Monthly Archives: March 2018

Mar 12 2018

New California Rebels Against Tyranny of the Majority


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics

Re-Posted Mar 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

The movement within California to split the state between Republican v Democrat has passed the first hurdle in becoming the 51st State. The movement is called the New California. They read their own Declaration of Independence on the floor of the State Senate. Their position reflects the serious divide within this country of left v right. They are correct in stating that the left is un-democratic and seeks to impose by the majority tyranny upon the minority.

We must understand that Democracy is not free of tyranny. We are living proof that we still live under the tyranny of the majority that is even worse than the tyranny of a monarch. The tyranny that we suffer under that has been the cornerstone of socialism is that the majority assumes the right to alter the way people live by imposing social laws that are not limited to a simple political function. Under the tyranny of a monarch, you can protect yourself from a tyrant. However, the tyranny under which we live today is much harder to escape for the majority simply pass laws that declare even prevailing opinion and feeling to be violations of their laws. As Thrasymachus said, justice under all forms of government, including Democracy, is simply the will of the majority. The prevailing opinions within the majority of society will be the basis of all rules of conduct within society without any noble roots. There can be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority. That is simply impossible. This is why revolutionary conflict erupts even with Democracies for there is no possible way to escape the tyranny of the majority.

Just look at Sweden. The refugees have created 70 no-go zones. They impose their own rule of law and reject the rest of the country. In those zones, they proclaim that Shariah Law prevails. Even the police are afraid to enter. This illustrates the danger of tyranny imposed by the majority. The majority opinion may not be the correct opinion, but it prevails nonetheless. The only justification for a person’s preference for a particular moral belief is that it is that person’s preference. Religion has often been used as the great tyranny. Marx called it the opium of the masses. Given a particular issue, people will align themselves either for or against that issue. This creates the battleground for if one side then seeks to impose its beliefs upon the other, then the majority prevails and tyranny flourishes.

There can be only a single standard for which a person’s liberty may be restricted, which was best articulated by John Stuart Mills:

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant … Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (On Liberty)

This is the Crash & Burn. This conflict between the left, which seeks to oppress the right, can only lead to bloodshed. There are so many who have fought and died for LIBERTY – the freedom to indeed pursue your own beliefs provided they do not harm others. There is probably no other person who articulated that better than Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or give me Death.” I personally have found those words inspiring.

The left always sees the wealth of the right and yearns to live better without working for it. Instead of being inspired to achieve, they prefer to see themselves as victims and blame anyone with more for their plight. This is a MAJOR flaw in human nature that was obviously addressed in the Ten Commandments. I find it very curious that this admonishment of the left is contained directly within the Ten Commandments. Obviously, they address this trait within human nature that the Democrats foster to win elections. It was Hillary who told crowds that Trump was worth billions: “Think what we could do with that!” she proclaimed.

Under Democracy, we live in tyranny. For if the majority became Muslim, then they could impose Shariah Law. Just look at the history of the US Income Tax rate. We can see the price we pay for living under a system where the majority can impose its will upon the minority and the Supreme Court fails to protect Equal Protection of the law. A class is also income. Class discrimination violates human rights yet the Supreme Court claims to charge one person 94% income tax and another 30% is somehow not discrimination.

Mar 12 2018

What is the Difference between Institutional & Speculation?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Training Tools

Re-Posted Mar 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I was talking to a friend who works in one of the banks you probably classify as the club. He knew you right off the bat. He said you have been probably the largest institutional advisor in the world. He said clients question the bank’s research and openly contrast it with yours. My question is simply this. What makes your institutional advice so dominant? Is it different from what you put out on your blog?

Just curious

HD

ANSWER: Interesting question. Institutions CANNOT be flipping their portfolios back and forth. They are not interested in what will the Fed do next week. They cannot react to such short-term swings. Our models are fractal and dynamic. We have the largest database ever assembled and that is what it takes to do accurate long-range forecasting. What you also must understand is how can a guy write a book and describe the feeling it is to give birth. Sure, he can interview women and write down the overview of what they say. But he cannot possibly really know what it feels like.

