Showing posts with label Money Supply. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money Supply. Show all posts

Monday, May 9, 2016

Trump On Debt Renegotiation: "You Never Have To Default Because You Print The Money"

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-09/trump-debt-renegotiation-you-never-have-default-because-you-print-money

Following Donald Trump's Thursday comments that rising interest rates would be disastrous for the economy, saying that "we're paying a very low interest rate. What happens if that interest rate goes up 2, 3, 4 points?" hinting that the U.S. should "renegotiate longer-term debt" with creditors and that if the economy crashes he "can make a deal", various media outlets went to town on Trump, most notably the NYT, which took Trump to task:
Asked on Thursday whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Experts also described Mr. Trump’s proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess.

“No one on the other side would pick up the phone if the secretary of the U.S. Treasury tried to make that call,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. “Why should they? They have a contract” requiring payment in full.
As the NYT admits, when "pressed to elaborate on his remarks, Mr. Trump did appear to step back. He said that he was not suggesting a default, but instead that the government could seek to repurchase debt for less than the face value of the securities. The government, in other words, would seek to repay less money than it borrowed."
In any case, the confusion about Trump's intentions continued and ultimately led to his latest CNN appearance in which he explained what he meant earlier this morning.
"If interest rates go up, we can buyback debt at a discount if we are liquid enough as a country. People say I want to default on debt - these people are crazy. First of all you never have to default because you print the money I hate to tell you, so there is never a default. It was reported in the NYT that I want to default on debt - you know I am the king of debt, I love debt, but debt is tricky and its dangerous. But let me just tell you: if interest rates go up and bonds go down, you can buy debt - that's what I'm talking about. So here is the story, if we have an opportunity where interest rates go up and you can buy back debt at a discount. I always like to be able to do that if you can do that. That's all I was talking about, they have it like I'm going to go back to creditors and I am going to renegotiate or restructure debt. It's ridiculous."
Here is the clip:
http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#
Aside from the comment that "one never has to default if one is printing the money", which has not exactly led to favorable outcomes for countries which have done just that and the only difference in the case of the US is possession of the reserve currency for now, what Trump is really talking about is inflating away the debt, something the Fed and all other central banks have been desperately trying to do for the past 7 years, so far without much success. 
In effect, Trump's point is really just a continuation of Fed policies: boosting inflation, and leading to a spike in long end yields; all Trump does is explain mechanistically how the US can take advantage of this "debt inflation", which as he correctly points out, can simply be repurchased at a price well below par if rates are surging in effect reducing the nominal debt burden.
Which incidentally brings us back to Trump's point about wanting lower interest rates: if the "king of debt" is so eager to buyback debt at a discount, what he should be urging is not lower but far higher interest rates. Now that is a proposal the Fed, Goldman and all global banks would love to get behind, even if it means leaving the economy in a state of even bigger collapse...

Friday, February 26, 2016

A Tale of Two Crashes, Part 1

Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-24/tale-two-crashes-part-1



By now, regular readers are familiar with the eight-year, bubble-and-crash cycles in our markets and economies which are manufactured by the crime syndicate known as “the One Bank.” The reason the cycles are roughly eight years long has also been explained: to coincide with the U.S. political cycle, and the rotation of its two puppet parties.
With the last crash being the almost-terminal Crash of ’08, readers have been warned on many occasions that the Next Crash is scheduled for this year. With that manufactured collapse now being only a few months (weeks? days?) away, it is instructive to compare these two cycles of financial crime.
The analysis of patterns can yield insights in two opposing manners. Value can be gleaned in looking at how these repeating cycles are the same, but perhaps more revealing is how and why they differ. In this particular piece, the focus will be on (hard) commodity prices in each of these cycles, and how and why the bubble-and-crash pattern have been significantly different in this respect.
Most readers will recall the spiral in prices which occurred in nearly all commodity markets – hard and soft – right up to the eve of the Crash of ’08, as seen in the table above. This analysis will examine strictly hard commodity prices, since soft commodity markets (and their prices) are affected by several other variables totally outside the economic cycle.
There were two reasons for the spiral in commodity prices which occurred leading into the Crash of ’08, but only one of those reasons is ever discussed by corporate media. The known reason is a massive spike in global demand, the catalyst for which being the rapid industrialization of “BRICS” nations, as well as a number of other, so-called “Emerging Market” economies.
The rapid dilution/debasement of the world’s paper currencies, especially in the West, has been hidden from us. These corrupt regimes have had the audacity to refer to this destruction of our currencies as“competitive devaluation” – a race to see which central bank can destroy its own currency first.
The concept of “dilution” is well understood in the corporate world, when it comes to the paper instrument known as “stock.” When a corporation prints more stock, (all other things being equal) it thus dilutes its share structure, and all shares lose value.
Incredibly, the concept of dilution is virtually entirely unknown with respect to the paper instrument known as “currency,” despite the fact that the principal of dilution applies in an identical manner. When a government (via its central bank) creates more currency, all existing currency loses value. This is the true meaning, and correct definition of the term “inflation.”
Western governments, in particular, were already accelerating the pace of their currency-creation (andcurrency dilution ) in the years immediately prior to the Crash of ’08. Therefore, the great spike in commodity markets which occurred immediately prior to the crash was not a simple function of demand. Rather it was the more complex product of demand and (central bank) inflation.
It is important that readers are fully clear on the fact that these commodity prices are supposed to be strongly influenced by the extremely excessive money-printing of our central banks. This explains how and why it was necessary (for the One Bank) to modify the 2009–2016 bubble-and-crash cycle.
The importance of this point becomes even more apparent when we view a chart of the hyperinflationary explosion of U.S. money-printing. This is the infamous “helicopter drop” which B.S. Bernanke warned and promised the world, back when he was first appointed as a Federal Reserve Governor. Below is the last, legitimate representation of the U.S. monetary base, before the chart and data were falsified beyond recognition, in order to hide the unequivocal picture below.
As has already been explained on numerous occasions, this is a chart of a currency which has already been hyper-inflated ( past tense ). In any legitimate monetary system, the supply of money is a virtually flat, horizontal line – as we saw with the U.S. money supply, until approximately 20 years ago. The extreme, parabolic curve leading into a near-vertical line is the mathematical and economic representation of hyperinflation. The U.S. dollar is already fundamentally worthless, beyond any possible argument .
Federal Reserve-generated inflation was already a serious factor for the U.S. (and global economy) in the years leading up to ’08. Yet, as the chart above indicates, U.S. dollar-based inflation should have been a much more significant factor in the current 2009—2016 cycle. Why has this not been the case?
Once again, there are two answers to this question. Once again, we never see the second answer from the mainstream media propaganda machine.
Part of the answer is, again, demand. Prior to the Crash of ’08, demand for most commodities was near or at record levels. Conversely, in the current eight-year cycle we have seen what could be described (at best) as anemic demand. In the fantasy-world of the mainstream media, demand has “fallen.” In the real world, it has been deliberately destroyed.
Many readers will be skeptical of such an assertion. How can a crime syndicate, even one as large and malevolent as the One Bank, destroy global demand for commodities? In conceptual terms, the answer is actually quite simple. If one sabotages many of the world’s economies (especially larger economies), then obviously those nations will consume far less commodities, and aggregate demand will fall.
In fact, readers have already seen it explained and documented how the One Bank has engaged in extreme acts of economic terrorism against first India, then Russia, and now even China. In each of these three campaigns of economic terrorism, sabotaging the exchange rate of that nation’s currency has been a large or central part of the overall terrorism.
Again, this will come as no surprise to regular readers. The Big Banks of the West—the principal tentacles of crime of the One Bank—were recently convicted of serially manipulating all of the world’s currencies, going back to at least 2008.
Showing the endemic corruption of our entire system, these financial terrorists were destroying the Russian ruble at precisely the same time they were receiving their slap-on-the-wrist fines from our “regulators.” The One Bank would never allow a little thing like a sham-prosecution to interfere with “business.”
What hasn’t been reported in previous commentaries is that this rampant economic terrorism (primarilyU.S.-based) isn’t restricted to just these three, major nations, but rather it is global in scope. Look around the world, and see how many nations outside of the corrupt West are currently in the midst of a “currency crisis,” or at the least, dealing with what is called (by the media) a “weak currency.”
One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to connect the world’s most notorious currency-manipulators to each and every one of these “currency crises.” Does no one think it strange that thebankrupt Western nations, with their hopelessly crippled economies, and near-zero interest rates have (supposedly) the world’s “strongest currencies,” while the healthy and productive nations of Asia, South America, and elsewhere all have “weak currencies,” despite much higher interest rates? Not in the feeble world of the mainstream media.
Not once will you see it suggested that any of these “currency crises” could be even slightly connected to the serial manipulation of all of the world’s currencies, by the convicted currency-manipulators of Western Big Banks. Why is such serial currency manipulation completely censored by the corporate media propaganda machine?
The answer to the previous question is, in fact, also the answer to the following question. Why is currency manipulation such an important element in “the tale of two crashes?” It is because if you manipulate the exchange rate of a currency higher, the price of everything else dominated in that currency automatically goes lower.
Each time the One Bank pushes the exchange rate of the worthless U.S. dollar up to an even more absurd level, the price of every other asset on the planet valued in dollars (including all commodities) goes lower. Via the one tool of currency manipulation, these economic terrorists can literally destroy economies, and simultaneously move any and all prices.
Manipulate the value of currencies higher, and “prices” fall. Manipulate the value of currencies lower, and “prices” rise. Now take a look at an updated table of commodity prices:
Based upon the market principle and the economics principle and the mathematics principle and the common sense principal of “dilution,” commodity prices (in U.S. dollars) should have been exploding higher at a much more rapid rate during the current bubble-and-crash cycle than during the previous one. The exponential explosion in Federal Reserve money-printing drowns out any and all changes in demand, by literally orders of magnitude.
What we see, however, is nothing more than an anemic rise in prices, which abruptly halted in 2011, at which point all of these commodity markets began descending lower in price. How? Why?
Part II of this series will explain the extreme manipulation of commodity markets/prices which has taken place since 2009, and then complete the explanation of how and why this bubble-and-crash cycle has been significantly different from the last.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Ex Marine Goes Crazy, Blows Whistle On Syrian False Flag And Real Agenda

