Tag: finance

“Eventually, the whole world is going to collapse,” Jim Rogers chides a disquieted CBC anchor as he explains the reality that, “we in the West have staggering debts. The United States is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world,” adding that “this is going to end badly.”

However, the co-founder of Soros’ Quantum fund is convinced that the commodity super-cycle is far from over, but driven by supply constraints (and cost increases) as opposed to demand from higher growth. The following interview provides more color on his commodity view as he re-iterates his bullish stance on Ag (with sugar a focus) and Natural Gas (some harsh natural realities coming), warning “don’t get too excited about fracking,” when he talks energy products.

Rogers, in his inimitable way, sums up the state iof euphoria that many markets find themselves in thus, “we are all floating around on a sea of artificial liquidity right now. This is not going to last.”

 

On the end of the commodity super-cycle:

“Commodities have pulled back, but I would remind you that in all bull markets there are periods of correction.

 

In 1987 – during the great bull market in stocks – stocks went down 40 to 80 per cent around the world; again in 1989, 1990, 1994, etc. Every time people said the bull market’s over, but it wasn’t. I think that’s what’s happening with commodities now.”

On the next crisis:

“2008 was so much worse than 2000 because the debt was so much higher, you wait until 2014 or 2015 when the next crisis hits…

 

debt has gone through the roof, the next one’s gonna be really bad“

His final words:

“Be prepared, be worried, and be careful“

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/UtlFJ3c76Zc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

“Eventually, the whole world is going to collapse,” Jim Rogers chides a disquieted CBC anchor as he explains the reality that, “we in the West have staggering debts. The United States is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world,” adding that “this is going to end badly.”

However, the co-founder of Soros’ Quantum fund is convinced that the commodity super-cycle is far from over, but driven by supply constraints (and cost increases) as opposed to demand from higher growth. The following interview provides more color on his commodity view as he re-iterates his bullish stance on Ag (with sugar a focus) and Natural Gas (some harsh natural realities coming), warning “don’t get too excited about fracking,” when he talks energy products.

Rogers, in his inimitable way, sums up the state iof euphoria that many markets find themselves in thus, “we are all floating around on a sea of artificial liquidity right now. This is not going to last.”

 

On the end of the commodity super-cycle:

“Commodities have pulled back, but I would remind you that in all bull markets there are periods of correction.

 

In 1987 – during the great bull market in stocks – stocks went down 40 to 80 per cent around the world; again in 1989, 1990, 1994, etc. Every time people said the bull market’s over, but it wasn’t. I think that’s what’s happening with commodities now.”

On the next crisis:

“2008 was so much worse than 2000 because the debt was so much higher, you wait until 2014 or 2015 when the next crisis hits…

 

debt has gone through the roof, the next one’s gonna be really bad“

His final words:

“Be prepared, be worried, and be careful“

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/UtlFJ3c76Zc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Submitted by F.F.Wiley of Cyniconomics blog,

As we noted last month, President Obama sat down for an interview with Chuck Todd on November 7 and said:

You know, one of the lessons — learned from this whole process on the website — is that probably the biggest gap between the private sector and the federal government is when it comes to I.T. … Well, the reason is is that when it comes to my campaign, I’m not constrained by a bunch of federal procurement rules, right? …When we buy I.T. services generally, it is so bureaucratic and so cumbersome that a whole bunch of it doesn’t work or it ends up being way over cost.

Well, this week we learned that the gap’s been closed. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told us so. In its official, December 1 “Progress and Performance Report” on the Obamacare website, HHS not only announced that it had “met the goal of having a system that will work smoothly for the vast majority of users,” but wrote that “the team is operating with private sector velocity and effectiveness.” That sure was quick.

 

Sarcasm aside, we found it hard to read HHS’s eight page document without cringing. Needless to say, it’s not a genuine “progress and performance” report. It’s not even close.

