiment following the disastrous jobs report last week…

 

…Inquiring minds may be interested in how economists saw thing about a month ago.

On May 12, the Wall Street Journal too a survey of economists on the question When Will the Fed Act?

About 31% of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal this month said the Fed will raise short-term interest rates at its June 14-15 meeting, while another 31% expected it to wait until September. Another 21% thought the Fed will next move at its July meeting. For the first time since February, June wasn’t the economists’ consensus pick for the next Fed rate increase.

 

In April, three quarters of respondents predicted the Fed would raise rates in June.

Those March and April surveys are downright amusing. In March, over 85% of economists expected a hike by June. No one thought the next move would be a cut.

In April, over 80% of economists thought there would be a hike by July.

via http://ift.tt/1U66clM Tyler Durden

What "most-hated" rally?

Investor Sentiment has reached "Extreme Greed"…

 

Its least fearful in two years…

 

With 4 of the 7 components in "extreme greed" and 2 more in "greed"…

 

It appears the "most hated"  rally has now been fully embraced by all.

 

Source: CNN Money

via http://ift.tt/1teVS2i Tyler Durden

Authored by Bill Bonner of Bonner & Partners (annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum),

Destroying Lives

A dear reader reminded us of the comment, supposedly made by Groucho Marx: “A free lunch? You can’t afford a free lunch.”

 

Groucho dispensing valuable advice

 

He was responding to last week’s Diary about the national referendum in Switzerland on Saturday. Voters will decide whether to give all Swiss residents a free lunch – a guaranteed annual income of about $30,000 a year [ed note: the initiative was overwhelmingly rejected with 78% voting against].

The problem with a guaranteed income (you get it no matter whether you have a job or not) is something we’ve been writing about for the last 15 years. It is the problem with all frauds… all cockamamie, jackass redistribution programs… and all something-for-nothing schemes.

And it is the same whether you are “stimulating” an economy with artificial, phony-baloney “money”, giving aid to foreign dictators, or handing out free lunches to voters at home.

The Deep State, in addition to being malignant and entertaining, is incompetent. It fights wars just to lose them. It solves problems and makes them worse. Led by the Yellen Fed, it “improves” the economy and leaves 9 out of 10 people poorer than they were before.

Today, we turn to a special war – the War on Poverty. Jesus dismissed it. “The poor you will always have with you,” he said. But that didn’t stop the feds from launching an attack.

 

The “war on poverty” has been just as rousing a success as the “war on drugs”.  According to the NCPA is has actually cost $22 trillion so far (estimates of the total cost differ) – click to enlarge.

 

Fortunately, they are so clumsy, lame, and incompetent, they spare us a worse disaster. Had they been smarter and better organized, they would have done even more damage.

 

Mission Accomplished!

President Lyndon Johnson launched his War on Poverty more than a half-century ago. Since then, the feds have spent more than $16 trillion on anti-poverty campaigns. There are today as many poor people in the U.S. as there were then – about 39 million.

Already, we applaud the feds: They didn’t make it worse! And they could have. They’ve spent $16 trillion. That’s about $1.7 million for each poor family of four –  enough to wipe out poverty for the whole clan.

But now, the “good government” conservatives have their calculators out. They say the war could be fought much more efficiently by simply handing each poor family a million bucks. Problem solved! The “poor” would be overnight millionaires. Mission accomplished!

And think of the economic stimulus it would bring! Especially to certain segments of the economy. All of a sudden, a tidal wave of buying power would hit the markets like a U.S Navy cruiser plowing into a dockside brothel. Cocaine prices would soar! As for black Escalades with tinted windows – GM wouldn’t be able to turn them out fast enough.

 

An epidemic of black Escalades with tinted windows threatens…

 

For a few months, the poverty problem would be solved – and replaced by plenty of other problems. Then, the poor would go back to being poor, and the poverty fighters could pick up their weapons again.