Look, 99% of all these self-proclaimed analysts have NEVER traded size. The look at the market from a short-term trader perspective and do not even understand how to do strategically position a portfolio. Oh sure, they can advocate the standard 60% equities and 40% bonds. Yet what happens when government bonds default? What happens when 10-year rates are 3% or less and you need to make 8% to cover your liabilities moving forward? They are clueless when it comes to actually the problems in size and how you even place orders.

 

 

The questions from institutions are strikingly different. They need to know when major trends change and how to adjust their portfolio and when. They are not concerned about when is the high Tuesday or Wednesday. Therefore, our institutional services are strategically different. You are either long or short. There is no pension fund that can buy even a 10-year government bond paying 3% for they are locking in a 50% loss. If you have not played in the big leagues, don’t bother. How you hedge is strikingly different from speculative trading.

We are able to differentiate between short-term changes in trend and long-term. That is the key. Plus, even if someone comes up with a new model and tries to get a meeting with a major institution if they can get 15 minutes that will be a miracle. Why? Nobody is going to take an unproven model for if it fails, that person loses their job. We have a track record and reputation going back into the 1980s. There is no risk with us because of that and they already know we have more institutional clients than anyone for decades.

Mar 12 2018

Triggerin’ Toadies – A Sleepy, Sanctimonious Twit Interviews Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House  on March 11, 2018 by

Hmmm… let’s see.  Amid the most consequential trade and economic reset in the history of the United States, you’re given the opportunity to interview the most powerful financial figure behind the team doing the resetting.  Now, what type of questions would you come up with?

The tax reform result and impact on budgets or revenue?  The view of future investment opportunity within the U.S. economy? The outcome of the prior treasury department financial sanctions against the backdrop of a new shift by North Korea? How the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is being repositioned? Trade tariffs and how any future trade approaches might influence the dollar?  The economic benefits of an expanded GDP projection and debt offsets?… or..

…Oh, wait, I know…. let’s talk about “Trump rallies.”

D’oh.

Mar 11 2018

Two Free Speech Activists Released After 72 Hour Detention By British Authorities for “Incorrect Thoughts”…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 11, 2018 by

I was waiting to see where this story went, and to hear first-hand from the two people arrested and detained in British prison for daring to want to interview Tommy Robinson, before coming to a conclusion.  In essence two people were stopped, arrested and detained in U.K. prison for having incorrect thoughts as defined by the British government.

The story was such an Orwellian outline; my initial skepticism told me there had to be more to these second and third-hand accounts.  Alas, unfortunately the facts are as disturbing as initially outlined.

Austrian political activist Martin Sellner belongs to a group called Génération Identitaire, a national political group who advocate for national identity.  Mr. Sellner’s girlfriend is an American author and ‘YouTuber’ named Brittany Pettibone.  They were stopped from entering England by British authorities because they were going to interview a British nationalist called Tommy Robinson.

Being stopped from being allowed to interview Tommy Robinson, a person who has not committed any crime and is in all other aspects a free citizen, is bad enough;  however, what is exponentially worse is that U.K. authorities forcibly separated Mr. Sellner and Ms. Pettibone and imprisoned them – while admitting their incarceration was entirely because they were going to speak to someone.

Think about that.

Martin & I were denied entry to the U.K. & held in a detention facility because 1.) I intended to interview “far right leader”, Tommy Robinson. 2.) Because Martin intended to give a speech at Speaker’s Corner which they alleged would “incite tensions between local communities”.

This is political discrimination, plain and simple. @Martin_Sellner and I will release a detailed video statement as soon as possible.

Thank you so much to everyone who helped bring attention to this issue. It’s an absolute disgrace for the U.K. We cannot allow such a precedent to be set in the U.K. or any Western country for that matter.