Consider that shortly after accepting his position as website czar in October, Jeffrey Zientz let us know that he’s working from a list of problems on a “punch list,” which included over 100 issues according to an anonymous spokesperson. Zientz added that the system’s failure to deliver accurate reports to insurance companies was at the top of the list. This seems a reasonable prioritization, right? If the exchange can’t deliver the necessary information to insurance companies, the whole process collapses. But HHS’s report doesn’t even mention this critical problem.

And how about measures to protect website users’ personal information, which are widely reported to be full of holes? Again, not a word.

You won’t find expense figures, either, which is unfortunate in light of Bloomberg’s analysis showing that the largest 10 contractors were already paid an astounding $1 billion. Considering the administration’s private sector aspirations, the absence of any information on the website’s soaring costs seems a conspicuous omission.

Instead of checking off accomplishments against what still needs fixing, while revealing the taxpayers’ bill, HHS’s report combines vacuous “achievements” such as “2X a day standup war room meetings” with unverifiable statistics for response times, capacity, error rates, uptime and software fixes. The report reads like a baseball team’s declaration of success on its spring training goals of learning each others’ names, knowing which base is which and memorizing the infield fly rule. We don’t doubt there’s been some improvement in the metrics, but it’s unlikely that the last two months’ progress gets the website to much better than inadequate, from its earlier status of epically inadequate.

Worse still, HHS seems to think we take their propaganda seriously. Displaying #AskJPM-like ignorance of how the administration is perceived, they act as if we believe what we’re told. On the contrary, there seems only a shrinking minority of loyalists who still trust the official narratives, as shown by Obama’s plummeting approval ratings. Those who weren’t predisposed to disbelieve empty rhetoric probably tuned out at “you can keep your plan if you like it.”

And while we may never know the true extent of the administration’s deceptions, here are a few links to information that Zientz doesn’t want you to have:

• CNN reports that “the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations to keep quiet … insurance executive feel defenseless against the White House PR team … the insurance companies are in a position to just be quiet for fear of offending basically their biggest source of income.”
• In one of what we suspect are multiple methods of inflating its enrollment counts, HHS flouts industry standards by including “enrollees” who didn’t complete the process by continuing to the payment step. This detail is, of course, absent from official reports. (It was shared with the Washington Post by anonymous sources.)
• Prior to and immediately after the website’s October 1 launch, HHS head Karen Sebelius kept a close wrap on all sorts of critical information, including the website’s developmental progress, initial effectiveness, the true reasons for its early breakdowns, and expenses (which were only revealed through Bloomberg’s analysis linked above and other third-party estimates).
• This last link comes off as a total non sequitur, but I’ll share it anyway because I read the NSA’s Thanksgiving memo on the same day as HHS’s report and it was the combination of these two gems that motivated me to get this post out. As discussed here by Tyler Durden and Monty Pelerin, there’s a common thread running through this year’s Obamacare and NSA revelations. In case you missed the NSA’s latest, the institution’s leaders took it upon themselves to guide employees on how they should speak with friends and family over the holidays. Just when I thought we’d reached peak weirdness with NSA head Keith Alexander’s Starship Enterprise control room designs and porn use monitoring, the information gets even weirder.

Getting back to the administration’s claim to have closed the gap between public and private sector effectiveness, here are relevant links to a few articles about the key players involved:

• The firm that was awarded the new general contractor role for the website, QSSI, was quietly purchased (no press releases were issued) in 2012 by our largest health insurance firm, UnitedHealth Group. This occurred not long after a top HHS health care regulator took a new position at the UnitedHealth subsidiary that acquired QSSI. As you might expect, it triggered congressional inquiries about the glaring conflicts of interest, which changed nothing.
• QSSI was granted its enlarged role despite complicity in the website’s launch disaster and serious questions about its ability to protect sensitive data, as demonstrated by an HHS Inspector General audit earlier this year.
• UnitedHealth Executive Vice President Andrew Welters and his family are big-time donors and fundraisers for Obama, with OpenSecrets.org reporting amounts of between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Welter’s wife was rewarded with a plush ambassadorship to Trinidad and Tobago. Maybe we can fill in the blanks on Welter’s reward.
• White House visitor logs show a series of appearances in recent years by Toni Townes-Whitley, a senior executive at CGI Federal, the firm with the largest website contract until QSSI’s recent mandate. These visits were both professional and personal, weekday and weekend, and one of them included a photo with the Obama’s at a Christmas gathering. The professional visits were surely related to CGI Federal’s government business and included a meeting with the principal deputy Obamacare commissioner. The personal visits were explained by Townes-Whitley and Michelle Obama being old college friends, having graduated from Princeton in the same year with involvement in the same extra-curricular groups.
• Among many recent reports of CGI Federal’s shortcomings, Newsweek published an article that includes details of “potentially aggressive bookkeeping,” “weak disclosure practices,” a whistleblower suit alleging violations of SEC fraud rules, and botched government contracts in its AMS unit.
• In the bigger picture of all outsourced Obamacare contracts, the Sunlight foundation showed that the disastrous launch may be explained by the fact that the work was divvied up among 47 contractors, all but one of which was known to the government through past mandates. Disclosures by 17 of those contractors reveal that their lobbying expenses in 2011 and 2012 totaled $128 million.

Reviewing these facts, I suppose HHS could support their claim to “private sector velocity and effectiveness” with some semantic tricks. If you interpret that phrase as referring to the principle contractors’ adeptness at winning huge, no-bid contracts through personal connections, donations, fund raising and lobbying, then it all adds up.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/jqMcBH-XKig/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Submitted by F.F.Wiley of Cyniconomics blog,

As we noted last month, President Obama sat down for an interview with Chuck Todd on November 7 and said:

You know, one of the lessons — learned from this whole process on the website — is that probably the biggest gap between the private sector and the federal government is when it comes to I.T. … Well, the reason is is that when it comes to my campaign, I’m not constrained by a bunch of federal procurement rules, right? …When we buy I.T. services generally, it is so bureaucratic and so cumbersome that a whole bunch of it doesn’t work or it ends up being way over cost.

Well, this week we learned that the gap’s been closed. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told us so. In its official, December 1 “Progress and Performance Report” on the Obamacare website, HHS not only announced that it had “met the goal of having a system that will work smoothly for the vast majority of users,” but wrote that “the team is operating with private sector velocity and effectiveness.” That sure was quick.

 

Sarcasm aside, we found it hard to read HHS’s eight page document without cringing. Needless to say, it’s not a genuine “progress and performance” report. It’s not even close.

Consider that shortly after accepting his position as website czar in October, Jeffrey Zientz let us know that he’s working from a list of problems on a “punch list,” which included over 100 issues according to an anonymous spokesperson. Zientz added that the system’s failure to deliver accurate reports to insurance companies was at the top of the list. This seems a reasonable prioritization, right? If the exchange can’t deliver the necessary information to insurance companies, the whole process collapses. But HHS’s report doesn’t even mention this critical problem.

And how about measures to protect website users’ personal information, which are widely reported to be full of holes? Again, not a word.

You won’t find expense figures, either, which is unfortunate in light of Bloomberg’s analysis showing that the largest 10 contractors were already paid an astounding $1 billion. Considering the administration’s private sector aspirations, the absence of any information on the website’s soaring costs seems a conspicuous omission.

Instead of checking off accomplishments against what still needs fixing, while revealing the taxpayers’ bill, HHS’s report combines vacuous “achievements” such as “2X a day standup war room meetings” with unverifiable statistics for response times, capacity, error rates, uptime and software fixes. The report reads like a baseball team’s declaration of success on its spring training goals of learning each others’ names, knowing which base is which and memorizing the infield fly rule. We don’t doubt there’s been some improvement in the metrics, but it’s unlikely that the last two months’ progress gets the website to much better than inadequate, from its earlier status of epically inadequate.

Worse still, HHS seems to think we take their propaganda seriously. Displaying #AskJPM-like ignorance of how the administration is perceived, they act as if we believe what we’re told. On the contrary, there seems only a shrinking minority of loyalists who still trust the official narratives, as shown by Obama’s plummeting approval ratings. Those who weren’t predisposed to disbelieve empty rhetoric probably tuned out at “you can keep your plan if you like it.”