September 9, 2015 by Sophie McAdam
http://www.trueactivist.com/must-watch-ex-marine-goes-crazy-blows-whistle-on-syrian-false-flag-and-real-agenda/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=antimedia
"We have tortured and killed and maimed and raped around this planet. We don't operate under international law; we have the law of the jungle"
Ken O’ Keefe is an ex US Marine turned anti-war campaigner who appeared on a Press TV debate called Syria: War of Deception, and absolutely owned his opponent in such an awesome way that you’ll be cheering at his every comment.
Recorded in August 2013, this interview is now two years old, but in light of the current European refugee crisis it’s more relevant today than ever before. Passionate, articulate and knowledgeable about the subject matter, O’Keefe is the perfect guy to step up and tell these home truths- and boy, does he do a good job. This guy nails so many crucial points about the Syria situation in one interview, he’ll have you jumping around and punching the ceiling.
“We have tortured and killed and maimed and raped around this planet; who in their right mind would consider the United States or the West in general to be in any position to punish anybody?” the veteran begins angrily, going on to outline the evidence for Syria being a false flag attack (Note: leaked emails showing how Assad was framed by the USA are detailed in this cached Daily Mail report from January 2013, which was published online briefly before being removed).
He rightly points out that the USA dropped more bombs in Vietnam than during the whole of WW2 combined, that it regularly arms terrorists (but the mainstream press refer to them as ‘freedom fighters’ when it suits them) and the ex-marine also points out how the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is nothing more than a well-planned strategy to be in a “perpetual state of war to destabilize the region for the Greater Israel plan.”
“We don’t operate under international law; we have the law of the jungle in which the rich and powerful basically determine what goes and what doesn’t go.” O’Keefe shouts. He correctly points out that Bush and Blair would be “rotting in prison cells” if the law were administered equally to all, or even “executed if their own rules were applied to their own crimes“. He also acknowledges that these men are nothing more than puppets who “serve rich and powerful bankers who control the money supply.”
Keefe rants about the hypocrisy of the West, who are arming terrorist organizations in the name of ‘freedom’ for civilians in geo-politically strategic countries while turning a blind eye to vile human rights abuses in countries like Saudi Arabia. The only people who still fall for all this crap, Keefe passionately points out, are “bought-off prostitutes [our politicians] or the dumbest of the dumb.”
In short, this is a video you should consider sharing with anyone you know who is still under the illusion that the USA and Britain are doing good in the world, anyone who doesn’t believe the ‘conspiracy theory’ that 9/11 (or Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan or Iraq) were not orchestrated attacks to further a sinister long-term goal of controlling the Middle East, and anyone who believes that the desperate refugees fleeing these countries we have systematically destroyed have no right to seek help from their oppressors in Europe and North America- after all, without Western imperialism, we wouldn’t have any refugees in the first place (more on that here).
Ken O’Keefe renounced US citizenship in 2001 and now holds Irish, Hawaiian & Palestinian citizenship. He says on his blog: “My ultimate allegiance is to my entire human family and to planet Earth.”
Well said.

This article (Must-Watch: Ex Marine Goes Crazy, Blows Whistle On Syrian False Flag And Real Agenda) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com.

Monday, August 31, 2015

The Financial Times Joins the "Ban Physical Cash" Chorus

Phoenix Capital Research's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-31/financial-times-joins-ban-physical-cash-chorus
Over the weekend, The Financial Times published an article calling for a ban on physical cash.

This is just the latest in a series of articles being promoted by the financial media proposing this concept. The arguments presented in these articles are always the same:

1)   The Central Banks are wonderful institutions that are trying to save the world.

2)   The reason Central Banks have failed to create another economic boom (despite spending $11 trillion) is NOT because they are incompetent, corrupt, and following financial models that have no connection to reality.

3)   The reason Central Banks cannot create growth is because of consumers’ unwillingness to spend money.

4)   The solution to this is to punish the stubborn consumers and FORCE them start spending more.

5)   If we outlaw cash, consumers cannot remove their money from the financial system and so will be forced to spend it eventually (most calls for a ban on physical cash also suggest a “carry tax” or making it so that physical cash loses value the longer it remains outside of the financial system).