Lastly, to the U.K. Border Force, I’ll be meeting with “far right leader”, Tommy Robinson, for an interview in Vienna this evening. While you can ban political dissidents from entering/speaking in your country, you can NEVER ban our ideas.  (Ms. Brittany Pettibone via Twitter)

 

Mar 11 2018

President Trump’s Economic Approach Toward National Security Wins – U.S. Media Ignore…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House  on March 11, 2018 by

It must be pointed out; it is up to us to do so. The corporate media are hopelessly deficient in their coverage and explanations of how strategic objectives for national security are being delivered through a geopolitical Trump Doctrine via economic leverage. The results are stunningly effective, yet few have noticed and even fewer seem willing to articulate; perhaps their inability is because they simply just don’t get it.

It must be said, the U.S. is a long way from success in the goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsular; however, where we are today is closer to achieving that goal than ever before. And ultimately where we are is entirely because of President Trump’s strategic economic approach toward national security.  The U.S., heck the entire world, is positioned for a BIGLY security victory; and the anti-Trump media apparatchik continues to ignore how we got here.

What President Trump was able to do with the approach he took with North Korea is jaw-droppingly smart. Stunningly so.  Economic leverage works.  We have been led by “stupid people” who never applied economic leverage in a way that would ultimately matter to secure the best interests of the United States.

President Trump and his team did.  And they are winning… and as a consequence, we are winning…. and the ‘Deep State’ institutions along with their media cohorts are desperate to stop the American electorate from seeing and understanding the path to victory.

The professional global policy think-tanks will never give President Trump credit for securing a national security victory, via strategic policy initiatives that are fundamentally against the 50+ year worldview of U.S. foreign policy “experts”, ie. elites.

President Trump, his strategic economic policy and national security team has done something every think tank said was impossible.  Look at the narrative from the pundits and policy officials in the past year.  At the beginning of 2017 the ‘experts‘ all said China and Russia would be thorns in the Trump approach toward North Korea and they could not be moved.  In essence, they said President Trump would  never succeed.

But Trump did succeed.

Bigly.

“The impossible is just the starting point”.

What CTH wants to emphasize here is how the ‘Deep State’, and their media co-horts, are positioned against the Trump administration, and by extension against the America people, regardless of the scale of accomplishment – no matter what.  Bastards.

Again, for emphasis, here’s how President Trump did it. Here’s how Trump pulled it off:

♦ First, any review of the enhanced sanctions against N-Korea should be incorporated with the larger issue of policy toward the DPRK’s enabler, China.  From the outset President Trump, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Ross positioned a severely consequential trade reset between the U.S. and China.

♦Second: The enhanced U.S. energy export initiatives, in conjunction with lower oil prices, an outcome of U.S. energy policy and a mutually beneficial relationship between President Trump and Arab states in the GCC, severely weakened the economic position of Russia.

Russia’s energy export economy is dependent on energy prices remaining high. President Trump brilliantly worked the geopolitical economic relationships to leverage influence over a large portion of the Russian economy.

♦Third: By focusing on the utilization of economic influence over Russia and China, President Trump set the stage for U.S. led United Nations sanctions that would isolate Kim Jong-Un and cut off his previously utilized financial escape routes.

♦Fourth: While no-one was paying attention to the real end-goal; President Trump instructed Defense Secretary James Mattis to send the largest ever U.S. naval fleet into Southeast Asia in preparation for a naval blockade around North Korea.  The U.S. military is not the leverage, the military helps create leverage. The leverage itself is economic. Financial interests are always the best leverage to use because inherent within the fundamental principles of economics is “self-interest”.

Each of these four elements was independent; each of these moves was a long-term strategy; each of these four elements built upon the step that preceded it.  When we combine these four strategic points we discover the leverage President Trump created (economic), and the enforcement mechanism he deployed to ensure success (sanctions).

President Trump began by creating a situation where China and Russia’s best economic interests were enmeshed with supporting U.S. sanctions against the DPRK.  The Bear (Russia) and Red Dragon (China) were drawn into an economic battle space controlled by entirely the Eagle (Trump-USA).

We have often noted that President Trump is seemingly one man, yet he finds a way to surround multiple enemies simultaneously.  China, Russia and North Korea is one such visible example.