And while we may never know the true extent of the administration’s deceptions, here are a few links to information that Zientz doesn’t want you to have:

• CNN reports that “the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations to keep quiet … insurance executive feel defenseless against the White House PR team … the insurance companies are in a position to just be quiet for fear of offending basically their biggest source of income.”
• In one of what we suspect are multiple methods of inflating its enrollment counts, HHS flouts industry standards by including “enrollees” who didn’t complete the process by continuing to the payment step. This detail is, of course, absent from official reports. (It was shared with the Washington Post by anonymous sources.)
• Prior to and immediately after the website’s October 1 launch, HHS head Karen Sebelius kept a close wrap on all sorts of critical information, including the website’s developmental progress, initial effectiveness, the true reasons for its early breakdowns, and expenses (which were only revealed through Bloomberg’s analysis linked above and other third-party estimates).
• This last link comes off as a total non sequitur, but I’ll share it anyway because I read the NSA’s Thanksgiving memo on the same day as HHS’s report and it was the combination of these two gems that motivated me to get this post out. As discussed here by Tyler Durden and Monty Pelerin, there’s a common thread running through this year’s Obamacare and NSA revelations. In case you missed the NSA’s latest, the institution’s leaders took it upon themselves to guide employees on how they should speak with friends and family over the holidays. Just when I thought we’d reached peak weirdness with NSA head Keith Alexander’s Starship Enterprise control room designs and porn use monitoring, the information gets even weirder.

Getting back to the administration’s claim to have closed the gap between public and private sector effectiveness, here are relevant links to a few articles about the key players involved:

• The firm that was awarded the new general contractor role for the website, QSSI, was quietly purchased (no press releases were issued) in 2012 by our largest health insurance firm, UnitedHealth Group. This occurred not long after a top HHS health care regulator took a new position at the UnitedHealth subsidiary that acquired QSSI. As you might expect, it triggered congressional inquiries about the glaring conflicts of interest, which changed nothing.
• QSSI was granted its enlarged role despite complicity in the website’s launch disaster and serious questions about its ability to protect sensitive data, as demonstrated by an HHS Inspector General audit earlier this year.
• UnitedHealth Executive Vice President Andrew Welters and his family are big-time donors and fundraisers for Obama, with OpenSecrets.org reporting amounts of between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Welter’s wife was rewarded with a plush ambassadorship to Trinidad and Tobago. Maybe we can fill in the blanks on Welter’s reward.
• White House visitor logs show a series of appearances in recent years by Toni Townes-Whitley, a senior executive at CGI Federal, the firm with the largest website contract until QSSI’s recent mandate. These visits were both professional and personal, weekday and weekend, and one of them included a photo with the Obama’s at a Christmas gathering. The professional visits were surely related to CGI Federal’s government business and included a meeting with the principal deputy Obamacare commissioner. The personal visits were explained by Townes-Whitley and Michelle Obama being old college friends, having graduated from Princeton in the same year with involvement in the same extra-curricular groups.
• Among many recent reports of CGI Federal’s shortcomings, Newsweek published an article that includes details of “potentially aggressive bookkeeping,” “weak disclosure practices,” a whistleblower suit alleging violations of SEC fraud rules, and botched government contracts in its AMS unit.
• In the bigger picture of all outsourced Obamacare contracts, the Sunlight foundation showed that the disastrous launch may be explained by the fact that the work was divvied up among 47 contractors, all but one of which was known to the government through past mandates. Disclosures by 17 of those contractors reveal that their lobbying expenses in 2011 and 2012 totaled $128 million.

Reviewing these facts, I suppose HHS could support their claim to “private sector velocity and effectiveness” with some semantic tricks. If you interpret that phrase as referring to the principle contractors’ adeptness at winning huge, no-bid contracts through personal connections, donations, fund raising and lobbying, then it all adds up.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/jqMcBH-XKig/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Pew noted yesterday:

Support for U.S. global engagement, already near a historic low, has fallen further.

