, GOLD SILVER LIBERTY

Sunday, September 22, 2019

Free Money for Everyone Won’t Solve Our Problems


The world economy is turning toward a depressingly familiar cycle of lower rates, renewed quantitative easing and more fiscal stimulus. The return to a persistent semi-slump in advanced economies is likely to increase interest in universal basic income, or UBI – an idea supported by Democratic presidential contender Andrew Yang and business figures from Facebook Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg to Tesla Inc.’s Elon Musk. If adopted, this radical prescription is unlikely to prove a magic bullet.

Advocates argue that guaranteeing every individual a flat-rate payment irrespective of circumstances will help to address the poverty traps inherent in traditional welfare systems, the declining share of income going to labor, and increasing threats to employment from automation. Yang, a tech entrepreneur and an outsider for the Democratic nomination, proposes giving $1,000 a month in cash to every American and has made the plan a key talking point in candidate debates.

The concept isn’t new. It was first suggested by Sir Thomas More in his 16th century work “Utopia,” and was championed by free-market economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in the 20th century. In a national referendum in 2016, Switzerland rejected a proposal to establish a universal basic income.

The case for UBI is that it can increase the efficiency of welfare systems by minimizing bureaucracy, the administrative costs of delivery, and drainage of resources through political exploitation or benefit fraud. Trials in Finland, Canada and India have been inconclusive, showing psychological improvements among recipients but limited success in achieving economic or social objectives.

Critics point to the financial constraints of funding such programs. In the U.S., $1,000 per month per person would equate to a total cost of around $4 trillion per year, approximately the size of the 2018 federal budget. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that income tax would have to increase by almost 30% to fund a modest UBI.

The key to the proposal’s renewed political appeal is how it could neutralize rising criticism of QE, which has disproportionately benefited the wealthy by driving up the prices of financial assets. UBI funded by new rounds of central bank purchases of government bonds – branded as “QE for the people” – may be a more palatable way to return to monetary stimulus.

UBI would allow for the introduction by stealth of “helicopter money,” a controversial proposal for central banks to print money and distribute it to consumers to boost growth and inflation. The idea covers a wide range of policies including the permanent monetization of budget deficits and direct transfers to households financed with base money.

Friedman outlined the concept in his 1969 parable of dropping money from a helicopter. If everyone is convinced that this is a unique, non-repeatable event, then it is assumed they will spend the money, increasing economic activity. The concept generated revived interest in recent years as a means of preventing deflation.

There’s a telling link between universal basic income and modern monetary theory, an unconventional economic approach that’s been gaining ground with politicians. MMT, loosely, argues that a state cannot go bankrupt, where it can print its currency – a version of the argument that deficits don’t matter. Under MMT, governments should borrow and spend when demand is inadequate to move the economy to full employment. It provides theoretical cover for governments to issue debt to central banks in greater amounts than hitherto contemplated. This can then finance spending programs – such as a universal basic income – to maintain economic activity.

Whether a guaranteed minimum income can produce economic recovery is questionable, though. It’s a repackaging of existing approaches that have had limited effectiveness. There’s little new in central banks financing governments via QE or fiscal stimulus, including welfare spending. It doesn’t address key structural issues such as excessive debt, imbalances, wage levels and demographics. Adoption of such an approach would also mean the economy becomes dependent on government intervention to sustain activity...

- Source, Yahoo Finance

Saturday, September 21, 2019

Recipe for Higher Gold Prices: Cutting Rates and Rising Oil


Just as expected they would, the Federal Reserve, led by Chairman Powell cut interest rates for the second time since July of this year, signalling that they believe the markets as a whole remain unstable and the future unpredictable.

Cutting interest rates by another quarter point, the Federal Reserve has once again thrown a bone to the markets, even if it was much smaller than what Wall St would of wanted.

However, this was once again not a unanimous vote within the Fed, with many board members expressing their concerns and venting their displeasures with the current direction that the Federal Reserve is heading.