6)   If we do this, the economy will suddenly explode with growth!

In short, it’s yet another “we need to do this for the greater good argument.” It’s interesting that other options that would actually be for the greater good are never considered (options such as auditing the Fed or demanding that the Fed follow the law), but I digress.

So why are we seeing calls for the banning of cash.

It’s because actual physical cash is a MAJOR problem for the Central Banks. The reason for this concerns the structure of the financial system. As I’ve outlined previously, that structure is as follows:

1)   The total currency (actual cash in the form of bills and coins) in the US financial system is a little over $1.36 trillion.

2)   When you include digital money sitting in short-term accounts and long-term accounts then you’re talking about roughly $10 trillion in “money” in the financial system.

3)   In contrast, the money in the US stock market (equity shares in publicly traded companies) is over $20 trillion in size.

4)   The US bond market  (money that has been lent to corporations, municipal Governments, State Governments, and the Federal Government) is almost twice this at $38 trillion.

5)   Total Credit Market Instruments (mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, junk bonds, commercial paper and other digitally-based “money” that is based on debt) is even larger $58.7 trillion.

6)   Unregulated over the counter derivatives traded between the big banks and corporations is north of $220 trillion.

When looking over these data points, the first thing that jumps out at the viewer is that the vast bulk of “money” in the system is in the form of digital loans or credit (non-physical debt).

Put another way, actual physical money or cash (as in bills or coins you can hold in your hand) comprises less than 1% of the “money” in the financial system.

As far as the Central Banks are concerned, this is a good thing because if investors/depositors were ever to try and convert even a small portion of their “wealth” into actual physical bills, the system would implode (there is simply not enough actual cash).

Indeed, this is precisely what happened in 2008 when depositors attempted to pull $500 billion out of money market funds in the span of a month.

A money market fund takes investors’ cash and plunks it into short-term highly liquid debt and credit securities. These funds are meant to offer investors a return on their cash, while being extremely liquid (meaning investors can pull their money at any time).

This works great in theory… but when $500 billion in money was being pulled (roughly 24% of the entire market) in the span of four weeks, the truth of the financial system was quickly laid bare: that digital money is not in fact safe.

To use a metaphor, when the money market fund and commercial paper markets collapsed, the oil that kept the financial system working dried up. Almost immediately, the gears of the system began to grind to a halt.

When all of this happened, the global Central Banks realized that their worst nightmare could in fact become a reality: that if a significant percentage of investors/ depositors ever tried to convert their “wealth” into cash (particularly physical cash) the whole system would implode.

As a result of this, virtually every monetary action taken by the Fed since 2008 has been devoted to forcing investors away from physical cash and into risk assets. The most obvious move was to cut interest rates to 0.25%, rendering the return on cash to almost nothing.

However, in their own ways, the various QE programs and Operation Twist have all had similar aims: to force investors away from cash, particularly physical cash.

After all, if cash returns next to nothing, anyone who doesn’t want to lose their purchasing power is forced to seek higher yields in bonds or stocks.

The Fed’s economic models predicted that by doing this, the US economy would come roaring back. The only problem is that it hasn’t. In fact, by most metrics, the US economy has flat-lined for several years now, despite the Fed having held ZIRP for 5-6 years and engaged in three rounds of QE.

As a result of this mainstream economists at CitiGroup, the German Council of Economic Experts, and bond managers at M&G have suggested doing away with cash entirely. Over the weekend, an article in the Financial Times called for it too.

The old adage says “you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.” The Fed and other Central Banks lead the horse to the water. The horse wouldn’t drink. So now they’re talking about holding the horse’s head underwater until he does.

This is just the beginning. Indeed… we've uncovered a secret document outlining how the US Federal Reserve plans to incinerate savings.

80 Year Old Woman Trampled To Death In Venezuela Supermarket Stampede

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-30/80-year-old-woman-trampled-death-venezuela-supermarket-stampede
With 30% of Venzuelans eating two or fewer meals per day, social unrest is mounting rapidly in President Nicolas Maduro's socialist utopia. As WSJ reports, soldiers have now been deployed to stem rampant food smuggling and price speculation, which Maduro blames for triple-digit inflation and scarcity. "Due to the shortage of food... the desperation is enormous," local opposition politician Andres Camejo said, and nowhere is that more evident than the trampling death of an 80-year-old woman outside a state-subsidized supermarket.
As Reuters reports,
An 80-year-old Venezuelan woman died, possibly from trampling, in a scrum outside a state supermarket selling subsidized goods, the opposition and media said on Friday.

The melee at the store in Sabaneta, the birthplace of former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, was the latest such incident in the South American nation where economic hardship and food shortages are creating long queues and scuffles.

The opposition Democratic Unity coalition said Maria Aguirre died and another 75 people were injured - including five security officials - in chaotic scenes when National Guard troops sought to control a 5,000-strong crowd with teargas.

"Due to the shortage of food ... the desperation is enormous," local opposition politician Andres Camejo said, according to the coalition's website. It published a photo of an elderly woman's body lying inert on a concrete floor.

Camejo said thieves had also attacked the crowd, members of which were seeking to buy cheap food on offer at an outlet of the state's Mercal supermarket chain in Barinas state.



El Universal newspaper reported that Aguirre was knocked to the ground during jostling in the crowd, while the pro-opposition El Nacional said she was crushed in a stampede.

Another person was killed and dozens detained following looting of supermarkets in Venezuela's southeastern city of Ciudad Guayana earlier this month.

President Nicolas Maduro accuses opponents of deliberately stirring up trouble, exaggerating incidents, and sabotaging the economy to try and bring down his socialist government.

Critics, though, say incidents of unrest are symptoms of the increasing hardships Venezuela's 29 million people are facing due to a failed state-led economic model. Low oil prices are exacerbating economic tensions in the OPEC nation.
Venezuelans protest the starvatiion with signs saying 'hunger'...


Shoppers are finger-printed when buying government-controlled foods...


“What’s certain is that we are going very hungry here and the children are suffering a lot,” said María Palma, a 55-year-old grandmother who on a recent blistering hot day had been standing in line at the grocery store since 3 a.m. before walking away empty-handed at midday.

In a national survey, as WSJ reports, the pollster Consultores 21 found 30% of Venezuelans eating two or fewer meals a day during the second quarter of this year, up from 20% in the first quarter.