 

***

 

The [American] public thinks that the nation does too much to solve world problems, and increasing percentages want the U.S. to “mind its own business internationally” and pay more attention to problems here at home.

 

***

 

These are among the principal findings of America’s Place in the World, a quadrennial survey of foreign policy attitudes conducted in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nonpartisan membership organization and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy.

 

***

 

The public’s skepticism about U.S. international engagement – evident in America’s Place in the World surveys four and eight years ago – has increased. Currently, 52% say the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” Just 38% disagree with the statement. This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. “minding its own business” in the nearly 50-year history of the measure.

 

***

 

After the recent near-miss with U.S. military action against Syria, the NATO mission in Libya and lengthy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, about half of Americans (51%) say the United States does too much in helping solve world problems, while just 17% say it does too little and 28% think it does the right amount. When those who say the U.S. does “too much” internationally are asked to describe in their own words why they feel this way, nearly half (47%) say problems at home, including the economy, should get more attention.

As we’ve reported for years, the American public is sick of war.

Pew notes that even members of the Council on Foreign Relations agree:

When asked why the public has become less supportive of global engagements, 42% of CFR members point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or explicitly cite “war fatigue.” About a quarter (28%) mention the struggling U.S. economy or the costs of international engagement. Other factors cited are the ineffectiveness of recent U.S. interventions (mentioned by 19%) and failures of U.S. leadership (17%). (For more on how members of the Council on Foreign Relations view America’s Place in the World, see section 6).

Because war is bad for the economy and increases terrorism, it’s time to listen to the American people … and the Founding Fathers.

 

Bonus:  

They’re Going to Dump the Fukushima Radiation Into the Ocean

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Oy7FWhSLyG4/story01.htm George Washington

Getting paid miserable wages? Don’t fret – just buy the stock of your (hopefully public) employer, and hope and pray that this time is different, and that light at the end of the tunnel is the not the next latest and greatest (and likely last) stock market collapse, in the ultimate trade off of current pay for capital gains: 19 quarters in and Labor Compensation is flat with where it was when the Great Financial Crisis began but, more crucially, employee compensation is at its lowest on record relative to corporate profits.

 

 

As we previously noted,

For those curious what the reason for records corporate profits is (or rather was: we have now finally turned the cycle and Y/Y profit growth is, for the first time since 2009, finally negative), the chart below explains it all.

 

It also explains why 401(k) plans are now redundant: anyone who wishes to keep up with the growth rate of their employer has no choice but to buy their stock, and generate returns for all shareholders. Because corporations, people or not, now have all the leverage.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/UusACE_6W2M/story01.htm Tyler Durden

"In order for currencies to be 'exchangeable' they have to be backed by something," is the remarkably ironic initial comment from none other than debaser-of-the-entirely-fiat-dollar Alan Greenspan when asked about the "bubble in bitcoin," by Bloomberg TV's Trish Regan. Unable to "identify the intrinsic" backing of Bitcoin (or see bubbles in equity, credit, real estate, or greater fools) Greenspan is, apparently, capable of identifying Bitcoin "as a bubble," because "there is no fundamental means of "repaying' it by any means that is universally accepted." The farcical double-speak continues as the Maestro does a great job of making Bitcoin (which Ron Paul earlier noted could be the "destroyer of the dollar") look even better than the readily-printed fiat we meddle with every day.

Greenspan explains…

"when we were on the gold standard, [currencies] had intrinisc value which made people willing to exchange their goods and services with no question."

"Alternatively, when we went into "currencies", it was the "backing" of the issuer of the currencies… whose "great credit-standing meant his checks could circulate as money.""

So either its backed by real physical metal with intrinsic value – or the promise of someone…(increasingly politicians of course) with good credit (or a big army)?

"I do not understand where the backing of Bitcoin is coming from. There is no fundamental means of "repaying' it by any means that is universally accepted."