Ultimately President Trump offered a ‘better’ trade outcome (definitions variable, yet all defined by him) for China if they complied with Nikki Haley’s sanctions. Similarly President Trump positioned negotiations with Russia on ‘better’ or “more favorable’ terms (again, definitions variable) for U.S. energy shipments to Eastern Europe, if Russia complied with Nikki Haley’s sanctions.

You might remember President Trump visited Poland and the Three Seas Summit (Baltic, Black and Adriatic Sea States), on the sideline of his engagements with France (Emmanuel Macron) and the G20 members.  President Trump and Wilbur Ross established economic relationships and agreements for energy export between the U.S. and Eastern Europe.  In essence, Russia’s exploitative energy influence over the EU was diminished.

Immediately after taking office President Trump began establishing a positive relationship between his administration and the Mid-East Gulf Cooperation Council.  This set the cornerstone for the larger geo-strategic economics.  Add the EU positioning to the relationship with Trump and the GCC and you see the leverage needed over Russia on issues unrelated to the EU, vis-a-vis North Korea.  Trump’s foresight on this was incredible.

The Outcome – China and Russia holstered their U.N. Security Council veto power, and actually supported sanctions against N-Korea because it was in their economic interests not to oppose the U.S. led sanctions. Brilliant strategy.

 

To complement the August 2017 U.N. sanctions, in September President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin structured an executive order in such a way that the downstream consequences from any economic engagement with the DPRK effectively cuts off that entity or nation from engaging in ANY commerce or economic activity with the United States.  The result was immediate:  Beijing took action with their central bank instructions and told all institutions to stop engaging in any financial transactions with North Korea.

Five days later President Trump and U.S. Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin used the newly constructed sanctions authority to punish eight North Korean banks and 26 bank workers living abroad.

The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) sanctions {deep dive} relied on the executive order President Trump signed to target North Korea’s access to the international banking system. The Trump/Mnuchin action came as as a separate outcome from the United Nations sanctions package targeting North Korea.

When it comes to the use of economic leverage to create U.S. national security outcomes, well, we are learning at the knee of an economic master player. The media will now do everything they can to stop people from realizing how effective President Trump is…

…”complicated business folks,…. complicated business”…

Mar 11 2018

Sunday Talks – CIA Director Mike Pompeo -vs- Margaret Brennan…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 11, 2018 by

CIA Director Mike Pompeo appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss the possibility of negotiations with North Korea and other issues around the globe.

Mar 11 2018

Sunday Talks – Maria Bartiromo Discusses North Korea With John Bolton…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House  on March 11, 2018 by

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest stunning announcements from North Korea.  The mustache aligns with those who say the talks between Kim Jong-un and President Trump should begin ASAP to see if the DPRK is really serious about denuclearizing the Korean peninsular.

.

Mar 11 2018

Sunday Talks – Maria Bartiromo Trade and Tariff Discussion With Peter Navarro…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 11, 2018 by

Maria Bartiromo talks about the steel and aluminum tariffs recently announced by the Trump administration along with the shifted trade perspectives of the Trump administration with White House Trade Policy Adviser Peter Navarro.

While the current trade focus centers around steel and aluminum tariffs, Mr. Navarro expands the discussion when asked about China as a trade target specifically.  Within the expanded discussion Navarro highlights U.S.T.R Robert Lighthizer’s pending 301 review of intellectual property theft by the Chinese government.

.

Regarding ‘European Union (EU) retaliation’, forget it; they won’t.

The protectionist EU hypocrites simply cannot afford to go toe-to-toe with the U.S. on trade.  The UK is in the process of formalizing their Brexit terms; the EU (essentially ‘Germany’) needs to find a way to make up for the lost revenue (billions in taxes) from the UK economy.  Currently the UK pays Brussels approximately a billion per month on a $2.5 trillion economy; that will stop.

Brexit reduces the overall EU GDP by $2.5 trillion.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel cannot -and will not- challenge President Trump.  In addition to being politically weak, Merkel has attached her economy to expansive environmental regulations (Paris treaty), though she is now attempting to pale down those regulations.  Chancellor Merkel cannot afford to run the risk of losing any access to the U.S. market.