As reported by Zerohedge;

"The Fed has never been more divided: 7-3 vote to cut; Esther L. George and Eric S. Rosengren voted to keep rates unchanged; Bullard voted for a 50bps rate cut (guaranteeing him the job over Kashkari when Trump fires Powell); 7 FOMC members predicted another cut this year, while 10 say hold or raise."

This dissension within the ranks did not stop Fed Chairman Powell from pushing forward, however, as it appears that he is attempting to meet both his board members and the markets in the middle by offering a minor cut in rates, but not the deep slash that some wanted.

Following these cuts, Mr. Powell stated the following;

“There may come a time when the economy weakens and we would then have to cut more aggressively,” he continued. “We don’t know. We’re going to be watching things carefully, the incoming data and the evolving situation.”It is incredibly likely that this move is going to be mirrored by other countries around the world, such as Canada, as the currency wars continue to unfold and participants partake in the merry go round of ever lower rates.

As it stands today, the Fed’s policy interest rate is now set in a 1.75 to 2 percent range, with Powell stating that he sees no further cuts this year, unless markets significantly worsen.

Immediately following this news, markets across the globe fell, however, it was short lived as they quickly bounced back and recovered.

Venting his frustration with the Federal Reserve, yet again, President Trump, as always, took to Twitter;

"Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again. No “guts,” no sense, no vision! A terrible communicator!"

President Trump would like to see interest rates cut to zero, or even enter into the negative territory, such as the European Central Bank has done, believing that this would make the United States that much more competitive on the global markets. Savers and the currency be damned.

Despite the Fed's jawboning and stating that no more rate cuts are coming in the near future, I believe that there is a high probability that they will once again capitulate to the demands of the markets and lower rates once again. 

I am not alone in this assessment, as many market analysts believe that more rate cuts are coming in the near future, with the odds strongly indicating another rate cut by December 2019.

This is especially likely if the price of oil continues to tick higher in the coming months, due to the recent hostilities in Saudia Arabia, which resulted in an attack on their oil infrastructure from an unmanned drone.

This caused the price of Brent crude to spike by a stunning $12 per barrel, as 5% of the worlds total oil supply was shut off overnight, highlighting how fragile and interconnected our modern global economy is.

Fortunately, it appears that for now cooler heads are prevailing, which has caused oil to stabilize slightly lower, although still higher than the pre-attack levels.

Once again $100 per barrel oil is a very real and scary possibility.

Anything could change overnight, tensions could once again flare and Federal Reserve Chairman Powell would be forced to change course and direction, slashing rates even lower to help stave off a recession caused by runaway energy prices and inflation.

If this happens, gold and silver are going to spike higher, much higher, as they have been historically closely tied to rising oil prices, also known as "black gold".

In addition to this, if the Fed lowers rates in response to rising oil prices, we are going to have a "double whammy" effect, pushing precious metals to even higher levels, possibly even testing old highs.

For now, sit tight and prepare accordingly, as we truly do live in scary, yet interesting times.


- Source, as first seen on the Sprott Money Blog

Friday, September 20, 2019

Lior Gantz: Investors Are Really Scared, Here's Why


Today's guest, Lior Gantz, shares his thoughts on the problems with negative yielding debt and how institutional money is getting scared like in 2008. 

During our discussion, he shares his thoughts on how to navigate the financial markets and how important, precious metals will be in the future.

- Source, Silver Doctors

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Economic Busts Can Happen in a Free Market, But Central Banks Make Things Much Worse


Given the nature of the modern global economic system, it is only natural to focus on the role of government-created money and central banks when discussing recessions and the ever-expanding credit structure. However, it is important to remember that theoretically, booms and busts and other downturns are not impossible in a truly free market system. Although, the length, scale, and scope of such downturns are greatly expanded under a system of fiat credit expansion.

I’ll explain the mechanisms and effects of free market versions of various downturns and why they’ll still exist even in absence of credit expansion. In addition, I’ll explain how these events are muted in relation to similar events under the modern central banking structure.