Like fiat currencies (just ask the Venezuelans)…

"Individuals with very high net worth and great reputations could create their own currency… because people would be willing to exchange their checks with each other at par."

So coming soon the BuffettCoin or MuskCoin (oh wait reputation), or the GatesCoin?

But, Greenspan sums it all up…

"I haven't been able to identfy the intrinsic value of Bitcoin – maybe someone else can…

but if you ask me if this is a bubble in bitcoin… yeah it's a bubble.

Which ironically (perfectly circular) is exactly what Bernanke said about gold…

• BERNANKE SAYS `NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS GOLD PRICES'

 

So – after that – go buy his book!?

 

And some more color from Ron Paul on Bitcoin as "destroyer of the US Dollar":

Via Mike Krieger's Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

While we believe it is the Federal Reserve that is systematically destroying the US dollar, Bitcoin could merely be the preferred conduit through which fed up citizens decide to express their displeasure with the incredibly corrupt corporatist-facist state being shoved down our throats by a handful of insane and greedy oligarchs. Interesting comments nonetheless. From CNN Money:

Imagine a world in which you can buy anything in secret. No banks. No fees. No worries inflation will make today’s money worth less tomorrow.

 

The digital currency Bitcoin promises all these things. And while it’s far from achieving any of them — its value is unstable and it’s rarely used — some have high hopes.

 

“There will be alternatives to the dollar, and this might be one of them,” said former U.S. congressman Ron Paul. If people start using bitcoins en masse, “it’ll go down in history as the destroyer of the dollar,” Paul added.

 

It’s unlikely that Bitcoin would replace the dollar or other government-controlled currencies. But it could serve as a kind of universal alternative currency that is accepted everywhere around the globe. Concerned about the dollar’s inflation? Just move your cash to bitcoins and use them to pay your bills instead. Tired of hefty credit card fees? Bitcoin allows transactions that bypass banks.

 

“That’s the holy grail for people who believe in freer markets and currency,” said Adam Gurri, a libertarian economics writer in New York.

 

There are no middlemen charging fees to move money between users. You can transfer bitcoins — even infinitesimally small fractions of one — directly to others’ digital wallets.

 

But don’t expect governments and banks to let Bitcoin take over so easily. Financial institutions will lose business if people stop using their payment systems, and central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve would lose their ability to help slow and speed up economic activity. Paul expects banks to lobby and authorities to crack down.

 

“Governments absolutely demand a monopoly on money and credit. They’re not going to give it up easily,” Paul warned. “They will come down hard.”

Interesting times…

Full article here.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/1Za2G53S3fQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

"In order for currencies to be 'exchangeable' they have to be backed by something," is the remarkably ironic initial comment from none other than debaser-of-the-entirely-fiat-dollar Alan Greenspan when asked about the "bubble in bitcoin," by Bloomberg TV's Trish Regan. Unable to "identify the intrinsic" backing of Bitcoin (or see bubbles in equity, credit, real estate, or greater fools) Greenspan is, apparently, capable of identifying Bitcoin "as a bubble," because "there is no fundamental means of "repaying' it by any means that is universally accepted." The farcical double-speak continues as the Maestro does a great job of making Bitcoin (which Ron Paul earlier noted could be the "destroyer of the dollar") look even better than the readily-printed fiat we meddle with every day.

Greenspan explains…

"when we were on the gold standard, [currencies] had intrinisc value which made people willing to exchange their goods and services with no question."

"Alternatively, when we went into "currencies", it was the "backing" of the issuer of the currencies… whose "great credit-standing meant his checks could circulate as money.""

So either its backed by real physical metal with intrinsic value – or the promise of someone…(increasingly politicians of course) with good credit (or a big army)?

"I do not understand where the backing of Bitcoin is coming from. There is no fundamental means of "repaying' it by any means that is universally accepted."

Like fiat currencies (just ask the Venezuelans)…

"Individuals with very high net worth and great reputations could create their own currency… because people would be willing to exchange their checks with each other at par."

So coming soon the BuffettCoin or MuskCoin (oh wait reputation), or the GatesCoin?

