Ever since the Kennedy assassination, no president has dared to tangle with the national-security establishment at a fundamental level. Everyone in Washington knows where the real power of the federal government is centered. (See the excellent book National Security and Double Government by Michael Glennon.) Every president knows that he is expected to operate within the parameters set forth by the national-security establishment and every president since Kennedy has dutifully complied.
Once he assumes the presidency, Donald Trump might be the first president since Kennedy to violate that sacred rule of the national-security establishment. If he does and if he refuses to do what previous presidents have done, it will be interesting to see the outcome. As Sen. Schumer has pointed out, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have “six ways from Sunday” by which to retaliate.
In other words, in the interventionist economy, policy discussions come down to one group or another substituting their personal preferences for the work of the marketplace, and we’re left with a market that is so distorted through interventionism that any change in policy simply tinkers with who the winners are and who the losers are.
In the present debate on Obamacare, all possible alternatives are simply a move from one interventionist economy to another, and this only distracts us from the real alternative: a radical rolling back of the state.
Once we consider this, we have to ask ourselves if it is really the case that Obamacare should be our focus, or do other regulations (patent law, licensing of the medical profession, the existence of the FDA) constitute greater intervention in the production of health care? Shouldn’t our efforts to rid America of intervention focus on what causes the most harm? Unfortunately, in our health-care economy, where markets have not been allowed to function for decades, it is often difficult to guess what reforms might really do us the most good.
If the groundhog can tell us the length of winter by simply appreciating his own shadow, China’s central bank can perform something of a similar exercise and interpretation about the global eurodollar condition. The panic response of the PBOC is to immediately peg its currency, CNY, whenever a global monetary storm of sufficient fury arrives. Thus, if the PBOC sees the “dollar”, it pegs CNY.
That was the case starting in mid-2008, where after relenting under global political pressure just a few years before CNY was suddenly arrested from its rise against the dollar and left to form a nearly straight line sideways for just about two years. This was during some of the worst global financial conditions in generations, a sufficient monetary storm so as to induce a global Great “Recession.”
How did a candidate who repeatedly demonized Goldman Sachs as the poster child for a corrupt establishment that owned Washington end up with Goldman Sachs’ progeny filling every post that even tangentially has the odor of money or global finance? One answer is family ties; another may be something darker.
IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.
Since Nixon severed the final link to gold in 1971, the US dollar has lost more than 80% of its purchasing power, wreaking havoc on ordinary savers, conservative investors, and households on fixed incomes. Today, inflationary monetary policy continues to be a foundational tenet of all presidential administrations as politicians and central bankers have heedlessly been borrowing and printing currency without restraint in order to bankroll today’s bloated and insolvent federal government.
One of the nicer side effects of the 2016 election has been the trashing of the reputations of US intelligence agencies, specifically the FBI and the CIA. During the election, of course, it became apparent that there was some sort of tug-of-war within the FBI which led James Comey to first declare that no "reasonable" prosecutor would ever go after Hillary Clinton. Then, as election day approached, Comey came back and, contrary to the usual protocol, waged a PR war against Clinton, implying that this time, new evidence suggests she is, in fact a crook. Naturally, the Democratic party has declared the FBI to be corrupt and has even accused FBI direct James Comey of covering up Russian crimes.
The factors that form our history are primarily connected to the laws of nature and whether or not we as humans obey these laws, or try to circumvent them. Unfortunately the results of our ignoring these laws don’t always show up immediately or clearly. Often there is a gap of several decades between the breaking of nature’s laws and the punishment that is dispensed for doing so. This is where a “sense of history” comes in. For example, does a man see today’s economic crisis as stemming from Barack Obama and his treasonous Marxism, or does he see it as originating in the excesses of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton? Or all three?
What is our “sense of history?” A very important question because today’s problems did not originate with the presidents we have elected over the past 25 years. Such a shallow interpretation is embarrassing to anyone with a big picture view of life, yet many pundits attempt to draw such a conclusion. On the contrary, our problems are far deeper than a couple of decades and the politics that comprised those decades. The problems we suffer from (a looming economic depression, cultural decadence, moral nihilism, and the screws of ever-tightening tyranny) have their origin, not in the mindless regimes of Obama, Bush and Clinton, but in the past century of philosophical, political and monetary corruption beginning with the revolution of 1913, which gave us a federal income tax to redistribute our wealth and a Federal Reserve to inflate our gold and silver money with fiat paper currency.