Around 70% of people in the study also said they had stopped buying some basic food item because it had become unavailable or too expensive.
As The Mises Institute's Carmen Elena Dorobat details,
Millions, Billions, Trillions: The Disaster of Socialism, Once Again
Venezuela’s nearly full-blown socialism is making the news once again. For approximately two years now, the country’s economic crisis has been rapidly unfolding: rising prices, fuelled by increased scarcity of goods and a depreciating currency, were followed by price controls, which brought about even higher prices and more shortages. The list of basic commodities missing from stores, such as toilet paper, has gradually expanded to include cooking oil, corn flour, sugar, sanitary pads, batteries, coffins, and even oil (once the country’s main export). The Cendas survey showed that more than a third of foodstuffs cannot be found on supermarket shelves; moreover, vegetables are 32% more expensive every month, meat prices are going up by 22% every month, and beans are surging by 130%. Basic Venezuelan dishes containing rice and beans have thus become a luxury, as people queue for 8 hours a week, on average, to buy basic goods.
This time it was the bolivar, Venezuela’s currency, which made the headlines, as it tumbled from 82 bolivars to the dollar last year, to 300 bolivars in May, and to a staggering 670 bolivars this August. Because the Venezuelan administration stopped publishing inflation figures in December 2014 (when annual inflation reached 68%), some economists have designed an Arepa (i.e. cornmeal cake with cheese) hyperinflation index, which suggests a current inflation rate of around 400%. Others estimate the annual inflation rate is actually 808%.
A photo of a Venezuelan using a 2 bolivar banknote as a napkin to hold a cheesy pastry (an empanada) has recently gone viral: the banknote is worth less than a third of one US cent on the black market, while the price of a pack of napkins is about 500-600 bolivars. The photo is reminiscent of the Weimar Republic hyperinflationary episode, where the wholesale price index jumped from 100% in July 1922 to more than 2500% in January 1923, which led to German banknotes being used to light fires (right photo).
One can only speculate at the moment the extent of the damage this episode will leave on Venezuelan savings. But if history is any indication, we could soon hear stories similar to those of some of Mises’s acquaintances (recorded from his lectures by his student, Bettina Bien-Greaves):
[A] man made a will according to which this $ 2,000,000 was to be sent back to Europe to establish another orphan asylum such as that in which this man had been educated. This was just before World War I. The money was sent back to Europe. According to the usual procedure it had to be invested in government bonds of this country, interest to be paid every year to keep up the asylum. But the war came, and the inflation. And the inflation reduced to zero this fortune of $ 2,000,000 invested in European Marks—simply to zero.

[The president of a Bank in Vienna] told me that as a young man in his twenties he had taken out a life insurance policy much too large for his economic condition at the time. He expected that when it was paid out it would make him a well-to-do burgher. But when he reached his sixtieth birthday, the policy became due. The insurance, which had been a tremendous sum when he had taken it out thirty five years before, was just sufficient to pay for the taxi ride back to his office after going to collect the insurance in person. Now what had happened? Prices went up, yet the monetary quantity of the policy remained the same. He had in fact for many, many decades made savings. For whom? For the government to spend and devastate (Mises 2010, 30-31).
As news of Venezuela’s suffering keeps coming through, one cannot help but feel a certain sense of dread. All governments control the money supply to essentially the same extent that Maduro’s administration does. All around the world we have monetary socialism, where national currencies are subject solely to political power. And one cannot help but wonder (and fear) how many more such economic disasters it will take before it becomes clear that socialism of all shapes, sizes, and degrees, is unrealizable, unbearable, and unforgivable.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Why Government Hates Cash

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-24/why-government-hates-cash
Submitted by Joseph Salerno via The Mises Institute,
In April it was announced that Greece was imposing a surcharge for all cash withdrawals from bank accounts to deter citizens from clearing out their accounts. So now the Greeks will have to pay one euro per 1,000 euros that they withdraw, which is one-tenth of a percent. It doesn’t seem very big, but the principle at work is extremely big because what they’re in effect doing is breaking the exchange rate between a unit of bank deposits and a unit of currency.
Why would they do this? Why would they want to do this? Well, it’s one of the anti-cash policies that mainstream economists have vigorously been promoting.

PAVING THE WAY FOR NEGATIVE INTEREST

To make the calculations easier, and to illustrate the effect, let’s say that the Greek “surcharge” is ten dollars for every 100 dollars withdrawn. Now, instead of being able to convert one euro in your checking account into one euro in cash, on demand, you will only be able to buy one euro in cash by spending 1.10 euros in your bank accounts. That’s a negative 10-percent rate in some sense. That is to say that you can only take out one euro from the bank if you’re willing to pay 1.10 euros. So, you would only really get ninety cents for every dollar that you wanted to withdraw and that’s very significant because this means it will be more expensive to buy an item with cash than with bank deposits.
At the same time, the Greek government made it very clear that if you deposit the cash in the banks, you don’t get 1.10 euros of bank money for every euro you deposit.
So the system is now structured to lock the money in the banks. Now, what does that allow them to do? If you lose 10 percent every time you withdraw one euro in cash, they can lower the interest rate that you get on bank deposits to negative 5 percent, or negative 6 percent. You still wouldn’t withdraw your cash from the banks even if the interest rate went negative.
What we are witnessing is a war on cash in which governments make it either illegal or inconvenient to use cash. This, in turn, allows governments the ability to spy on and regulate financial transactions more completely, while also allowing governments more leeway in manipulating the money supply.

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR ON CASH

It all started really with the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, passed in the US, which requires financial institutions in the United States to assist US government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering. That was the rationale. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash payments and file reports of cash purchases or negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 as a daily aggregate amount. Of course, this is all sold as a way of tracking criminals.
The US government employs other means of making war on cash also. Up until 1945, there were 500 dollar bills, 1,000 dollar bills, and 10,000 dollar bills in circulation. There was even a 100,000 dollar bill in the 1930s with which banks made clearings between one another. The US government stopped issuing these bills in 1945 and by 1969 had withdrawn all from circulation. So, in the guise of fighting organized crime and money laundering, what’s actually occurred is that they made it very inconvenient to use cash. A one hundred dollar bill today has $15.50 worth of purchasing power in 1969 dollars, when they removed the last big bills.

THE PROBLEM IS INTERNATIONAL

The war on cash in Sweden has gone probably the furthest and Scandinavian governments in general are notable for their opposition to cash. In Swedish cities, tickets for public buses no longer can be purchased for cash; they must be purchased in advance by a cell phone or text message — in other words, via bank accounts.
The deputy governor of the Swedish Central Bank gloated, before his retirement a few years back, that cash will survive “like the crocodile,” even though it may be forced to see its habitat gradually cut back.
The analogy is apt since three of the four major Swedish banks combined have more than two-thirds of their offices no longer accepting or paying out cash. These three banks want to phase out the manual handling of cash at their offices at a very rapid pace and have been doing that since 2012.
In France, opponents of cash tried to pass a law in 2012 which would restrict the use of cash from a maximum of 3,000 euros per exchange to 1,000. The law failed, but then there was the attack on Charlie Hebdo and on a Jewish supermarket, so immediately the state used this as a reason for getting the 1,000 maximum limit. They got their maximum limit. Why? Well, proponents claim that these attacks were partially financed by cash.
The terrorists used cash to purchase some of the stuff they needed. No doubt, these murderers also wore shoes and clothing and used cell phones and cars during the planning and execution of their mayhem. Why not ban these things? A naked barefoot terrorist without communications is surely less effective than the fully clothed and equipped one.
Finally, Switzerland, formerly a great bastion of economic liberty and financial privacy, has succumbed under the bare-knuckle tactics of the US government. The Swiss government has banned all cash payments of more than 100,000 francs (about $106,000), including transactions involving watches, real estate, precious metals, and cars. This was done under the threat of blacklisting by the Organization of Economic Development, with the US no doubt pushing behind the scenes. Transactions above 100,000 francs will now have to be processed through the banking system. The reason is to prevent the catch-all crime, of course, of money laundering.
Chase Bank has also recently joined the war on cash. It’s the largest bank in the US, a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase and Co., and according to Forbes, the world’s third largest public company. It also received $25 billion in bailout loans from the US Treasury. As of March, Chase began restricting the use of cash in selected markets. The new policy restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans.
Chase even goes as far as to prohibit the storage of cash in its safe deposit boxes. In a letter to its customers, dated April 1, 2015, pertaining to its “updated safe deposit box lease agreement,” one of the high-lighted items reads, “You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.” Whether or not this pertains to gold and silver coins with no collectible value is not explained, but of course it does. As one observer warned, “This policy is unusual, but since Chase is the nation’s largest bank, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more of this in this era of sensitivity about funding terrorists and other illegal causes.” So, get your money out of those safe deposit boxes, your currency and probably your gold and silver.