Local, Non-System-Wide Busts

Imagine for a moment you’re living in a town that is a major lumber producer. Your town is a trade hub for logs for ship building and you also have a substantial manufacturing base creating high quality home furnishings. However, as ship building began moving toward aluminum and steel and people lost interest in wooden furniture, the town began to suffer. Since capital and labor can’t be instantly retooled, the town eventually went through hard times where, even with broad national economic prosperity, the area lagged in poverty and unemployment significantly.

This above scenario is not a hypothetical but what is happened in a place called Lumberton, N.C. The town and surrounding county was once a major hub for lumber for the marine industry and home of a number of furniture manufacturers. However, as the ship industry transitioned away from wood construction and people began to prefer IKEA over hand-built wooden furniture, the town’s fortunes declined. The city and surrounding county went into a lengthy period of depression where it experienced significantly higher unemployment rates than national averages and has experienced a population drop over the past decade. The town’s fortunes have since improved as the area has rebranded itself as a favored location for retirement, but it still, to this day, lags behind the nation.

The above scenario is a classic free market driven depression. But note that is is localized and limited. Towns and cities that have built up an economy around a narrow business sector are at high risk of such busts, which many may also call recessions and depressions. Capital deterioration and obsolescence eventually causes the businesses of an area to become less competitive over time when compared to businesses elsewhere.

Over time, busts of this sort can resolve themselves as entrepreneurs purchase the distressed assets at a discount and retool or rebuild in anticipation of future demand. However, this isn’t always the case. If an area is too specialized, such as the well-preserved ghost town of Saint Elmo, Colorado has proven, people will abandon the area if the geography is no longer conducive to habitation.

What Austrian-school economics identifies here, however, is that the above downturns tend to be amplified and exacerbated by government attempts to help. Stimulus efforts tend to be counter-productive since governments naturally attempt to prop up existing businesses and existing sectors. What this inevitably does is choke off the entrepreneur from the necessary land, labor and capital to form a more valuable business is tied up in a government-subsidized Zombie Company. It’s in the attempt to avoid the inevitable recession where the problem is lengthened.

Additionally, such a scenario is possible only if there’s a single dominant company or industry within a region. This is a common issue with small towns, but a diverse economy shouldn’t ever experience a large-scale disruption. A nation like Uzbekistan is at high risk of a free market recession since its economic output is dominated by gold mining, but a country like the United States, Japan or even Mexico should be entirely immune to this since no one sector has any economic dominance. Large scale recessions are evidence of public sector impositions on the economy, be it regulatory burdens or subsidies tying up resources in zombies.

Further, towns that have become unviable places to live, such as natural resource depletion, are exacerbated by government interference as residents that would otherwise have emigrated elsewhere, like the above Saint Elmo, are now given welfare subsidies that alter the calculation and convince people to stay. A good example of this welfare driven depression is in Issaquena County, Mississippi, which was once a river port until freight rail made the location obsolete and is now counting on welfare transfers as a major source of economic activity when they otherwise would have left seeking opportunity elsewhere.
Free Market Booms

A common misconception is that a boom must always be sparked by credit expansion. However, this is not quite the case. While unstable credit expansion is the most common form to spark a boom, a boom can be nothing more than investors confusing rising prices with sustained rising demand. Booms have been caused by an increase in a commodity-based money, such as in 17th century Spain with a large influx of gold from the Americas, to booms sparked by unstable fads.

For a fun example of a localized boom-bust, I turn to a fad in the early 1990s, POGs. At the time, I was a middle school student. A few entrepreneurial kids began marketing up the various images as rare or common and a brisk market took off. More of my peers began saving up their allowance money to buy up bags of the things to try and sell to classmates to take advantage of the growing fad. Soon, the lunch period generated a rather brisk trade.

However, since everyone wanted in on the profits, everyone started buying bags of these cardboard disks. Everyone became a seller and no one was interested in being the buyer. Predictably, the market cratered. A few kids tried to unload entire bagfuls of these things for a few Dollars and big losses but were eventually stuck with a product they didn’t want.