A 25% decrease within the German auto sector alone would be enough to throw the entire nation of Germany into a recession; and functionally Germany is the EU.   President Trump holds all the leverage within the trade discussions with the EU…

…. WE ARE THE CUSTOMER in this equation.

 

Mar 11 2018

Reality of Being a Chief Economic Advisor


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Mar 11, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: I thank God that your are here in my lifetime. The information you freely impart is priceless and I can’t wait to read your daily Posts. I believe that it would be incredibly wise if President Trump were to invite you to replace Gary Cohen as his Chief Economic Advisor. My question is regarding the end of the Private Cycle that you are forecasting will occur in 2032. Will the change result as a demise of the US economy or the rise of the eastern economies? Do you see President Trump as a facilitator to that end or will his policies server to mitigate the process.

Thank you

Sir.

ANSWER: Well thank you very much. But you should understand what goes on behind the curtain and why I prefer this side. I was offered that job back in 1999 to be Bush Jr’s Chief Economic Advisor. I laughed and turned it down. Why? People like Gary Cohn take these jobs because they get to sell all their stock TAX-FREE. Since this would be a conflict of interest to own Goldman Sachs stock, he must sell it to take that job. Since it is something he MUST do, taxes are exempt. Plus all the politicians do not want to get Goldman Sachs angry since they donate to both sides. Therefore, Cohn gets an easy pass by the Senate.

First, we are private, not public, and I have no interest in selling the company to get a tax-free deal. Second, they would NEVER give me a pass in the Senate. I have advised the major car companies outside the USA in Japan and Germany. The Democrats would paint me as a traitor who helped foreign companies beat General Motors. The list can go on and on. So there is no way I would ever be interested in a such a job. Someone like Cohn now gets all the benefits and all he had to do is work one single day and then resign.

Trump is the counter-trend reaction. Reagan was the same reaction to hard economic times. You can see here that world GDP peaked in 1973. I remember the recession into 1976 very clearly. People were openly talking about another Great Depression. You get these counter-trend reactions which slow the decline down. Even Diocletian (284-305AD) instituted monetary reforms, wage, and price controls, and revised the political system creating the Tetrarchy whereby he was the first Emperor to actually retire and pass on the reigns of power. Trump will not reverse the trend. He will at best mitigate the fall during his term.

Mar 11 2018

The Monetary Reform of 1857 Ends Legal Tender Foreign Coins


Armstrong Economics Blog/America’s Economic History

Re-Posted Mar 11, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I found in my grandmother’s belongings a penny from 1855 and one from 1857 which was much smaller and silver in appearance. Was there also a monetary reform that changed the coinage during the 1850s?

PK

ANSWER: Oh yes. But it is far more interesting than meets the eye. Foreign coins were actually legal tender in the United States until 1857. You could pay taxes with Spanish or English coins. Everything was legal tender under the Coinage Act of 1857.

The government first proposed the penny in the Coinage Act of 1792. Pennies and half-pennies went into production for the first time in 1793 with a composition of 100% copper which weighed 13.48 grams (0.475 ounces). From 1795 to 1857, the government reduced the copper penny in size with a new weight of 10.89 grams (0.384 ounces). It was the Coinage Act of 1857 (Act of Feb. 21, 1857, Chap. 56, 34th Cong., Sess. III, 11 Stat. 163) that the coinage was radically reduced with the composition of the penny being  88% copper and included 12% nickel, which produced a silver-like appearance. The weight was reduced to 4.67 grams (0.164 ounces). By changing the metal content, they justified that this was intrinsically worth more by adding nickel to pure copper.