ONLY (SUPERVISED) SPENDING IS ALLOWED

Gregory Mankiw, a prominent macroeconomist, came up with a scheme in 2009: the Fed would announce that a year from the date of the announcement, it intended to pick a numeral from 0 to 9 out of a hat. All currency with a serial number ending in that numeral, would instantly lose status as legal tender, causing the expected return on holding currency to plummet to -10 percent. This would allow the Fed to reduce interest rates below zero for a year or even more because people would happily loan money for say, -2 percent or -4 percent because that would stop them from losing 10 percent.
Now the reason given by our rulers for suppressing cash is to keep society safe from terrorists, tax evaders, money launderers, drug cartels, and other villains real or imagined. The actual aim of the ?ood of laws restricting or even prohibiting the use of cash is to force the public to make payments through the financial system. This enables governments to expand their ability to spy on and keep track of their citizens’ most private financial dealings, in order to milk their citizens of every last dollar of tax payments that they claim are due.
Other reasons for suppressing cash are (1) to prop up the unstable fractional reserve banking system, which is in a state of collapse all over the world, and (2) to give central banks the power to impose negative nominal interest rates. That is, to make you spend money by subtracting money from your bank account for every day you leave it in the bank account and don’t spend it.

Monday, June 15, 2015

"Cornering The Earth" - How The Rothschilds "Controlled At Least One Third Of Global Wealth" Over 100 Years Ago