The ongoing battle between independent, alternative media and legacy corporate-government sponsored propaganda media is in full swing following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. While I’m no big fan of Trump, his win has so emotionally damaged the U.S. status quo they have begun to lash out in a hysterical and careless manner against those they feel prevented Her Highness, Hillary Clinton, from ascending to the throne.
The escalation of this fight, which I have referred to as “The Media Wars” since the summer, was easy to foresee. As I noted in the post, Questioning Hillary’s Health is Not Conspiracy Theory:
Lawyers representing traders who allege they were ripped off by a group of colluding global banks filed eye-popping evidence in a Manhattan Federal Court yesterday showing that even as global banks were being criminally probed for rigging currency markets, they continued to engage in rigging the silver market, with a UBS trader referring to the group as the “mafia.”
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has announced his plans to resign in the wake of the resounding defeat suffered on Sunday as exit polls revealed a No victory with a 20% margin. Right up to election day, as he was busy traveling around the country promising new new gifts to voters — the most recent of which involved an increase in state worker’s salaries by 85 euros - he was oddly being described as the “pro-market” candidate!
Meanwhile the media, including politicians, economists, and a broad range of commentators, have continuously depicted the vote as a vote of no return for democracy and government stability.
CNBC modestly described the referendum as “the most significant European political event of 2016. Yes even bigger than Brexit.” The Independent alerted its readers of the continuity between Trump’s election and a possible No vote; The Financial Times spoke about a high risk of a severe Banking and Euro Crisis on Monday morning.
But is it really like another Brexit or Trump? Is Italy’s referendum decisive to bring about the collapse of an already collapsing banking sector
The terms gaslight and gaslighting are entering the political media lexicon, with partisans of both parties accusing the other side's candidate of gaslighting in the presidential election. The terms refers to the 1944 film Gaslight in which Charles Boyer subtly manipulates the environment to cause Ingrid Bergman to question her memory and sanity.
Generally speaking, gaslighting has been used in the context of personal relationships to describe a manipulative person's attempts to undermine and control their romantic partner.
Today Donald Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States. American voters rejected the devil they know so well — Hillary Clinton — for the devil they don’t. Why they did so, and how Trump prevailed, is the biggest political story of our age. But the rejection of progressive hubris, what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of those who would presume to plan our lives, is at the heart of that story.
The Left views Trump’s election as an absolute calamity, despite his support for unions and protectionist trade policies, despite his identity as a New York elite rather than some despised red state politician, and despite his ambivalence toward the social issues that animate Christian conservatives. One would think Democrats would be relieved not to suffer an ideologue like Santorum or Cruz in the White House. Yet their hysteria and lack of self-awareness prompt them to attack the Electoral College, of all things.
It may seem strange that one of the primary forces behind the Bretton Woods arrangement was John Maynard Keynes. That is because what goes on in his name today is often nothing like what he proposed. This is not an endorsement of those ideas, only recognition and deep appreciation that during the worst consequences of the worst kinds of economic disruption there was largely one condition agreed upon – stable money. Many decades later, Keynes’ name is invoked largely to do exactly the opposite, which is why it may appear so odd that he created, along with Harry Dexter White, the last attempted stable monetary system operating on Earth.
It wasn’t wholly Keynes that made Bretton Woods, nor was the gold-exchange standard optimal, or even close to it. Perhaps it was the best that could have been realistically achieved given the circumstances. For Keynes, he preferred a single global currency, one tied to commodity prices rather than American discretion. He even gave it a name, Bancor, though it just never caught on largely because there was and probably could never be an agreement about just how to manage it (most of the debate at Bretton Woods was about exactly who would do what). Stable money requires no management, but that prospect terrified enough representatives at the conference so that Harry Dexter White’s compromise (the dollar, tied to gold, loosely administered in international terms by supranational organizations like the IMF) carried the votes.
As Goldman Sachs guys prepare to take the reins of power in Washington under the Trump administration, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided a tragic reminder on Monday regarding the power of the U.S. citizen versus their Wall Street overlords. The GAO released a study showing that as of October 31, 2016, the government “had disbursed $22.6 billion (60 percent) of the $37.51 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds” that were directed at helping distressed homeowners as a result of the 2008 Wall Street financial crash and the resulting housing bust.