In 1864, there was another Monetary Reform following the war as inflation set in and drove the value of metals higher. The silver was really removed from the 3 cent coins were now being produced in nickel starting in 1865 and most silver coins were being melted down given the silver was worth more than the face value. It was 1864 that they introduced the two-cent coinage as well reflecting inflation. The design of the penny was the Indian Head until 1909 when they change to the portrait of Abraham Lincoln. From 1864 to 1942, the penny was redesigned penny and it now weighed 3.11 grams (0.109 ounces) and nickel was removed leaving the composition primarily of bronze (95% copper, 5% zinc and tin). In 1943, due to the war, copper rose in value so then struck pennies composed of steel zinc-coated for just one year. The steel penny weighed 2.72 grams (0.095 ounces). From 1944 to 1981, the penny was composed primarily of copper (95%) and zinc (5%), with a weight of 3.11 grams (0.109 ounces). After 1982, copper was eliminated from the penny. The composition was changed because the value of the copper in the coin was greater than one cent. From 1982, the penny became 97.5% zinc composition, which was copper plated. With the commodity boom into 2011, the cost to mint a penny became 2.41 cents. The crash in commodities reduced the cost to 1.83 cents by 2013.

The Coinage Act of 1857 was an act of the United States Congress which ended the status of foreign coins as legal tender, repealing all acts “authorizing the currency of foreign gold or silver coins”. Specific coins would be exchanged at the Treasury and re-coined. Up until 1857, foreign coins circulated as legal tender. The Spanish 8 reals were known as a Pillar Dollar. This was the primary money supply during the Colonial period rather than British coins. In fact, the Spanish dollar was officially declared legal tender (accepted for taxes) by the Act of April 10, 1806.

The United States following the Revolutionary War had no gold reserves. Therefore, in 1792 when the establishment of the US mint came into play, the sole medium of exchange in terms of specie was the foreign coin. Alexander Hamilton proposed that foreign coin should be allowed to circulate freely for a period of three years until the new mint in Philadelphia was running at full capacity. This clause allowing the foreign coin to circulate was renewed several times before it was formally authorized by the Act of April 10, 1806. By 1830, about 25% of all circulating coins were of Spanish origin.

President Andrew Jackson supported foreign coin as legal tender in his famous war with the Bank of the United States in the Gold Bill. Jackson set in motion a major financial crisis as every bank began to issue their own currency. Jackson’s support of foreign coin ended up making it difficult for the US to retain its overvalued worn Spanish silver in the 1840s as they vanished from circulation and private issues appeared known as Hard Times Tokens. It was not until the early 1850s that the US mint had finally been able to match demand for the foreign coin with the production of American issues.

The Act of April 10, 1806, was passed because of the fact that there were no silver dollars minted by the United States at all between 1805 and 1840. In 1792, Congress adopted a bimetallic standard and the 15 to 1 ratio of silver to gold. The precious metal content of a US dollar was fixed at 371¼ grains of silver or 24¾ grains of gold. By 1795, the 15:1 ratio was under pressure because of the revolution in Paris as Gold rose against silver pushing the ratio to 15½ ounces of silver to one ounce of gold. By 1799, the ratio continued to expand reaching 15¾ ounces. This presented a huge arbitrage opportunity, so bullion dealers bought United States gold coins using Spanish silver coins and they shipped them to Europe to be melted and re-sold profiting almost 1oz of silver. The net gold capital outflow was huge and American coin was vanishing rapidly. Finally, in 1804, when Napoléon Bonaparte became emperor,  President Thomas Jefferson was forced to order the suspension of minting gold $10 eagles and silver coins. All we see are copper coins being produced at this point in time. This was the backdrop to the Act of 1806 which made all foreign coins legal tender.

In addition to demonetizing foreign coins, the Coinage Act of 1857 also discontinued the half cent. Furthermore, the penny was reduced in size. The large cent was discontinued and regular coinage of the Flying Eagle cent began. The Act fixed the weight and measure of US one-cent pieces at 4.655 grams, which was composed of 88% copper and 12% nickel. It also mandated that this new copper/nickel alloy be received as payment for the worn gold and silver coins turned in at the mint. The effective aim was to limit the domestic money supply by crushing European competition. This was the first major step towards the government essentially having a monopoly over the money supply.

The Coinage Act of 1857 significantly altered the way American business was conducted. Since the beginning of the Colonies, businesses accepted any form of payment as long as it was made of specie. Following this Act of 1857, American business no longer accepted foreign coins and only US coins were accepted. Throughout this period, there was fierce competition among foreign exchange dealers in the United States. The ability of the US Mint to finally produce enough coinage made much of the foreign silver coinage obsolete.