OceanOS's shared items
|
Wall Street has always been greedy – just like everyone else. Greed alone is not how the rich get richer...
|
While many pretend that liberals and conservatives are too far apart to work together, there are actually many issues on which everyone can agree.
For example, both liberals and conservatives hate the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big government and big corporations:
Conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in.
Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that they should be held accountable and reined in.
***
Conservatives hate big unfettered government and liberals hate big unchecked corporations, so both hate legislation which encourages the federal government to reward big corporations at the expense of small businesses.
Most Americans – whether they are conservative or liberal – are disgusted that virtually all of the politicians are bought and paid for. No wonder people of all stripes have lost all trust in our government.
And everyone hates government-enabled fraud. The big banks, of course, committed massive fraud. But the auditors, rating agencies and regulators also all committed fraud, which helped blow the bubble and sowed the seeds of the inevitable crash.
Moreover, while most Americans are in favor of free market capitalism, we don’t have capitalism at the moment. Instead, we have socialism, fascism or crony capitalism, where the government allows a handful to succeed by propping them up, covering up their fraud and handing them no-risk opportunities … but allows everyone else to struggle.
Both liberals and conservatives are angry that the feds are propping up the giant banks – while letting small banks fail by the hundreds – even though that is horrible for the economy and Main Street.
The Dodd-Frank financial legislation wasn’t a compromise where things landed somewhere in the middle between liberal and conservatives ideas. Instead, it enshrines big government propping up the big banks … more or less permanently.
Many liberals and conservatives look at the government’s approach to the financial crisis as socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for the little guy. No wonder both liberals and conservatives hate it.
And it’s not just the big banks. Americans are angry that the federal government under both Bush and Obama have handed giant defense contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton no-bid contracts. They are mad that – instead of cracking down on BP – the government has acted like BP’s p.r. spokesman-in-chief and sugar daddy.
They are peeved that companies like Monsanto are able to sell genetically modified foods without any disclosure, and that small farmers are getting sued when Monsanto crops drift onto their fields.
They are mad that Obama promised “change” – i.e. standing up to Wall Street and the other powers-that-be – but is just delivering more of the same.
They are furious that there is no separation between government and a handful of favored giant corporations. In other words, Americans are angry that we’ve gone from capitalism to oligarchy.
As I noted Sunday:
The corrupt, giant banks would never have gotten so big and powerful on their own. In a free market, the leaner banks with sounder business models would be growing, while the giants who made reckless speculative gambles would have gone bust. See this, this and this.
It is the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Congress who have repeatedly bailed out the big banks, ensured they make money at taxpayer expense, exempted them from standard accounting practices and the criminal and fraud laws which govern the little guy, encouraged insane amounts of leverage, and enabled the too big to fail banks – through “moral hazard” – to become even more reckless.
Indeed, the government made them big in the first place. As I noted in 2009:
As MIT economics professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson points out today, the official White House position is that:
(1) The government created the mega-giants, and they are not the product of free market competition
***
(3) Giant banks are good for the economy
And given that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are private – see this, this, this and this- the giant banks have a huge amount of influence on what the Fed does. Indeed, the money-center banks in New York control the New York Fed, the most powerful Fed bank. Indeed, Jamie Dimon – the head of JP Morgan Chase – is a Director of the New York Fed.
Any attempt by the left to say that the free market is all bad and the government is all good is naive and counter-productive.
And any attempt by the right to say that we should leave the giant banks alone because that’s the free market are wrong.
The [corrupt, captured government "regulators"] and the giant banks are part of a single malignant, symbiotic relationship.
US President Barack Obama has recently suggested that Europe must take on more debt to stimulate the economy. Such reliance on cheap money, though, is what got us into the current crisis in the first place -- both in Europe and in the US. America's problem isn't too little money. It's a lack of competitive products.
|
Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt Market
Is China Ready To Pull The Plug?