 

The Devil and Idle Hands

Free money is a blind menace: It ruins the rich and the poor alike. And the more money you apply to the task,  the more people you can ruin. That’s why children of rich parents are often more corroded than those of the poor; the rich have more money to spend on them.

In Aspen, Colorado, for example – an enclave of wealth – levels of depression and drug use among adolescents are higher than in poor communities. Taking money for nothing is an easy habit to get into and a hard habit to break.

Poor people – in U.S. inner cities and African countries – have few defenses; even a little handout gives a strong rush. Soon, they are hooked. Local industries disappear; they can’t compete with free goods and services. Bad habits proliferate; crime and violence rise, as the devil and idle hands find each other.

 

Therefore seith Seint Jerome: “Dooth somme goode dedes that the devel, which is oure enemy, ne fynde yow nat unocupied.” (The Tale of Melibee, c. 1386).  “In Works of Labour or of Skill I would be busy too: For Satan finds some mischief still for idle Hands to do.” ( I. Watts, Divine Songs for Children, 1715: )

 

As we hinted in our review of the graduation ceremony at the University of Vermont, it’s not caring that causes people to make economic progress. It’s need.

And it’s not the abundance of capital that causes people to want to add more of it; it’s the scarcity of it.

Take away the need and you undermine the whole thing. People even stop caring.

 

Honest Money

One of the key innovations that built modern civilization was money. It made possible to move wealth through space and time. Money rolled. You could do business with someone you didn’t know – from a different tribe, a different language and a different culture.

You didn’t care what he thought or what gods he worshiped. His money was as good as anyone else’s. This is what allowed people to specialize at doing what they did best. They didn’t have to do everything themselves. They could focus on their most productive enterprise and then trade part of the output with others.

If they lived in a warm place, they could grow bananas or oranges and trade with people farther north for wheat and other grains. Goods and services began to move around (often with invading armies) carrying with them new ideas and innovations that helped everyone move ahead.

It is no surprise that tribes that have been cut off on remote islands or in isolated valleys are usually more primitive than the rest of us. They haven’t had the advantage of contact, trade, and exchange.

Money permitted wealth to transcend time, too. You build something. You sell it. You hold the money in your purse. Ten years later, you can still spend the wealth you created a decade earlier.

Or, borrowing money, you could use someone else’s money – based on wealth created long ago – to create future wealth – with which you could pay him back and still have something left over for yourself.

 

Example of market-selected money on a scale.

 

Money didn’t come from nothing; it came from something. It had to be honest money, not fraudulent money created by central banks or central governments. And it couldn’t be stolen.

Instead, it had to be earned – from work, investment, trade, commerce, and industry. It was the product… the fruit… of effort. Not of idleness. And it brought with it a whole new spirit, a new ethic, and a new philosophy about how the world worked.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was how Jesus put it in the Sermon on the Mount. And woe to the chiselers: “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit… he taketh away.”

If you are going to get, in other words, you’ll have to give. Remove the need to give as well as to take, and you muck up the whole thing. No need to plant if you don’t have to reap. No need to say “please” and “thank you”, or to get up and warm your oven at 4 a.m. – if you get a check even without baking a single loaf.

And no need to save your money and invest it wisely if you have access to pseudo-savings in unlimited quantity. Free money creates the illusion of wealth – in a family or an economy – and leaves everyone poorer.

via http://ift.tt/1Y6uezR Tyler Durden

The military provocations between NATO and Russia reached a new post-cold war high yesterday when Poland became the host to the largest joint NATO war game in eastern Europe since the end of the cold war. The purpose of the massive drill, according to the Guardian, is for NATO “partner countries to mount a display of strength as a response to concerns about Russia’s assertiveness and actions.” The 10-day military exercise dubbed Anaconda-2016, involves 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from 24 countries.