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-14/cornering-earth-how-rothschilds-controlled-least-one-third-global-wealth-over-100-ye
One week ago we presented the prophetic work of Alfred Owen Crozier who in 1912 penned "U.S. Money vs Corporation Currency" in which, together with 30 illustrations that captured Wall Street precisely as it would turn out some 103 later year, he explained why the the "Aldrich Plan" proposal, infamously crafted in secrecy by a small group of bankers and their bought politicians on Jekyll Island to establish a National Reserve Association, a money printing-predecessor to the Federal Reserve, would lead to untold pain, suffering ans war.
The Aldrich Plan was defeated only to bring the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the most deadly 30-year period of warfare in human history.
And while we urge everyone to read the Crozier's book for its profound insight, and its painful reminder that even in the "New Normal" there is absolutely nothing new, as everything that has happened was foretold over a century ago, we wish to bring readers' attention on one segment in the book.
A segment dealing with the Rothschild family.
Below are select excerpts of a text written precisely 103 years ago by Alfred Owen Crozier, in "U.S. Money vs Corporation Currency."
* * *
[The Rothschild] descendants comprise the four great banking houses of that name in Europe—in London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna. In 1863 the wealth of this one family was conservatively estimated at $3,200,000,000, over three billions of dollars. This huge total compounded during the past fifty years and increased by incidental investments in mines, timber and many other things, may now amount to fifty or one hundred billions. No one outside knows the amount. With alliances controlled by this family it surely directly or indirectly controls a large portion of all government bonds and at least one-third of the world's estimated total wealth of $377,000,000,000.
But suppose the Rothschilds themselves only own $39,000,000,000, an amount equal to the bonded debt of all the governments of the world, with an annual income of $2,300,000.000 or two-thirds what their total wealth was in 1863. Any change either way in these figures will be a variation only in degree. In no way does it materially change the acknowledged potent fact that in all great national and international monetary and financial affairs the Rothschilds always play the ruling hand. They possess masterful genius and financial intellect. But it is the sheer weight of liquid or ready wealth held in such large quantity that all the nations of the world must go to the Rothschilds for financial assistance in time of peace, or before they can go to war whatever the provocation or emergency, that gives them supreme power in the world's affairs. No war can be waged without money, and no large nation can get adequate money to finance a war from anyone but the Rothschilds. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that whenever any war is begun the Rothschilds have consented thereto. They may finance both sides, because it is immaterial whether the interest profits they crave come from one or both countries. In fact the war furnishes an excuse recognized as legitimate for charging both nations higher interest rates not only on the new debts but on old obligations maturing and being refunded. Increase to 4 per cent from 3 per cent is a 25 per cent increase in the total income and in the value of bonds, measured by their earning power.
It is known, of course, that after the nations have fought for a while and murdered tens of thousands and wounded and permanently maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides, pressure exerted by other governments instigated by the financiers will force a quick compromise, leaving the nations both in approximately the same condition as before except that each has vastly increased its debt and the annual interest burden on its people while the financiers have gotten rid of accumulated capital in exchange for high interest gold bonds that can not be paid for perhaps thirty or fifty years. This surely is the result if not the deliberate plan.
Then again, the debt of the principal European countries has been doubled or vastly increased during the long period of "armed peace."
Frequent rumors of war or warlike preparations each year have been ping-ponged back and forth between the countries in the public press. These have tended to excite popular fear, hate and patriotism and cause the people to consent and even to urge the governments to swell vastly the mortgage burden upon the peoples for funds to increase and equip still larger standing armies and to build greater and more expensive navies. By withdrawing millions of men. into armies and idleness it reduces production and the earning power of the people, increases the burden on those employed, and makes it more certain that existing bonds will not be paid but will be refunded and increased. Why not have bigger armies, navies, forts, guns, idleness of millions of soldiers, rumors of war or even occasional war, when such things are so fruitful, so necessary to cause the issuance of more bonds to provide profitable investment for the $5,000,000,000 of excess income derived yearly from interest paid on existing issues of gold bonds?
These conditions explain at least a substantial portion of the bonded debt and yearly interest of these countries.
Peaceful and quiet little Netherlands (the home of the dove of peace, the Hague) and Belgium together have a larger debt than the United States, although their aggregate wealth is but $13,000,000,000, as against $125,000,000,000 for this country. Belgium has 7,074,910 population and a debt of $93.77 per capita. Evidently they have been frightened into hopeless, permanent debt by the menacing actions of their neighbors towards each other. Poor exploited Congo, whose ignorant natives do not know a bond from a hole in the ground or interest and the gold standard from the milky way and the Aurora Borealis, has been given a hot dose of the "blessings of Christian civilization" by being saddled with a debt of $20,000,000 on which annually they must pay $1,260,306 interest profits to the exploiters. Unwelcome British rule has imposed upon India a yoke of mortgage debt 40 per cent larger than the total bonded debt of the United States.
Portugal with $2,500,000,000 wealth has a government debt of $864,561,212, or 35 per cent. No wonder it tired of royalty and sought relief as a republic. The tombs of Pharaohs of Egypt now groan under a public debt half that of the United States. China may be the next debt victim.
Is hopeless debt and perpetual interest slavery forever to be the price of Christian civilization and civil liberty?
Large portions of most of these vast bond issues are in the strong boxes of the Rothschilds. No doubt they are satisfied with their clever work in Europe, their manipulation of Governmental policies, their control of state and private finances through great private central banks dominated by them in the principal countries, and their mastery, through the purse, over kings, czars and emperors. They have seen the average government debt of European nations grow until it has become about equal to one-tenth of the entire wealth of those countries.
But they must be sorely disappointed and dissatisfied with the work and progress of their direct personal representatives in the United States. Here we have the richest and most substantial country, the best security, on the globe and the financiers have succeeded in keeping it in debt only about three-fourths of 1 per cent of its $125,000,000,000 of wealth. And worse than that, the Government has kept control of its monetary system and currency supply and so conducted its finances that most of the bonds bear only 2 per cent interest, or 40 to 60 per cent less interest annually than is paid by other governments that have turned monetary control over to the same private interests that buy and own the bonds issued by themselves for the Government to themselves for their individual profit.
Then no doubt they have been worried over another serious problem. Their financial ascendency and control over governments and maintenance of relatively high interest rates is possible only so long as they own or at least control all large loanable funds seeking such investments; only while there is no important competition.
The wonderful natural resources of the United States and the boundless energy of its people has greatly increased the liquid capital of the country. Hundreds of millions of American debts to European investors have been paid off or bought up by Americans. This has tended to increase the supply of idle capital in Europe. And now the United States has invaded Rothschild's exclusive melon patch by bidding for large issues of the new or of refunding bonds of various governments. This is a serious situation. If this competition goes on it is certain to lower the rates of interest not only on new issues but ultimately on the entire 39 billion dollars of present bonds, to say nothing of state, county, city, district and corporation bonds. Genuine competition, such as the United States could furnish with the available investment capital it now commands or soon will have, might easily lower the average bond interest of other governments to the 2 per cent basis enjoyed by our Government. This would cut down by one-half the annual income of the owners of the fixed income or bond wealth of the world. They would lose thereby $2,500,000,000 annually. This in effect would be the equivalent of a direct shrinkage of so per cent in the value of the 39 billions of bonds, an immediate loss of nearly 20 billion dollars, for the value of bonds is measured by their rate of interest, the annual income they yield, their earning power.
And we now see the stealthy hand of these foreign bond-holders in one of the most clever and far-reaching schemes ever devised by the mind of man, driving American sentiment and politics rapidly toward the adoption of a plan that will instantly remove the one menace to the supremacy and profits of the Rothschilds, viz.: competition for bonds.
It is believed that the scheme now called "Aldrich plan" was originally conceived and worked out in Europe by the Rothschild interests, and that it was put out here or pushed by Jacob H. Schiff and Paul M. Warburg of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., said to represent here or do business with the Rothschilds of Europe. It is at least certain that Mr. Schiff of that firm was actively advocating a central bank as far back as 1906, when the New York Chamber of Commerce on October 4, 1906, officially adopted the plan after sending its representatives to Europe for several months to meet and personally discuss the matter with the big financiers of Europe.
The official records of the Chamber, printed elsewhere in this volume, show these facts.
Since then Mr. Warburg has been the most active of the Wall Street financiers in promoting the central bank or National Reserve Association plan by way of articles, speeches, conferences, and in persuading bankers and the American Bankers' Association to join in promoting the scheme through Congress, and in thereafter participating in its benefits. He has been greatly aided from the outset by the Standard Oil interests, officials of the National Bank of Commerce and National City Bank of New York (Mr. Schiff being a director of both of these banks), and affiliated banks in that and other cities and by many of the powerful financiers of Wall Street. We show elsewhere conclusive documentary proof that the Aldrich plan is identical with what we could call the Rothschilds' plan, but have named "New York Chamber of Commerce's first plan," adopted in 1906, except that the original plan at least made a pretense of Government control, while the Aldrich plan is strictly for a private corporation.
At the currency conference of the National Civic Federation in New York on December 16, 1907, Mr. Spyer presided, and Mr. Seligman introduced the prepared resolutions. Both are Hebrew Wall Street international bankers said to do business for or with the great financiers of Europe. August Belmont, who then was president of the National Civic Federation, is said also to represent or do business with the Rothschilds.
Jacob H. Schiff seems to have led the movement that has caused the abrogation of the commercial treaty with Russia. The action taken was right, for obedience to the provisions of all treaties must be enforced. But we wonder if the only object was to punish Russia for denying passports to a mere handful of American Jews?
Was there back of it in Europe a Rothschild scheme to embroil the two nations so that each would increase its bonded debt, sell more bonds, to be prepared for possible complications if not actual hostilities? [ZH: all this is written 2 years before World War I erupted]
Several attempts looking to a vast increase of the bonded debt of the United States have been made, other attempts will be made. But this Government should pay every dollar of its bonded debt and then stay out of debt. It would be a wholesome example to the world. It would show to all nations the advantages of self-government and human liberty.
With the Standard Oil, the Morgan and the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. groups linked by ties of mutual interest and profit with the Rothschilds and their affiliations abroad, there would be complete harmony and co-operation and practically no competition between America and Europe for big government loans. All danger of lowering interest rates has been removed and an effective plan adopted that will enable substantial increases from time to time in the bond interest rate the world over. There will be no adequate market for such bonds except with this international money combine. Truly, the United States proposes to become a "financial world power" by this merger, but it will be controlled from the other side because Europe, the Rothschilds, will furnish 90 per cent of the cash. Wall Street seems to be willing to play second fiddle and permanently sell out the interests of the United States and the welfare of all the people for the mere hope that by thus getting near the money throne of the Rothschilds some crumbs from their table will fall within the reach of our high financiers.
This Rothschild scheme if adopted will ultimately plunge the United States into the slavery of debt like the European nations. They do not want 2 per cent bonds. So it is proposed to increase the interest 30 to 50 per cent, make the rate 3 per cent, refund the present United States debt and make it payable in fifty years. That is the Aldrich plan, the provisions of the pending bill. Then it will be proposed to so change the tariff and increase expenditures that each year will show a deficit that can be converted into long time bonds. No doubt it is expected that in time the mort-gage debt of this country will be increased to $2,000,000,000, or even more, which with interest at 3 per cent instead of 2 per cent would- be the equivalent of a bonded debt of $3,000,000,000 so far as the yearly interest burden is concerned.
The only way the human race can get the benefit, or its due because of the rapid increase of the world's wealth, is to have free and unrestricted competition for loans maintained, so that as wealth increases the rate of interest will decrease.
A billion of public currency now is to be taken away from the Government and given outright and free to a private corporation owned by the banks, and ultimately the National Reserve Association is to control the entire three billions of money heretofore issued by the United States Government. The association will gather up the United States money, hold it as a "reserve" and issue thereon two or three times its amount in corporation currency. Then by contraction and expansion of the money supply it will rule every bank and manipulate the supply of $20,000,000,000 of business credit and all prices and dominate everything in America for the profit of the world-wide money trust of which the National Reserve Association will be the American branch. This is the game, the program. If it succeeds the republic and all its people will find themselves permanently enslaved by the bondage of debt, chained helplessly to a system that takes everything and gives nothing, the victims of a soulless and sordid conspiracy that is moral if not legal treason against the welfare and perhaps the life of the nation.