There are two mainstream market assumptions that, in my mind, prevail over all others. The continuing function of the Dow, the sustained flow of capital into and out of the banking sector, and the full force spending of the federal government are ALL entirely dependent on the lifespan of these dual illusions; one, that the U.S. Dollar is a legitimate safe haven investment and will remain so indefinitely, and two, that China, like many other developing nations, will continue to prop up the strength of the dollar indefinitely because it is “in their best interest”. In the dimly lit bowels of Wall Street such ideas are so entrenched and pervasive, to question their validity is almost sacrilegious. Only after the recent S&P downgrade of America’s AAA credit rating did the impossible become thinkable to some MSM analysts, though a considerable portion of the day-trading herd continue to roll onward, while the time bomb strapped to the ass end of their financial house is ticking away.
The debate over the health and longevity of the dollar comes down to one very simple and undeniable root pillar of economics; supply and demand. The supply of dollars throughout the financial systems of numerous countries is undoubtedly overwhelming. In fact, the private Federal Reserve has been quite careful in maintaining a veil of secrecy over the full extent of dollar saturation in foreign markets in order to hide the sheer volume of greenback devaluation and inflation they have created. If for some reason the reserves of dollars held overseas by investors and creditors were to come flooding back into the U.S., we would see a hyperinflationary spiral more destructive than any in recorded history. As the supply of dollars around the globe increases exponentially, so too must foreign demand, otherwise, the debt machine short-circuits, and newly impoverished Americans will be using Ben Franklins for sod in their adobe huts. As I will show, demand for dollars is not increasing to match supply, but is indeed stalled, ready to crumble.
China, being the second largest holder of U.S. debt next to the Fed, and the number one holder of dollars within their forex reserves, has always been the key to gauging the progression of the global economic collapse now in progress. If you want to know what’s going to happen tomorrow, watch what China does today.
Back in 2005, China began a low profile program to issue government debt denominated in the Yuan, called Yuan bonds, or “Panda Bonds”. This move was almost entirely ignored by establishment economists. They should have realized then that China was moving to strengthen the Yuan, expand its use in other markets, and recondition their economic structure away from export dependency and towards consumerism (as they have done with the establishment of the ASEAN trading bloc). Of course, in the MSM at that time, there was no derivatives bubble, no credit crisis, no debt implosion. America was on cloud nine. China, through inside knowledge, or perhaps a crystal ball, knew exactly what was about to happen, and insulated itself accordingly by generating distance between its system and the soon to derail retail based society of the U.S. This dynamic has not changed since the 2008 bubble burst, and Chinese activity is still the ultimate litmus test for economic volatility.
Today, there is widespread confusion in markets over the direction of America’s financial future. In the wake of the credit downgrade, most investors unaware of the bigger picture are desperately clinging to any and every piece of news no matter how trivial, every rumor from the Fed, and every announcement from the government no matter how empty. China’s economic news feeds have been tightly regulated and filtered, even more so than usual (which is cause for concern, in my opinion), while distractions in Europe abound. Let’s take a step by step journey through these issues, and see if we can’t produce some clarity…
U.S. versus EU: A Game Of Hot Potato…To The Death?
The theatrical seesaw between the U.S. and Europe is not only becoming obvious to the most narrow of economic analysts, it is also becoming kind of boring. The entire ordeal has been subversively exploited as a false example of systemic “contagion”, and with purpose; global banks need to convince average Americans and average Europeans that destabilization in one portion of the world will automatically lead to destabilization everywhere. This concept is true only so far as forced globalization and centralization have made it true. That said, the charade has been somewhat effective in conditioning the populace with ideas of collectivist survival. In other words, we are being trained to take fiscal responsibility for countries outside of our sovereign national boundaries as if we are morally tied to every penny they have or do not have (global socialism/feudalism - here we come!). This process is culminating in worldwide harmonization through fear as well as guilt.