US Army Europe, which heads the exercise, says that the massive war games are “to train, exercise and integrate Polish national command and force structures into an allied, joint, multinational environment.” Anaconda-2016 will be formally closed by officials at a ceremony in Warsaw on June 17. While the scenario for the drill is kept secret, the statement briefly says it will be focused on conventional warfare, meaning the bloc will be testing its capacity to “deploy, mass and sustain combat power” against an enemy more capable and well-trained than the rebel groupings which the US and its allies fought against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The massive war games also play well with the current right-wing government in Warsaw which frequently argues that NATO must permanently deploy troops in eastern Europe to deter what the bloc keeps calling “Russian assertiveness.”

As the Guardian admits, defense experts warn that any mishap could prompt an offensive reaction from Moscow. A defence attache at a European embassy in Warsaw said the “nightmare scenario” of the exercise, named Anaconda-2016, would be “a mishap, a miscalculation which the Russians construe, or choose to construe, as an offensive action”. Sure enough, earlier today Moscow said that the NATO military presence is unjustified. Speaking to journalists on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated, “I am convinced that every serious and honest politician is well aware that Russia will never invade any NATO member. We have no such plans.”

Lavrov asserted that “there are no threats in this part of the world whatsoever, that would justify [NATO’s] build-up here.” In the meantime, Lavrov said, NATO’s decision to move its military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders and accept new members will be seen in a negative light in Moscow. “Here, Russia’s sovereign right to ensure its security will come into force, [making use] of methods adequate to [respond to] today’s challenges.”

For the time being there is no end in sight in this reciprotcal tit-for-tat provocation between the two military blocs.

* * *

Right on cue, in a headline right out of the cold war, Reuters reported that “tension between Russia and the West may be distracting them from cooperating to prevent an accidental nuclear confrontation or a dirty bomb attack by militants, nuclear policy experts said on Tuesday.“

Former U.S. Secretary of Defence William Perry said he regretted the current lack of communication between the United States and Russia, which went into a deep freeze after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. “We are about to recreate the conditions that nearly brought us to the brink of nuclear war” during the Cold War, Perry said.

Anatoly Adamishin, a former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, argued that the U.S. has focused on a policy of “strangling Russia” and hoping for the departure of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has the effect of putting Russia at the forefront of a list of U.S. enemies.

“The U.S. simply has to rethink its own policy: what should be in focus is nuclear reductions,” he said. “Russia and the U.S. are not inherent enemies.”

They made their comments at a conference organized by the Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe. Other attendees included former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Swedish diplomat Hans Blix and Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The forum’s head, Moshe Kantor, said the threat of a ‘dirty bomb’ attack on a European city was at its highest level since the end of the Cold War.  Security experts have raised concerns since the attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamist militants that poorly guarded European nuclear facilities pose a risk.

Kantor cited chemical weapons attacks carried out by Islamic State in Iraq, their stated desire to carry out more attacks in Europe, and evidence militants linked to the attacks in Paris had also been studying a Belgian nuclear power plant.

“This, combined with poor levels of security at a host of nuclear research centers in the former Soviet Union mean the threat of a possible ‘dirty-bomb’ attack on a Western capital is high,” Kantor said.

He urged the United States and Russia, both nuclear powers, to cooperate on using their technological resources to monitor the illegal transportation of radioactive materials.

Gorbachev, appearing by satellite link, said he was alarmed by the increasing readiness of many nations to use military force to resolve conflict rather than negotiation. “I note that these have not solved the problems, but they have served to undermine international law and weaken international relations,” he said.

via http://ift.tt/1PEkcEE Tyler Durden

Today we published a comment on ever-increasing bank capital levels and why the emphasis on bank capital will not lead to greater financial stability.  Since “risk” is necessarily quantified and variable, based almost entirely on market-determined credit spreads, until we stabilize market spreads, “risk” is not a controllable matter.  By their nature, moreover, whenever market spreads stabilize they become inherently unstable and the more stability is relied upon the greater the risk of error and crisis becomes.  This is the central truth of the 2008 crisis, namely that entrophy is the operative model for financial markets, not static measures such as book capital. 