But, Greenspan sums it all up…

"I haven't been able to identfy the intrinsic value of Bitcoin – maybe someone else can…

but if you ask me if this is a bubble in bitcoin… yeah it's a bubble.

Which ironically (perfectly circular) is exactly what Bernanke said about gold…

• BERNANKE SAYS `NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS GOLD PRICES'

 

So – after that – go buy his book!?

 

And some more color from Ron Paul on Bitcoin as "destroyer of the US Dollar":

Via Mike Krieger's Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

While we believe it is the Federal Reserve that is systematically destroying the US dollar, Bitcoin could merely be the preferred conduit through which fed up citizens decide to express their displeasure with the incredibly corrupt corporatist-facist state being shoved down our throats by a handful of insane and greedy oligarchs. Interesting comments nonetheless. From CNN Money:

Imagine a world in which you can buy anything in secret. No banks. No fees. No worries inflation will make today’s money worth less tomorrow.

 

The digital currency Bitcoin promises all these things. And while it’s far from achieving any of them — its value is unstable and it’s rarely used — some have high hopes.

 

“There will be alternatives to the dollar, and this might be one of them,” said former U.S. congressman Ron Paul. If people start using bitcoins en masse, “it’ll go down in history as the destroyer of the dollar,” Paul added.

 

It’s unlikely that Bitcoin would replace the dollar or other government-controlled currencies. But it could serve as a kind of universal alternative currency that is accepted everywhere around the globe. Concerned about the dollar’s inflation? Just move your cash to bitcoins and use them to pay your bills instead. Tired of hefty credit card fees? Bitcoin allows transactions that bypass banks.

 

“That’s the holy grail for people who believe in freer markets and currency,” said Adam Gurri, a libertarian economics writer in New York.

 

There are no middlemen charging fees to move money between users. You can transfer bitcoins — even infinitesimally small fractions of one — directly to others’ digital wallets.

 

But don’t expect governments and banks to let Bitcoin take over so easily. Financial institutions will lose business if people stop using their payment systems, and central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve would lose their ability to help slow and speed up economic activity. Paul expects banks to lobby and authorities to crack down.

 

“Governments absolutely demand a monopoly on money and credit. They’re not going to give it up easily,” Paul warned. “They will come down hard.”

Interesting times…

Full article here.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/1Za2G53S3fQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Back in September 2012 when we, correctly, suggested that one of the main drivers of demand (and increasingly becoming the only one) for US housing, especially in the mid and high-end, was foreigners – particularly of the oligarch persuasion – who come to the US to park their embezzled and otherwise ill-gotten funds, courtesy of the NAR’s anti-money laundering exemptions, which means that they can buy any house, sight unseen, cash upfront (recall that a record 60% of all home purchases are all cash, which explains why mortgage bankers are being fired by the thousands left and right), no questions asked. One thing we made very clear, though, is that since one never actually buys the real estate, but merely rents it from Uncle Sam (or any other Development Market host nation), there is little preventing the host from cranking up the tax system, or outright changing it, when the need to raise funds strikes. After all what rights do criminal foreigners with multi-million homes in New York (or San Fran, or London, or any other major metropolis that is the target of offshore capital) actually have. Which is why, over a year after this prediction, we find that if not the US (yet) then certainly London, where the housing bubble is greater than anything seen in the US thanks to Russian and Asian hot money, is doing just this.

Earlier today, the London Assembly passed a motion welcoming a possible move by the government to bring in capital-gains tax on foreign investors selling a home in the city.  The motion was passed today with 13 votes in favor and 6 against, according to an e-mailed statement by the 25-member assembly, whose main function is to hold the capital’s mayor to account.

The populist angle was naturally present to justify this decision: “Londoners’ right to own a decent home must be put before speculative investors in London’s property market,” assembly member Tom Copley from the Labour Party, in opposition nationally, said in the statement. “London property is becoming a global reserve currency for people to keep their money and to make money out of London property.”