What we are witnessing is NOT contagion. Instead, we are seeing multiple and mostly separate collapses activated simultaneously. Each nation suffering dire straights in Europe is doing so because of its own particular financial problems, not the problems of other countries nearby, and certainly not those of countries on the other side of the world. Contagion arguments are only applicable to those economies overly dependent on exports, yet, China has already shown (at least in the case of the U.S.) that such dangers can be controlled by minimizing exposure to the poisoned portions of the system and reverting to more internalized wealth creation.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the heads of World Bank and IMF have perpetuated the lie of contagion between the U.S. and the EU primarily to service the progress of globalization, but also to hide the inflationary effects of dollar devaluation. While the greatest threats are stacked squarely against America’s economy and the dollar, somehow we have been led to focus on the comparatively less explosive drama in the EU. U.S. dollars, as well as Chinese funds, are flooding into Europe to support the region, while investment in the U.S. and its debt weakens and disappears. In the meantime, a weaker Euro makes the dollar look more attractive (at least on paper), but in reality, both currencies are on the path to bloody hari-kari.
How much longer can this game of hot potato go on? Again, China decides. Eventually, China is going to have to choose which currency to support; the dollar or the euro. Supporting both is simply not an option, especially when the chance of collapse in both currencies is so high. So far, the most logical path has been the euro. While the EU may suffer an astonishing breakdown, we must take into account that our own Treasury and central bank have seen fit to throw trillions of dollars into propping up Europe (with even more on the way):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-eurozone-idUSTRE78B24R20110915
With so much inflation and devaluation being thrust upon the dollar in the name of saving the EU, China’s move towards a stronger economic relationship with Europe at the expense of the U.S. is a no-brainer:
If I were to place a bet on who would come out of the crisis less damaged, my money would be on the EU, everyone else’s money certainly seems to be…
China Discreetly Moving To Dump U.S. Debt
China has been tip-toeing towards this for years, and has openly admitted on numerous occasions that they plan to institute a break from U.S. debt and the dollar in due course. Anyone who continues to argue that a Chinese decoupling from America’s economy is impossible at this point is truly beyond hope. Though increasingly more rare, news on China’s push to drop the U.S. still leaks out. Recently, a top advisor to China’s central bank let slip that a plan is in place to begin “liquidating” (yes, they said liquidate) their U.S. Treasury bonds as soon as possible, and reposition national investments into more physical assets:
But let’s step back for a moment and pretend China hasn’t told us exactly what it is going to do time and time again. Instead, let’s look at the fundamentals.
The primary concern in China right now is inflation. Because China does not yet have the ability to export its fiat to other markets the way the U.S. does, its own liquidity injections in the face of the credit crisis have led to severe price increases. In August alone, overall inflation was rated at 6.2% (always double government produced numbers to get true inflation). Food prices jumped 13.4%, while meat and poultry jumped 29.3%. Because these numbers are around 1% lower than in previous months, the Chinese government has prematurely proclaimed a “cooling period”:
With harsh inflation continuing unabated, eventually, the Asian nation will be forced to enact abrupt policies. This will likely take the form of a strong Yuan valuation, or a “floating” of the Yuan. A sizable increase in the value of the Chinese currency is the ONLY way that the government will be able to combat rising prices. By increasing the buying power of its citizens, the government allows them to keep pace with rising prices, and eases the tension within the populace which could otherwise lead to civil unrest. For China to ensure that a floating of the Yuan will lead to a much higher value, their forex and treasury holdings will have to fall. Period.