This POG craze was a classic Minsky Cycle. Yet, at no point in this was credit ever involved. No bank would hand a 12 year old kid a loan to buy bags of cardboard chips on expectation of turning them for a profit. This was a boom-bust financed purely by savings in a fairly strong example of a free market.

Where the fiat credit system causes problems, however, is it allows the boom to become significantly larger than it otherwise would have been. At the turn of the 21st century, housing was treated very much the same way as my middle school peers treated POGs. Buy with the expectation to flip to someone else for a profit in a short timeframe.

In a healthy, free market credit system, the boom would be muted since interest rates would increase as demand for funds to buy housing depleted the savings base. However, with a central bank in play, interest rates were continually suppressed artificially and new money and credit was created out of thin air, fueling the price increase. The longer the boom continued, the more it convinced less risk-averse investors to try their hand at flipping. Interest rate suppression continued to fuel ever increasing housing prices, pulling more and more people into the bubble, leading to a collapse more spectacular than a few middle school kids blowing a few weeks of allowance money. Had interest rates increased as demand for mortgages increased, people would have balked at 12% loans, causing the bubble to burst much earlier.

Of course, instead of learning our lesson, the government has gone right back to manipulating the housing market and prices are higher now than they were at the 2006 bubble peak.
Government Makes the Problem Worse

As noted above, a boom and bust is not necessarily a result of government intervention. However, what we now commonly regard as recessions and depressions are almost always tied to government-caused credit expansion, and government intervention tends to make booms and busts significantly worse than they otherwise would have been. Government involvement can turn a recession, like the one that quickly resolved itself and was forgotten in 1920, to a full-on Great Depression, which didn’t truly resolve itself until after the Second World War.

Economies have ups and downs independent of government-caused business cycles. What is in demand today and how we build things today is not going to be the same in the future and this will inevitably lead to a decline as an economy changes its capital structure. People and plants can’t be retrained and converted to satisfy the newest demand instantly. In a free market, the impact tends to be muted, especially in a region with significant economic diversity, but not all economic fluctuations are tied to the now all-to-familiar business cycles the follow central-bank money creation.

- Source, Mises.org

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Mises: More Money Pumping Won't Make Us Richer


Whenever a central bank introduces easy monetary policy, as a rule this leads to an economic boom — or economic prosperity. At least this is what most commentators hold. If this is however the case then it means that an easy monetary policy can grow an economy.

But loose monetary policies do not generate economic growth. These policies set in motion the diversion of real savings from wealth generators to the holders of the newly pumped money. Real savings, rather than supporting individuals that specialize in the enhancement and expansion of the infrastructure are consumed by various individuals that are employed in non-wealth generating activities.

Moreover, not all consumption is a good thing. The consumption of real savings by individuals engaged in the enhancements and the expansion of the infrastructure is productive consumption. Conversely, the consumption of real savings by individuals that are employed in non-wealth generating activities is non-productive consumption.

It is non-productive consumption that sets the foundation for the weakening of the existing infrastructure thereby weakening future economic growth. In contrast, productive consumption sets the foundation for a better infrastructure, which permits stronger future economic growth. Needless to say, productive consumption leads to the increase in individuals living standards while non-productive consumption results in the lowering of living standards.

Why then is loose monetary policy seen as a major contributor towards economic growth?

Given that economic growth is assessed by means of the gross domestic product (GDP) framework — which is nothing more than a monetary turnover — obviously then when the central bank embarks on monetary pumping (i.e., loose monetary policy) it strengthens the monetary turnover in the economy and thus GDP.

After deflating the monetary turnover by a dubious price deflator one obtains the so-called real GDP. By means of real GDP, economists and various other experts are supposedly in a position to ascertain the state of economic growth, or so it is held. (Note that the increase in the monetary turnover because of the increase in the money supply is regarded as reflecting economic growth). In such a framework, it is not surprising that central bank policies are an important factor in setting in motion an economic boom.

From this, economists and various other experts conclude that the central bank by being able to grow the economy can also make sure that the economy follows the correct growth path. (The growth path as outlined by policy makers of the central bank).