That actually is a spot on and very accurate assessment, especially in a world in which the governments of these same nations (recall that the US Mint is the first to propose a gold-backed Bitcoin token) for clear reasons, turn a blind eye to various forms of below the radar money transfers, many involving Bitcoin. After all, what better way to “honeypot” and trap foreign capital than by making inbound cash transfers easy, and then once the real estate “reserve currency” has been acquired, to change taxes and force foreigners to pay up for the privilege of having been allowed to park their illegal capital there in the first place.

As Bloomberg reports, the full passage of this tax proposal is likely only a matter of time now:

Sky News television reported a month ago that the government is considering extending capital-gains tax to foreign investors. Treasury minister Sajid Javid indicated last month an announcement was likely when Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne makes his Autumn Statement to Parliament tomorrow.

Frankly, the only question we have is why it took London so long, although “building up a critical mass” of future capital gains taxpayers is probably the answer.

And now, after this has been tested in the UK, where will it go… but to the US.

We would not be surprised if the ultra-luxury segment in US housing suddenly becomes just a tad wobbly as foreigners seek to quietly but promptly sell and avoid capital gains, before like in London, this becomes the law in the US next

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/W3uJ4cTLT8I/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Back in September 2012 when we, correctly, suggested that one of the main drivers of demand (and increasingly becoming the only one) for US housing, especially in the mid and high-end, was foreigners – particularly of the oligarch persuasion – who come to the US to park their embezzled and otherwise ill-gotten funds, courtesy of the NAR’s anti-money laundering exemptions, which means that they can buy any house, sight unseen, cash upfront (recall that a record 60% of all home purchases are all cash, which explains why mortgage bankers are being fired by the thousands left and right), no questions asked. One thing we made very clear, though, is that since one never actually buys the real estate, but merely rents it from Uncle Sam (or any other Development Market host nation), there is little preventing the host from cranking up the tax system, or outright changing it, when the need to raise funds strikes. After all what rights do criminal foreigners with multi-million homes in New York (or San Fran, or London, or any other major metropolis that is the target of offshore capital) actually have. Which is why, over a year after this prediction, we find that if not the US (yet) then certainly London, where the housing bubble is greater than anything seen in the US thanks to Russian and Asian hot money, is doing just this.

Earlier today, the London Assembly passed a motion welcoming a possible move by the government to bring in capital-gains tax on foreign investors selling a home in the city.  The motion was passed today with 13 votes in favor and 6 against, according to an e-mailed statement by the 25-member assembly, whose main function is to hold the capital’s mayor to account.

The populist angle was naturally present to justify this decision: “Londoners’ right to own a decent home must be put before speculative investors in London’s property market,” assembly member Tom Copley from the Labour Party, in opposition nationally, said in the statement. “London property is becoming a global reserve currency for people to keep their money and to make money out of London property.”

That actually is a spot on and very accurate assessment, especially in a world in which the governments of these same nations (recall that the US Mint is the first to propose a gold-backed Bitcoin token) for clear reasons, turn a blind eye to various forms of below the radar money transfers, many involving Bitcoin. After all, what better way to “honeypot” and trap foreign capital than by making inbound cash transfers easy, and then once the real estate “reserve currency” has been acquired, to change taxes and force foreigners to pay up for the privilege of having been allowed to park their illegal capital there in the first place.

As Bloomberg reports, the full passage of this tax proposal is likely only a matter of time now:

Sky News television reported a month ago that the government is considering extending capital-gains tax to foreign investors. Treasury minister Sajid Javid indicated last month an announcement was likely when Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne makes his Autumn Statement to Parliament tomorrow.

Frankly, the only question we have is why it took London so long, although “building up a critical mass” of future capital gains taxpayers is probably the answer.

And now, after this has been tested in the UK, where will it go… but to the US.

We would not be surprised if the ultra-luxury segment in US housing suddenly becomes just a tad wobbly as foreigners seek to quietly but promptly sell and avoid capital gains, before like in London, this becomes the law in the US next

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/W3uJ4cTLT8I/story01.htm Tyler Durden