Those paltry billions stand in stark contrast to the $7.8 trillion in near-zero interest loans that the Federal Reserve secretly funneled to just four Wall Street banks from 2007 to 2010. The Fed funneled $2.5 trillion to Citigroup; $2 trillion to Morgan Stanley; $1.9 trillion to Merrill Lynch; and $1.3 trillion to Bank of America. The total amount that the Fed secretly loaned to both U.S. and foreign banks came to $16.1 trillion. (See the chart below from the 2011 GAO report for the full list of bailed out banks.)
With a new year come new opportunities as well as new issues to take into consideration. Here are the five most important issues to keep an eye on in 2017.
1. Trump Presidency
The most important issue facing monetary policy, at least in the United States, will be the incoming Trump Administration. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is currently operating with two vacancies and has been for quite a while. With majorities in both the House and Senate, it is highly likely that President Trump will be able to successfully nominate two candidates to the Board. Depending on who he picks, that could put additional pressure on Chairman Janet Yellen to continue to raise the federal funds target rate throughout 2017.
It was announced yesterday that former New Jersey governor and one-time head of MF Global John Corzine won’t be allowed anywhere near clients in the futures business. Though a lifetime ban, the man is already 70 years old and the damage done. Perhaps there is some more comfort in the $5 million fine levied against him in addition to the banishment, as the CFTC went so far as to obtain a consent decree stipulating that he couldn’t use insurance proceeds to pay the penalty. This one is for once truly out-of-pocket.
Over the span of the last two weeks, President-elect Donald Trump’s U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee, Steven Mnuchin, has been the subject of multiple, scathing investigative reports by the media; earned a web site established by Senate Democrats dubbing him the “Foreclosure King” and soliciting complaints from the public; garnered a television ad campaign directed against him; and has been skewered by a devastating document leaked by someone currently or formerly connected to the California State Attorney General’s Office, indicating that the bank Mnuchin ran from 2009 to 2015, OneWest, repeatedly violated California foreclosure law, including backdating documents and making illegal bids, in order to throw thousands of vulnerable people out of their homes.
Amid all the hysteria surrounding Donald Trump, clear and sober analyses of who he is and what to expect have been few and far between.
I’ve already seen numerous progressives warning that Trump intends to eviscerate entitlements. It’s as if facts never enter the progressive consciousness. Their opponents are an undifferentiated blob and hold what progressives take to be generically right-wing positions.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence has no idea what the term “free market” means, or at least, that is what his most recent statement would suggest. Defending President-elect Trump’s $7 million deal with Carrier, Pence recently stated, “the free market has been sorting it out and America’s been losing.”
The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has already stated that Russia did not provide the Podesta emails. Over the weekend, the Guardian newspaper reported even stronger revelations from Craig Murray, a close associate to Assange. Murray said the CIA was “absolutely making it up.” Murray also stated: “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”
Murray also raised another common sense issue, arguing: “If what the CIA [is] saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
have spent the better part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the human “soul” (yes, I’m using a spiritual term).
My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the human element. That is to say, while economics is often treated as a mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology. To know the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.
Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss. I have touched on the issue in various articles in the past including Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood, but with extreme tensions taking shape this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community investigation of “Pizzagate,” I am compelled to examine it once again.
The best way to foresee Trump’s real direction once he becomes president is to evaluate the team he’s assembled. Typically, a leader selects people with a strong track record of working in the direction the leader intends to go. This article looks at the trifecta at the top of Trump’s team to see if they embody his promises and at how Trump, as a shrewd and creative manager, might be using those who don’t fit the image.
On December 2 President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team sent out a press release advising that he had formed a business advisory panel “which is composed of some of America’s most highly respected and successful business leaders, will be called upon to meet with the President frequently to share their specific experience and knowledge as the President implements his plan to bring back jobs and Make America Great Again.”
In fact, according to the Chair of the panel, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Chairman and CEO of Blackstone, a private equity/hedge fund/investment bank headquartered in New York City, it was Schwarzman who actually selected the members of the panel and Trump went with the full group he had selected. (See Schwarzman’s Bloomberg TV interview here.)
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s
Under the cover of battling “fake news,” the mainstream U.S. news media and officialdom are taking aim at journalistic skepticism when it is directed at the pronouncements of the U.S. government and its allies.
One might have hoped that the alarm about “fake news” would remind major U.S. news outlets, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, about the value of journalistic skepticism. However, instead, it seems to have done the opposite.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.