Whenever the economy deviates from the path outlined by central bank policy makers and the government, this will allow them the opportunity to intervene by either raising or slowing the pace of monetary pumping.

The economy in this way of thinking is depicted as a helpless creature that must be guided by the all-knowing bureaucrats all the time. The passivity of the creature called the economy is also reflected by the fact that the output generated must be distributed by the all-knowing bureaucrats. In fact, one gets the impression that bureaucrats supervise the entire production process and individuals are just submissive entities that have hardly anything to say here.

If loose monetary policies of the central bank are able to generate through the GDP statistic so-called economic growth, then this must mean that a tighter monetary stance sets an economic bust.

"Economic bust" is here associated with the liquidation of various non wealth-generating activities. That is, the economic bust results in the curtailment of non-productive consumption.

Note that an important vehicle in setting the boom-bust cycle is the existence of the fractional reserve banking, which through the expansion of money out of thin air sets an economic boom while through the contraction of money out of thin air sets an economic bust.

Observe that in fractional reserve banking an expansion of money out of thin air emerges because of the ownerless lending. Consequently, when banks curtail the ownerless lending this leads to the contraction of money out of thin air...

- Source, Mises.org

Monday, September 16, 2019

What a Gold Shock Could Look Like: Institutional Investors Start Buying


I once asked my institutional investor friend, who used to work at Goldman Sachs and has been a gold owner for many years, what would make him buy more bullion. Without hesitation, he said, “When the price breaks out.”

Well, as is clear to the world, gold has broken out of its long-term trading range.

My friend is not alone in this sentiment of waiting to buy an investment until it’s rising. Institutional advisors, brokers and managers sit on the sidelines until a dormant asset class comes alive and establishes an uptrend—then they jump in.

With the recent uptrend in the gold price, it’s time to look at what kind of cash could come into the gold market from these types of investors. Institutions will want exposure. Not just because financial and market risks are higher, but because gold can net them a profit...

- Source, Gold Silver

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Mario Draghi Accelerates Quantitative Easing on His Way Out the Door


Let the good times roll, well, at least for a little bit longer.

Mario Draghi, whose term as President of the European Central Bank comes to an end on October 31st, a position he has held since 2011, made one final, desperate move to secure his legacy as he exits his seat of power.

In a bold announcement, Mr. Draghi took to the airwaves, indicating that the European Central Bank would slash deposit rates to minus 0.5% from minus 0.4%. 

While at the same time, Mr. Draghi stated that he is renewing the ECB's bond repurchase program, indicating that the ECB would buy an additional $22 billion USD of bonds per month, starting on Nov. 1st.

What is even more insane, is the fact that he stated that the ECB would be pursuing this repurchase program indefinitely, until their inflation goals are met. A goal that can easily be adjusted at a later date.

Clearly, Mr. Draghi is once again entering into the currency wars fray, whole heartedly.

This is all par for the course for Mr. Draghi, as he has been a strong prominent of Quantitative Easing throughout the course of his entirety as President of the European Central Bank, printing his way out of crisis after crisis, including the near collapse of Greece years ago.

This move is being looked at by some, as way for Mr. Draghi to protect his legacy and end on a strong note for years to come, as many fear a recession looms just over the horizon, a recession that could tarnish all of the "hard" work he has done to keep the European Union economy artificially inflated during his tenure.

While announcing this next tidal wave of Quanitiative Easing, Draghi revealed that these decisions were not even put to vote, stating the following;

“There was more diversity of views on APP. But then, in the end, a consensus was so broad there was no need to take a vote. So the decision in the end showed a very broad consensus. As I said, there was no need to take a vote. There was such a clear majority.”

These statements were soon to be revealed to be a farce, as many key players within the ECB stepped forward, indicating their displeasure with President Draghi's latest moves.

Bloomberg reports on the "revolt" within the ECB;

"The unprecedented revolt took place during a fractious meeting where Bank of France Governor Francois Villeroy de Galhau joined more traditional hawks, including his Dutch colleague Klaas Knot and Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann in pressing against an immediate resumption of bond purchases, the people said. They spoke on condition of anonymity, because such discussions are confidential."