* * *
A few notes:
  • As noted previously, this text was written in 1912.
  • The Aldrich Plan in its proposed form was rejected, only for the bankers behind it to refine it and present it as the Federal Reserve Act which subsequently passed in 1913, months before the start of World War I. The premise behind the Act was that the US nation, and not commercial banks, that decides the fate of US money. As the events of 2008 showed, this is completely false, and the US Federal Reserve is nothing more than the US Central Bank, working on behalf - and printing at the bidding - of a few major banks.
  • The Rothschild name is far less prominent these days; instead the family which has kept a very low profile since the two world wars, has remained active in determining policy through the control of financial interests in the prominent commercial banks of the day, either in Europe, the US or, most recently, Asia.
  • Contrary to 1912, US debt is no longer paltry, in fact quite the opposite. Depending on one's definition of debt, total US debt is anywhere between 100% of GDP to many times that if one accounts for underfunded entitlements and public sector liabilities.
  • Unlike in 1912 when the rate of interest on debt is what mattered, under a ZIRP and then NIRP regime, the mere issuance of debt is what is critical now that virtually zero-cost debt is the functional equivalent of preferred (or even common) equity. Upon an event of default, the transfer of equity ownership falls in the hands of the debt holder which means the last decade has been nothing but a preparation for the biggest debt for equity exchange in the history of the human race, with the new equity holders of virtually all global assets set to be a select group of financial oligarchs.
  • The enslavement through debt bondage of the American people turned out just as the author had predicted.
  • "Let us control the money of a nation, and we care not who makes its laws"
    - the maxim of the house of Rothschild and is the foundation principle of European banks (source).
     

Monday, May 4, 2015

Why The Powers That Be Are Pushing A Cashless Society


George Washington's picture


We Can’t Rein In the Banks If We Can’t Pull Our Money Out of Them Martin Armstrong summarizes the headway being made to ban cash,  and argues that the goal of those pushing a cashless society is to prevent bank runs ... and increase their control:
The central banks are ... planning drastic restrictions on cash itself. They see moving to electronic money will first eliminate the underground economy, but secondly, they believe it will even prevent a banking crisis.This idea of eliminating cash was first floated as the normal trial balloon to see how the people take it. It was first launched by Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup. Their claims have been widely hailed and their papers are now the foundation for the new age of Economic Totalitarianism that confronts us. Rogoff and Buiter have laid the ground work for the end of much of our freedom and will one day will be considered the new Marx with hindsight. They sit in their lofty offices but do not have real world practical experience beyond theory. Considerations of their arguments have shown how governments can seize all economic power are destroy cash in the process eliminating all rights. Physical paper money provides the check against negative interest rates for if they become too great, people will simply withdraw their funds and hoard cash. Furthermore, paper currency allows for bank runs. Eliminate paper currency and what you end up with is the elimination of the ability to demand to withdraw funds from a bank.

***

In many nations, specific measures have already been taken demonstrating that the Rogoff-Buiter world of Economic Totalitarianism is indeed upon us. This is the death of Capitalism. Of course the socialists hate Capitalism and see other people’s money should be theirs. What they cannot see is that Capitalism is freedom from government totalitarianism. The freedom to pursue the field you desire without filling the state needs that supersede your own.

There have been test runs of this Rogoff-Buiter Economic Totalitarianism to see if the idea works. I reported on June 21, 2014 that Britain was doing a test run. A shopping street in Manchester banned cash as part of an experiment to see if Brits would accept a cashless society. London buses ended accepting cash payments from July 2014. Meanwhile, Currency Exchange dealers began offering debt cards instead of cash that they market as being safer to travel with. The Chorlton, South Manchester experiment was touted to test customers and business reaction to the idea for physical currency will disappear inside 20 years.

France passed another Draconian new law that from the police parissummer of 2015 it will now impose cash requirements dramatically trying to eliminate cash by force. French citizens and tourists will then only be allowed a limited amount of physical money. They have financial police searching people on trains just passing through France to see if they are transporting cash, which they will now seize. Meanwhile, the new French Elite are moving in this very same direction. Piketty wants to just take everyone’s money who has more than he does. Nobody stands on the side of freedom or on restraining the corruption within government. The problem always turns against the people for we are the cause of the fiscal mismanagement of government that never has enough for themselves.

In Greece a drastic reduction in cash is also being discussed in light of the economic crisis. Now any bill over €70 should be payable only by check or credit card – it will be illegal to pay in cash. The German Baader Bank founded in Munich expects formally to abolish the cash to enforce negative interest rates on accounts that is really taxation on whatever money you still have left after taxes.

***

Complete abolition of cash threatens our very freedom and rights of citizens in so many areas.

***

Paper currency is indeed the check against negative interest rates. We need only look to Switzerland to prove that theory. Any attempt to impose say a 5% negative interest rates (tax) would lead to an unimaginably massive flight into cash. This was already demonstrated recently by the example of Swiss pension funds, which withdrew their money from the bank in a big way and now store it in vaults in cash in order to escape the financial repression. People will act in their own self-interest and negative interest rates are likely to reduce the sales of government bonds and set off a bank run as long as paper money exists.

Obviously, government and bankers are not stupid. The only way to prevent such a global bank run would be the total prohibition of paper money. This is unlikely, both in Switzerland and in the United States because the economies are dominated there by a certain “liberalism” to some extent but also because their currencies also circulate outside their domestic economies. The fact that but the question of the cash ban in the context of a global conference with the participation of the major central banks of the US and the ECB will be discussed, demonstrates by itself that the problem is not a regional problem.

Nevertheless, there is a growing assumption that the negative interest rate world (tax on cash) is likely to increase dramatically in Europe in particular since it is socialism that is collapsing. Government in Brussels is unlikely to yield power and their line of thinking cannot lead to any solution. The negative interest rate concept is making its way into the United States at J.P. Morgan where they will charge a fee on excess cash on deposit starting May 1st, 2015. Asset holdings of cash with a tax or a fee in the amount of the negative interest rate seems to be underway even in Switzerland.

***

The movement toward electronic money is moving at high speed and this says a lot about the state of the financial system. The track record of the major financial institutions is nearly perfect – they are always caught on the wrong side when a crisis breaks, which requires their bailouts. The fact that we have already seen test runs with theory-balloons flying, the major financial institutions are in no shape to withstand another economic decline.

For depositors, this means they really need to grasp what is going on here for unless they are vigilant, there is a serious risk of losing everything. We must understand that these measures will be implemented overnight in the middle of a banking crisis after 2015.75. The balloons have taken off and the discussions are underway. The trend in taxation and reduction of cash seems to be unstoppable. Government is not prepared to reform for that would require a new way of thinking and a loss of power. That is not a consideration. They only see one direction and that is to take us into the new promised-land of economic totalitarianism.
People can’t pull cash out of their bank accounts – for political reasons, because they’ve lost confidence in the bank, or because “bail-ins” are enacted – if cash is banned.
The Financial Times argued last year that central banks would be the real winners from a cashless society:
Central bankers, after all, have had an explicit interest in introducing e-money from the moment the global financial crisis began…
***
The introduction of a cashless society empowers central banks greatly. A cashless society, after all, not only makes things like negative interest rates possible, it transfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank, mostly by turning it into a universal banker that competes directly with private banks for public deposits. All digital deposits become base money.