You can read the full note with charts below on the KBRA web site:

http://ift.tt/1rbFii7

Since the 2008 financial crisis and the passage of the Dodd-Frank legislation two years later, global financial regulators have been pushing a deliberate agenda to increase the capitalization of large banks. The objective of this increase in capital, we are told, is to make public rescues of the largest banks less likely and to change their corporate behavior. Despite the fact that the 2008 financial crisis was not caused by a lack of capital inside major financial institutions, raising capital levels has become the primary policy response among many of the G-20 nations and the prudential regulators who oversee global banks. 

Most recently, Federal Reserve Board Governor Daniel Tarullo revealed on Bloomberg TV (June 2, 2016) that he is “quite confident” that the eight largest U.S. banks will get hit with an additional capital surcharge that will translate into a “significant increase” in capital. However, he noted that there will be “some offsets in other parts of the stress tests so that it won’t be just a straight addition of the surcharge.” Tarullo opined that he doesn’t think the charge will go into effect for the next round of tests, and instead there might be a “phase in.”

Part of the problem with using capital as a broad prescription for avoiding rescues for large financial institutions, aka “too big to fail”, is that this approach explicitly avoids addressing the actual cause of the problem, namely errors and omissions by the officers and directors of major banks that undermined investor confidence. A combination of poor loan underwriting, excess risk taking in the trading and investment portfolios, deliberate acts of deceit, a systemic failure to disclose the true extent of bank liabilities, and/or acts of securities fraud actually caused the failure of or need to rescue institutions such as Wachovia Bank, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, Bear, Stearns & Co American International Group (NYSE:AIG) and Citigroup (NYSE:C), to name but a few. These rescues or events of default were driven by a sharp decline in liquidity available to these obligors and led to the wider financial crisis in 2008 and beyond.

Thus when regulators and policy makers sign on to the idea of higher capital levels as a solution for TBTF, are we not all effectively burying our collective heads in the sand? In mid-2008, when Wachovia was receiving inquiries from bond investors about early redemption of long-term debt, the bank’s stated level of balance sheet capital was not at issue. Instead, investors, counterparties, and corporate/institutional depositors were concerned that they no longer understood or trusted the bank’s asset quality and financial statements, and therefore backed away from any risk exposures with the bank. This is also why the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury chose to conceal the true condition of Wachovia from the FDIC, as former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair documents in her 2013 book.

Bottom line: By focusing much of the attention of regulators and policy makers on the static issue of capital, we are not addressing the true qualitative, behavioral issues that undermined investor confidence in all types of financial institutions and led to the 2008 financial crisis.  More, the lack of prosecutions of officers and directors of major banks has fanned the flames of populism, both in the US and around the world.  The decision by the Bush and Obama Administrations not to prosecute those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis may have political consequences for many years to come.

via http://ift.tt/1X8NNrS rcwhalen

Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

A key index of biotechnology stocks may be approaching significant levels of resistance.

Throughout the course of the post-February rally, one topic that has been bandied about (including by us) is the question of a new bull market up-leg vs. a bear market rally. At the root of the question is the magnitude of potential upside to the current bounce. If this is a new up-leg, then new highs (and possibly well beyond) in the major indices are certainly possible. On the other hand, if it is merely a bear market rally, then the rally potential is limited. Under that scenario, perhaps the largest cap-weighted indices may be able to score new highs, but likely not by any significant amount. Furthermore, the broader stock indices would most likely fall short of previous highs, indicative of a mere mean-reversion bounce (albeit an impressive one).

As our view has been that the broad stock market has been in a topping pattern over the past 12+ months, we were squarely in the bear market rally camp when the bounce began in February. Thus, while we were not surprised to see the bounce, we had limited expectations for it. One has to keep an open mind at all times, however. As such, as the rally unfolded, we judged its quality to be superb. This judgement has caused us to at least reconsider the nature of a potential bear market bounce – if not, the possibility of a fresh up-leg to the bull market.