These three dissenters alone, represent almost half of the euro region's economic output and population, however, it was revealed that even more were displeased, including colleagues from Austria and Estonia.

This exit move by Mr. Draghi is going to create a massive headache for his replacement Christine Lagarde, who is set to take over his position come this November and place her an awkward position, from the moment she takes office.

Will she appease the dissenters and curtail these moves, will she risk angering the markets? Unlikely.

Seeing this for the move in the currency wars that it is, President Trump, who has been pressuring the Federal Reserves to act quicker and lower rates in a similar fashion, took to Twitter, targeting the Fed once again;

"European Central Bank, acting quickly, Cuts Rates 10 Basis Points. They are trying, and succeeding, in depreciating the Euro against the VERY strong Dollar, hurting U.S. exports.... And the Fed sits, and sits, and sits. They get paid to borrow money, while we are paying interest!"

Of course, the ECB denies that it is attempting to manipulate anything and is only trying to stave off the growing possibility of a recession, of which the odds grow with each passing day.

The currency wars continue on, the manipulation continues on and the printing presses keep on printing. 

Ultimately, this is good for gold, silver and precious metals as a whole, but bad for the health of the economy in the long run.

Prepare accordingly, keep stacking.

- As first seen on the Sprott Money Blog

Friday, September 13, 2019

Bill Holter: The Whole Thing is Going to End in a Panic


Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter says a failure to deliver is not a maybe but a sure thing. 

Holter says, “Whether it is this year or the first few months of next year, it doesn’t matter. It is going to happen. 

I can basically guarantee there is going to be a failure to deliver, and that failure to deliver is going to unmask and scare the crap out of the entire fractional reserve banking system and the fractional reserve commodity system. 

The whole thing is going to come down in a panic because somebody gets a failure to deliver. If you listen to what Trump is saying, he wants a lower dollar. 

How much of a lower dollar does he want? He’s talking about debasing the currency to make the debt payable.

That is the most palatable way for any government to pay debt and that is to debase the currency and pay it off in monkey money.”

- Source, USA Watchdog

Thursday, September 12, 2019

John Williams: The FED Will Get Blamed if the Economy Tanks


Economist John Williams says the Fed is still not in President Trump’s corner when it comes to the economy. 

Williams contends, “The Fed was working against him (President Trump) on the economy, and they still are. 

Their primary concern is the banking system, and that certainly has to be supported, but when you have a weak economy, and this was fueled by the tightening of the Fed, I don’t think Trump is going to get blamed for that. 

It’s going to go against the Fed, and I don’t think it is going to hurt him that much in the upcoming election.

- Source, USA Watchdog

Saturday, September 7, 2019

Markets Soar Higher, The Trade Wars Are Over?

Treasury yields are up, stocks are up and everything is peaches and cream once again. The trade wars are apparently over? All geopolitical risks have dissipated over night?

Of course not.

The market is reacting to positive news coming out from both China and the United States, that is indicating that both sides are willing to resume talks next month and are once again willing to return to the negotiating table in regards to the ongoing trade wars.

Leading up to next month's talks, high level officials on both sides are expected to lay out the ground work via various meetings and phone calls, in anticipation of the October meeting.

As reported by the New York Times;

Liu He, a top Chinese economic official and Beijing’s top trade negotiator, will travel to Washington in early October, state media said. Mr. Liu spoke on Thursday morning with Robert E. Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, and Steven Mnuchin, the United States Treasury secretary. Mr. Lighthizer’s office said that deputy-level meetings would take place ahead of the talks.

Of course, this has caused the markets to react in a bullish manner, with the S&P shooting up by over 40 points at the time of writing, or 1.37%, while the DOW Jones, not to be outdone, propelled higher by 1.69%, or 444 points.

Meanwhile, both gold and silver were hammered lower by the news, taking significant hits.