A dumping of the dollar will give the Chinese room to breath, and this space will be needed very soon. The debt ceiling deal made by Congress in the aftermath of the credit downgrade left the rest of the world unimpressed. While the MSM tries to make us forget that this event ever occurred, most foreign investors have not. Markets are anxiously awaiting an announcement from the Fed for further liquidity injections. If this announcement is not made after meetings next week, then it will certainly be made before the end of the year. Ironically, the same quantitative easing that investors are clamoring for today is liable to become the final signal for China to cut its losses and separate from U.S. securities completely. China has been positioned for many months now to take such measures…
Lights Out…
Delusions of Chinese dependency on the U.S consumer still abound, and those who suggest a catastrophic dump of U.S. debt and dollars in the near term are liable to hear the same ignorant talking points we have heard all along:
“The Chinese are better off with us than without us…”
"China needs export dollars from the U.S. to survive…”
“China isn’t equipped to produce goods without U.S. technological savvy…”
"America could simply revert back to industry and production and teach the Chinese a lesson…”
“The U.S. could default on its debts to China and simply walk away…”
“The whole situation is China’s fault because of their artificial devaluation of the Yuan over the decades…”
And on and on it goes. Though I have deconstructed these arguments more instances than I can count in the past, I feel it my duty to at least quickly address them one more time:
U.S. consumption of all goods, not just Chinese goods, has fallen off a cliff since 2008 and is unlikely to recover anytime soon. China has done quite well despite this fall in exports considering the circumstances. With the institution of ASEAN, they barely need us at all.
China is well equipped to produce technological goods without U.S. help, and if Japan is inducted into ASEAN (as I believe they soon will be), they will be even more capable.
America will NOT be able to revert back to an industrial based economy before a dollar collapse escalates to fruition. It took decades to dismantle U.S. industry and ship it overseas. Reeducating a 70% service based society to function in an industrial system, not to mention resurrecting the factory infrastructure necessary to support the nation, would likely take decades to accomplish.
If the U.S. deliberately defaults on debt to China, the global reputation of the dollar would implode, and its world reserve status would be irrevocably lost. We won’t be teaching anyone a “lesson” then.
Yes, China currently manipulates its currency down, but then again, so does the U.S. though quantitative easing. Both sides are dirty. Taking sides in this farce is pure stupidity...
Now that all that has been cleared up (again), the primary point becomes rather direct; the reason it is difficult to predict an exact time frame for an American collapse is because all the pieces are in place to trigger an event right now! There are, of course, stress points within the system that set a time limit, even on global banks and China, but a full spectrum catastrophe is not only a concern for some distant future. Every element needed for the so called “perfect storm” is ever present and ready to ignite at a moments notice. The destructive potential coming from China alone is undeniable. Everyday that the spark is subdued should be treated as a gift, an extra 24 hours of education and preparation. This is how close we are to the edge. It is not for us to be alarmed, but to be ready, and ever aware.
The events of Sept. 11, 2001 led to a wave of solidarity with the US. But the superpower has lost that goodwill over the course of the wars it subsequently waged. Now America is mainly seen not as the victim of terrorism, but as a perpetrator of violence itself.
|
Ten years have passed since Sept. 11, 2001, and today only losers remain. Islam has been taken hostage by blinded ideologues. The West has betrayed its values in its struggle against terror, and we are now burdened with Islamophobes. Without 9/11, the crimes of Anders Behring Breivik and the rise of right-wing populists in Europe would be inconceivable.
We have often reminded readers in different GEAB issues that gold constitutes both a medium/long term investment intended to protect one’s capital against the risk of a loss in value of paper currencies and financial assets, and an eventual means of payment in the event of a very serious monetary crisis. In these two cases the choice of placing a portion of one’s assets in gold is a response to anticipating events and risks in the coming years (and not the coming weeks or months). For this GEAB N°41, a special edition at the beginning of a new decade, it seems opportune to LEAP/E2020 to put forward its anticipations on gold’s progress for 2010 – 2020, completing what the team wrote in issue N°34 of the GEAB in April 2009. This view of the decade is even more legitimate since we consider our analysis constitutes an aid for both individual investors as well as for the heads of central banks and institutions in charge of maintaining the value of a large amount of assets in the medium and long term (for example, pension, sovereign and insurance funds). Indeed for the first time in almost 40 years (since the ending of Dollar convertibility to gold in 1971), the interests of the world’s central banks and individual investors, once again, converge on gold: value is no longer at all guaranteed by the Dollar as an international reserve currency and, as long as the latter has no globally recognised successor, gold remains the only asset capable of maintaining this value.