Part of the difficulty in making this judgement is the dichotomy among the various sectors of the market. There are some that are clearly enjoying an extension of their bull markets (e.g., consumer staples, utilities). On the other hand, there are those sectors that are, by all appearances, witnessing mere mean-reversion bear market bounces. One group falling into that latter category is biotechnology.

After leading the market higher for three years, biotech stocks have been experiencing the ugly side of a bubble, post-pop, over the past 12 months. Thus, while the sector has been enjoying a solid bounce off of its February lows, as a % of its 2015-2016 decline, its gains pale in comparison to almost any other sector. What that also means is that much of the potential resistance stretching up to the sector’s July 2015 top has yet to be tested.

One major area of potential resistance appears to be fast approaching on the most popular biotechnology index, the “BTK”.

 

As the chart shows, there are several significant levels aligned between roughly the 3300 and 3400 area, including the following:

• The post-July 2015 Down trendline
• The 61.8% Fibonacci Retracement of the December-February decline
• The 38.2% Fibonacci Retracement of the July-February decline
• The 200-day simple moving average
• The 500-day simple moving average

As you see, there are plenty of challenges nearby that the BTK will need to overcome if it wants to extend its rally much further. Having closed at 3336 today, there is not much more room higher before the index hits that upper 3400 resistance zone. If the BTK fails to overcome this area, it would be further evidence arguing in favor of the biotech sector experiencing a mere bear market rally.

Of course, with challenges comes opportunity. And as with our Russell 2000 post last week, in the event that the BTK is able to surmount this area of resistance, it will open up considerable further upside (roughly 10% more perhaps, by our analysis, to near the 3750 level).

First thing first, however. The BTK has to break through these multiple resistance layers to open up that upside. Considering the challenge there, as well as our view of the biotech bounce being a mean-reversion, bear market rally, we’d look for the rally to fizzle out in the vicinity of the aforementioned levels – until it proves otherwise.

*  *  *

More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.

via http://ift.tt/1TXAqdJ Tyler Durden

The month of May was very contentious one for Euro-Turkey relations.

Following months of monetary and diplomatic appeasement of Erdogan, which culminated with a migration deal according to which Turkey would hold Syrian refugees within its borders instead of allowing them to continue onward to Central Europe, things promptly fell apart. As a reminder, less than a month ago, a high-ranking deputy for Turkey’s ruling AKP party, Burhan Kuzu (also a former adviser to President Erdogan) issued an explicit threat to Europe which was at that time discussing whether or not to grant Turkey visa-free travel within the continent. Specifically, he tweeted that “The European Parliament will discuss the report that will open Europe visa-free for Turkish citizens. If the wrong decision is taken, we will unleash  the refugees!.” Many read that as tacit blackmail.

Fast forward two weeks later, when we learned that the EU plan to extend visa-free travel privileges to Turkey as of July 1 would be delayed over worries Ankara won’t meet the key conditions on time. As Deutsche Welle reported “Chancellor Angela Merkel is in no mood to budge” in what is the first actual indication of resistance by the German to the increasingly more whimsical demands by the Turkish president.

Erdogan quickly responded by escalating the threat level: “The current system falls short… the burden is shouldered only by certain countries, everyone should assume responsibility from now on,” he said. “Needs increase every day but resources do not increase at the same pace. There are tendencies to avoid responsibility among the international community.” He added that Turkey had spent $10 billion on hosting Syrian refugees, compared to $450 million from the rest of the international community.

As we concluded, the implication was straightforward: send even more money over and above the $3 billion promised previously.