(Gold Price, Chart Source)


(Silver Price, Chart Source)

Gold is currently down by $30.72 per ounce, while silver has fallen by $0.29 cents per ounce.

The market is signalling that the threat of a continued trade war is greatly diminished and the need for protection is lessened, however, one day's worth of trading does not make a trend and the trend is still quite positive for precious metals.

Gold still remains strongly above the $1500 support level, while silver stubbornly remains above $18 per ounce.

Unfortunately for the markets as a whole, I believe that this is nothing more than jawboning from both sides, as it is incredibly unlikely at this point that either side will make any major concessions in next month's meeting.

China cannot afford to back down and neither can President Trump with the 2020 elections just over the horizons. Neither side can give off the appearance of weakness, regardless of the damage that it does to their own economies.

However, both sides would love nothing more than some reprieve in the short term from the pain their economies have been feeling as of recently and both sides do not wish to head into the holidays with people and businesses fearing the worse, clutching their wallets tightly.

Spending is paramount in this consumer driven world and both countries GDP's depend upon it, with one side predominately selling the numerous, largely useless, trinkets and the other buying them.

Already the United States has imposed massive tariffs on Chinese goods entering into the country and plans on enacting even more before next months meeting, antagonizing Chinese officials even more.

China of course has retaliated as well, however, they are taking the brunt of the damage, as they rely so heavily on exporting goods to the United States.

It is already expected that China's GDP is going to be 1.6% lower throughout the course of 2019 as a result of the ongoing trade wars, which is a massive move lower.

The IMF has also revised world growth, lower as a whole, as a result of these ongoing trade disputes.

South China Post reports;

"Higher tariffs and rising trade barriers will weigh heavily on the global economy, apart from the US and China, especially through its impact on confidence and financial conditions. According to model simulations, a full-blown trade war would cause the global economy to slow by more than 0.8 per cent in 2020, with growth remaining roughly 0.4 per cent lower in the long term, compared with a baseline without trade tensions."

Who knows what next month will bring, who knows if a resolution is in order? Anything is possible, however, I wouldn't hold your breath.

I believe that neither side is yet willing to buckle under the pressure, I believe that things are going to get worse before they get better and I believe that the trade wars will continue on, for many months yet to come.

The risk remains, the need for precious metals remains. Keep stacking and ignore the noise.

- As first seen on the Sprott Money Blog

Thursday, September 5, 2019

A Massive Job Crisis is Coming, This is Why


Art Bilger sees a jobs crisis on the horizon. Over the course of a career that took him from Drexel Burnham Lambert, to private equity behemoth Apollo, to Akamai Technologies, he met some of the most brilliant people in the worlds of finance, media and technology. 

In this interview with Alex Rosenberg, Bilger shares some incredible stories from his career, and explains how the lessons he learned have led him to advocate for a new way of thinking about employment.

- Source, Real Vision

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Trump is Right, China Will be in the Dark Ages Without the United States


The U.S. doesn’t need China and American companies can take their manufacturing elsewhere, this according to Todd Horwitz, chief strategist at Bubba Trading.

“We do not need China, we can exist without China. They will have big trouble existing without us. They will go back into the dark ages,” Horwitz told Kitco News.

- Source, Kitco News

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

The Fall Of Empires & The Shocking Similarities Exposed


Josh Sigurdson reports on the ground in Rome, Italy on the shocking similarities between the fall of the Roman Empire and the current signs of the fall of the US empire as pressure builds in the cultural, political and monetary complexes that comprise the powerhouse we know as the global US empire. 

The United States much like Rome started off as a republic after kings and queens were thrown out of power. The Republic grew slowly but surely into an empire without people even acknowledging the slow incremental frog boil. 

Before people knew it, inflation had skyrocketed, laws piled sky high and the small republic morphed into a global empire under the guise of "voting power." In this short film, we break down countless similarities between the empire and why we need to be extremely cautious as we enter into a new age of centralization, control and divide. 

Is a new person in a suit going to change the system? Or is the system the problem in the first place?

- Source, WAM