We already took a look at the paradox of the gold market in the GEAB N°34, showing that if the market for the yellow metal seemed to be well controlled by the Fed and the large central banks to prevent any significant appreciation in the gold price, nevertheless, because of the global systemic crisis, the structural collapse of United States’ influence (and thus the Fed) and the related breaking up of the international monetary system inherited from 1971, gold was a safe investment in times of great uncertainty. As a reminder, since the publication date of the GEAB N°34 gold has gained more than 30% in US Dollars and more than 23% in Euros. In addition it has gained more than 100% in US Dollars and more than 85% in Euros since our first recommendation to diversify out of other investments in favour of physical gold (up to a third of assets) given in 2006.
. the development of a « paper gold market » swamping the physical gold market in a sea of fictitious contracts which are essentially pledges on gold which in reality doesn’t exist (or, which amounts to the same, is repeatedly used for different contracts)
. the falsifying of the levels of actual physical gold reserves, especially those of the United States, which have not been subject to independent audit for decades
. the communication tactic, via major economic and financial media, of systematically suggesting that investment in gold is out of date, reserved for old people who only swear by gold in the same way as they would tell stories of forgotten wars, or by gold bugs whom the precious metal turns mad.
As the whole world has been able to see over the course of these last forty years, and until recently, this strategy worked extremely well, even leading a number of other countries, United Kingdom in the first place (1), to divest themselves of their gold reserves at rock bottom prices. This story thus shows very clearly the necessity for decision-makers, either to have a strong personal ability to anticipate events, or to have access to such quality anticipation. In this case, the bill for not anticipating events will reach at least ten billion USD.
But if the market, organised in such a way to permit gold to be held at a distance from the international monetary system for forty years, has continued to function, what is it that has changed and made this strong rise in the gold price possible? It is the overturning of a factor essential to world order, due to the growing impact of the systemic crisis and the entry into the phase of worldwide geopolitical dislocation: the US Federal Reserve no longer has the means to battle against the old enemy of US Dollar hegemony which gold represents. This loss of ability is, of course, a complex phenomenon, consisting of many facets which we analyse in this GEAB edition.
Notes:
(1) In 1999, Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the architect of this huge economic-financial mistake which has cost, at current prices, more than 10 billion USD in lost opportunity to the British treasury. The article in The Times of the 12/28/2009, provides a rare example of an advantageous comparision for France vis-à-vis Great Britain due to its decision at the time to not follow the « economic and financial fashion » dictated by Washington. That said, British taxpayers can console themselves by bearing in mind that if there had been another ten billion in their coffers, their government would have just given it to the banks over the course of these last months. And, to raise their spirits, they ought to know that The Times forgot to state that Nicolas Sarkozy, then French Finance Minister, organised a sale of a smaller amount of French gold also on ideological grounds (Source: Boursorama, 12/30/2009). No comment!
(2) We wish to remind our readers that this sort of scenario, presented here as a yearly chronicle of the decade to come, doesn’t pretend to be a detailed description of future events. Its main purpose is to make more understandable, more lively the trends identified during the work of anticipation. These chronicles of the future are, so to speak, a pictured version of the fundamental analyses described elsewhere.
(3) « The painful dawn » because giving birth to a new world order can only be painful, like all birth, even if what follows is clearly positive.
(4) « The tragic twilight » because if this is the route which is followed, it will have all the characteristics of a tragedy, i. e. a sad ending and the awareness by all the participants in the story that it will finish very badly.
|
Speculators are betting against the euro, banks are taking incalculable risks and the markets are in turmoil. Three years after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, the financial industry has become a threat to the global economy again. Governments missed the chance to regulate the industry, and another crash is just a matter of time. By SPIEGEL Staff.