And now that Erdogan’s failure to pass visa-free travel will be criticized domestically with questions over his ability to govern without his former PM Ahmet Davutoglu, who was instrumental in getting the visa-waiver deal, the question is whether the infuriated Turkish leader will resort to making good on his threat, and once again send out countless refugees along the Balkan route whose end destination is well-known: the wealthy countries of Central Europe.

It all came to a head early today, when Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told state broadcaster TRT Haber on Tuesday that Turkey would have to suspend its agreement with the European Union to stem the flow of migrants into the bloc if there is no deal to grant visa-free travel to Turks.

In other words, no visa-free travel – something both German and the EU are against as of this moment due to concerns it would permit terrorist to slip through Schengen’s border – would mean Turkey floods Europe with hundreds of thousands of more refugees.

Furthermore Reuters reports that in a televized interview, Cavusoglu demand the German government must make clear its stance is not in line with a German parliament resolution declaring the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces a genocide. In doing so he is pushing Merkel to support a position that is against the will of the vast majority of the German people, and forcing her to take a stand: side with Turkey or be accept hundreds of thousands more refugees.

For now Turkey’s blackmail remains purely verbal, although should Europe still refuse to grant Erdogan his demands, it is likely that a “test” release of refugees will follow in the coming weeks to prompt the desired response.

via http://ift.tt/1XARKX4 Tyler Durden

By EconMatters

It is rather bearish when copper is fading both the overall commodities rally and equities being at all-time highs in a major risk on mode. We think Copper is ultimately going lower, and is a short here. When the entire market rolls over, and the technicals start to break in copper, the downside momentum will pick up speed substantially.

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

via http://ift.tt/1Y6kUvA EconMatters

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Protectionists are on the cusp of a “Pyrrhic victory” over China.

No one will like the results when it happens.

A huge global trade war is on the horizon, regardless of whether Hillary or Trump wins the election.

The die is cast: US Steel Given Green Light to Seek China Import Ban.

The US has given the go-ahead for the country’s largest steel producer to seek a ban on imports from Chinese rivals, in the first known case in which trade sanctions could be used in retaliation for alleged China government-backed hacking of commercial secrets.

 

In a decision last week the US International Trade Commission gave the go-ahead for the case to proceed, setting the stage for a legal battle that experts say will probably take more than a year for an administrative judge to decide.

 

This timeframe could lead to a decision related to arguably the US’s most important commercial relationship early in the next president’s first term. Under the law, US presidents are given 60 days to block ITC decisions on Section 337 cases, although according to the ITC “such disapprovals are rare”.

 

“We strongly believe that Chinese steel producers have engaged in illegal unfair methods of competition, which have created a force with which no market economy can compete,” Mario Longhi, the company’s president and CEO, said in a statement welcoming the ITC decision. “We remain confident that the evidence will prove the Chinese steel producers engaged in collusion, theft and fraud and we will aggressively seek to stop those responsible for these illegal trade actions.”

 

Trade experts say that the case also represents the potential escalation of what has been a creeping protectionism in recent years with steel a growing target of anti-dumping cases.

 

But a wholesale ban on US imports of Chinese steel would be materially different and could set a protectionist tone for the next US presidency, said Simon Evenett, a professor of international trade at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland, who oversees the Global Trade Alert, a monitoring service for protectionist measures.

 

“The big thing is really the potential scale of this case versus the pin pricks that we have seen unleashed over the past nine months,” Mr Evenett said.

 

“This should be setting off alarm bells,” he said. “It is really a nuclear option.”

Nuclear Option

Stacked Deck

A total ban would indeed be a nuclear option. Trump would embrace it. Hillary would support it.

The US even greased the wheels in advance. On May 30, the US refused to accept the reappointment of a South Korean judge who the US fears may rule in favor of China in trade disputes.

I wrote about greased wheels in Stacked Deck: US Bullies WTO, TPP Revisited.

European Trade Mess

The EU is still coming to grips with inane sanctions on Russia that did more harm to the EU than Russia. Austria, France, Italy, Hungary, Greece, and Portugal have had enough of sanctions that have backfired due to a collapse in exports.