The Government Can Manipulate Digital Accounts More Easily than Cash

Moreover, an official White House panel on spying has implied that the government is manipulating the amount in people’s financial accounts.
If all money becomes digital, it would be much easier for the government to manipulate our accounts.
Indeed, numerous high-level NSA whistleblowers say that NSA spying is about crushing dissent and blackmailing opponents … not stopping terrorism.
This may sound over-the-top … but remember, the government sometimes labels its critics as “terrorists“.  If the government claims the power to indefinitely detain – or even assassinate – American citizens at the whim of the executive, don’t you think that government people would be willing to shut down, or withdraw a stiff “penalty” from a dissenter’s bank account?
If society becomes cashless, dissenters can’t hide cash.  All of their financial holdings would be vulnerable to an attack by the government.
This would be the ultimate form of control. Because – without access to money – people couldn’t resist, couldn’t hide and couldn’t escape.

Friday, April 10, 2015

“Facts Do Not Cease To Exist Because They Are Ignored”

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-10/%E2%80%9Cfacts-do-not-cease-exist-because-they-are-ignored%E2%80%9D
Submitted by Michael Lebowitz of 720 Global
Courage
“The kid had a 94-mile-per-hour fastball, a clean delivery, and a body that looked as if it had been created to wear a baseball uniform. He was, in short, precisely the kind of pitcher Billy thought he had trained his scouting department to avoid.”
      – Michael Lewis, Moneyball
In his book Moneyball, Michael Lewis explores the irrationality and ignorance of human behavior and the opportunities it creates for those willing to resist it. The book represents a value investors guide to how the Oakland A’s, with one of the smallest budgets in Major League Baseball, consistently found and acquired quality players that were shunned under the traditional scouting matrix. These overlooked and undervalued players afforded the Oakland A’s and General Manager Billy Beane the fifth best winning percentage with the fourth lowest total payroll over the last 15 years. As the graph below from FiveThirtyEight shows, Beane dramatically outperformed his opponents when it came to maximizing the value of his budget.
Once when asked why he was willing to allow Michael Lewis to write a book about his approach, Beane responded “It won’t matter who reads it, no one would have the courage to put into practice what we do.” This same model of logic and courage should be applied in investing.
In today’s euphoric markets we also believe it takes a lot of courage for those willing to underweight, sell or avoid U.S. stocks. Arguably, even more courage is required now than was required to buy stocks in March of 2009 when fear was running rampant and the stock markets were plummeting to levels last seen in the 1990’s. We realize that is a strong statement given how at ease investors are today compared to how scared they were in 2009. When one has enjoyed the benefits of a persistently rising market that has lasted many years, muscle memory makes changing a well-rewarded posture extremely difficult. This is especially true when the alternative, moving to cash, produces zero return. Conceptually, investing is a very simple task; buy when an asset is cheap and sell the asset when it is rich. Investors are psychological beings, however, and thus are subjected to more filters than a binary decision on whether an asset is a good buy or sell.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”
      – Aldous Huxley
Huxley’s words describe a psychological condition termed cognitive dissonance. According to the American Psychological Association, cognitive dissonance is induced when a person holds two contradictory beliefs, or when a belief is incongruent with an action that the person has chosen freely to perform.
Cognitive dissonance is on full display today in the financial markets.
The U.S. economy has been supported for seven years by a zero interest rate policy, record fiscal deficits and unprecedented surges in the money supply. Despite all of the stimuli, the economy is slogging along well below trend. The actions taken by the Federal Reserve, federal government and governments around the world are unprecedented. In a normally functioning economy such actions would generate massive growth and inflation. Since growth has been tepid and inflation benign, there is obviously something amiss.
Corporate earnings and thus stock prices are driven by the economy. Despite the state of the economy and economic concerns we harbor, investors are investing hand over fist in assets whose valuations are predicated on strong economic growth in the future. As a result, most major U.S. stock indices are currently at or near all-time highs. A sizeable percentage of the gains are a result of an expansion in the price/earnings multiple. In other words investors are willing to pay more today, than they did yesterday, for the same amount of historic earnings and or forecasted earnings. The graph below shows five popular gauges of valuation, including those used by the Federal Reserve and investing icon Warren Buffett. The colored circles show where the S&P 500 would be if investors valued earnings today as they did historically. Based on these five measures the S&P 500 is adding a 20% to 50% premium over what decades of history suggests is fair. These readings range from the 80th percentile to the 100th percentile in each case. Not unlike the rhetoric of the late 1990’s or mid-2000’s, there is no shortage of rationalizations for why such extraordinary valuations are reasonable and justifiable. Yet the fact remains firmly in place, stocks are expensive.

The all-important link between stock prices, economic and productivity growth, and true corporate earnings potential are being ignored. Stock prices and many other investment asset prices are indirectly supported by the actions and opinions of the central banks. Investors have become dangerously comfortable with this dubious arrangement despite the enormous market disequilibrium it is causing. History reminds us time and again that a state of disequilibrium is highly unstable and will ultimately revert back to equilibrium – often violently so.
Are investors ignoring economic warning signs that, at a minimum, should be causing trepidation? If so, then why are investors chasing stocks and other assets that are priced for something that seems unfeasible? One answer is certainly, in some part, attributed to the lack of safe alternatives offering reasonable yields. We argue there is more to consider. Investors are once again focused on the promise of an on-going rally in equities and other risky assets and a fear of being contrarian, while seemingly ignoring the facts. Cognitive dissonance has got the best of them.
Humans are not wired to take the road less traveled. They continually look for the safety and security that is provided by being a member of a larger group. Being part of the consensus crowd doesn’t mitigate the risk of loss or prevent failure, but it does go a long way to easing the mind and the wrath of clients, in the event of failure. Human beings tend to believe mistakes are valid if so many others make the same mistake. This herd mentality overrides rationality and common sense and changes the motives behind our decision making process. As investors demonstrate this phenomena, they end up harboring a greater concern of acting differently and lose focus of the risks they bear. The predominant difference on this occasion as compared with the two previous market bubbles (2000/2008) is the Federal Reserve’s role as an agent encouraging such reckless group-think.
This conflict, or cognitive dissonance, can be our nemesis when making investment decisions. As “rational” investors we need to overcome this handicap, even if it is easier said than done. Thoroughbred race horses occasionally wear blinkers so their focus is on the track in front of them and not on the horses around them. Our simple advice; wear blinkers. As difficult as it is, make intentional efforts to ignore the commonly uninformed chatter of friends and colleagues and the self-serving guidance offered by Wall Street economists and the media. Do your own homework and make sure your clients understand the value of your independent analysis.
Value investing, when done objectively, offers a strategy for investors to ignore the herd. The best in class understand that wealth is preserved by avoiding losses. They are not beholden to trends or momentum, nor are they distracted or obsessed by others investments. They simply have the courage to divest of or shun assets priced above fair value in the midst of euphoria. Although it seldom attracts the praises of the crowd, great investors who follow this simple courageous strategy do so with confidence in a favorable outcome.
“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”
      -  George S. Patton Jr.