For details, please see Merkel Ready to Kiss and Make Up with Putin?

Stunning Idiocy

Also see Pater Tenebrarum’s exceptional post on the Stunning Idiocy of Steel Tariffs.

Candlemakers Petition

The statement by Mario Longhi, US Steel CEO “We strongly believe that Chinese steel producers have engaged in illegal unfair methods of competition, which have created a force with which no market economy can compete,” is nothing but a self-serving lie for the benefit of US Steel and the detriment of everyone else, especially consumers and the US auto industry.

If China is “dumping” steel at cheap prices we should be thankful. Free steel would be even better. Everyone’s standard of living would immediately rise.

Trade protectionists are just like candle makers bitching and moaning about free energy from the sun.

“The Candlemakers’ petition is a well-known satire of protectionism written and published in 1845 by the French economist Frédéric Bastiat as part of his Economic Sophisms. In the Candlemakers’ petition, the candlemakers and industrialists from other parts of the lighting industry petition the Chamber of Deputies of the French July Monarchy (1830–1848) to protect their trade from the unfair competition of a foreign power: the Sun.”

The entire debate over “fair trade” is intellectually dishonest. Fair trade is free trade. Period.

Election Campaign Flashback

In 2011, the US put huge tariffs on Chinese-made tires (to the detriment of consumers and the auto industry). China responded with anti-dumping tariffs on GM.

I wrote about that in Proposal to Stop “Free Sunlight” Gains Support From Mitt Romney.

Here we go again, this time with Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama all waving protectionist flags.

Should the US carry through with the plan, expect a “Pyrrhic victory” over China.

via http://ift.tt/1t5sueq Tyler Durden

 

 

 

 

 

 

Royal Canadian Mint Smashes All Records, Strongest Sales Ever of Silver Maples

Written by Nathan McDonald (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

 

 

It seems like every other week I write an article that states “a new record has been broken”. It is truly a sign of the times and an indication of the events that are unfolding all around us in this upside-down world we now find ourselves in.

 

 

This article is no different. It’s another strong indication of what is happening behind the scenes amongst the “smart money”. The Royal Canadian Mint has broken yet another record, a record they obtained only just last year.

 

 

Sales of their ever popular Canadian Silver Maple Leaf have surged in Q1 2016. The results are in and a new record has been made! The mint sold a stunning 10.6 million oz, a 27% increase over their strong sales experienced this time last year in Q1 2015. In addition to this, it is well over 1 million oz more than their all-time record seen in Q3 2015.

 

 

You may wonder if this is just a one off, yet it is not. Sales of all gold and silver products are up nearly 20% this year over last, indicating that money is truly flowing into precious metals.

 

 

This has been a long-term trend that we have talked about on this blog for years. Sales keep making new records among the major mints and physical investors of the precious metals continue to accumulate as prices remain at these artificially depressed levels.

 

 

The rampant manipulation is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it has allowed people to take massive amounts of physical off the market and allowed people such as myself to add to our long-term position, building our stacks ever higher. On the other hand, it has damaged those greatly that are ready to begin selling their rounds and enjoy their much-deserved retirements.

 

 

Ultimately, for those of us in the camp that want to see the precious metals move higher in the long term, there is no denying that keeping prices at such low levels for so long is going to destroy the manipulators in the end. The physical markets will once day assert themselves once again and take control of the phony paper price.

 

 

In the meantime, if prices continue to remain at these stagnant levels, we can expect to see more and more records broken as the world continues to crater on the edge of an epic financial disaster. This is an event that will undoubtedly send precious metals exploding higher as those “late to the party” attempt to get whatever they can, at whatever price.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Royal Canadian Mint Smashes All Records, Strongest Sales Ever of Silver Maples

Written by Nathan McDonald (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

via http://ift.tt/1Y6kGEW Sprott Money