Monthly Archives: March 2018

Mar 29 2018

When will North Korea Rise to Overthrow Kim Jung Un?


Armstrong Economics Blog/North Korea

Re-Posted Mar 29, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: You said that Kim Jung Un was at risk of being overthrown and therefore he would have to shift direction or go to war. When do you see North Korea falling?

PP

ANSWER: When Korea was split in 1945 into communist North against the South, the terrain has always dictated the situation. About 65% of Korea’s heavy industry was located in the north, but, due to the harshness of the terrain, only 37% of its agriculture existed in the North. This is why the North often has bouts of famine.

 

ECM-Dynamic

 

I have warned that the Economic Confidence Model has three distinct components. There is the main wave frequency based upon Pi of 8.6 years which builds into 6 waves forming the major wave of 51.6 years which seems to be the generational shifting wave that manifests in political changes between public and private trends.

Then there is the Volatility Wave component. This is what causes one 8.6 year wave to be more pronounced than another. The volatility component has a frequency of 6 years which is a slower moving wave taking 12 unit waves to build into the ultimate volatility peaks of 72-year intervals.

The Schema Frequency I do not reveal. To put this in context, it is the DNA wave of a coded pattern throughout time. This will be the last thing I ever reveal if I decide to do so. The jury is still out. This is what everyone has tried to get from me for so long. It is the key to the interaction of waves.

On August 8th, 1945 (1945.602), the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Soviet troops advanced and the US government feared Russia would occupy the whole of Korea. On August 10th, the US government proposed the 38th parallel division.

Therefore, the 72-year of volatility began during the summer of last year – 2017.602 (August 7th). Communism fell on its 72-year cycle (1917-1989). The Soviet Union broke up 2 years into that cyclical event. This places the same timing risk cor North Korea going into 2019-2020.

The 51.6-year cycle from 1945 (1997.202) marked the start of the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis. Kim Jung Un was conducting missile tests that began on February 12, 2017, last year, which was just a KN-15 Pukguksone type. Thereafter tests took place on March 6th, March 22nd, April 5th, April 16th, April 29th, May 14th, May 21st, May 29th, and June 8th. The intercontinental ballistic missile tests began with the Hwasong 14 on July 4th, probably because of the American Independence holiday. That is when the attention began to really turn to North Korea and that began almost to the day of the 72-year turning point.

The entire world is going to go nuts 2031/2032. There will not be a country that is spared from political and economic events. The risk a serious famine in North Korea which could result in the people rising up will arrive in 2023. That pressure will begin here this year 2018.70 – which will be September 13th, 2018. This appears to the turning point that is not just concerning North Korea. It is appearing around the world in many markets. The risk for political change in North Korea comes into play as soon as 2019/2020.

Mar 28 2018

Inspector General Michael Horowitz Announces IG Investigation into FBI/DOJ FISA Court Abuse…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 28, 2018 by

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has released a public statement stating the OIG intention to investigate the fraudulent FBI FISA Title-1 surveillance application submitted to the court against U.S. person Carter Page; and the surrounding issues of the FBI using Christopher Steele to underwrite their evidence therein:

(OIG link)

There are likely to be voices wondering why this OIG investigative avenue is only just now being announced and/or explored.  However, a careful review and reminder of the process explains what is happening.

Inspector General Horowitz initial investigation focused on the politicization of the FBI and DOJ surrounding the Clinton investigation.  However, that original announcement also included the disclaimer that he would follow “other issues that may arise”.   To say there were “other issues”, that indeed did “arise”, would be the understatement of the decade.

After looking at the myriad of issues and releases since MSM attention began noticing the IG investigation on December 2nd, 2017, there’s been a very specific pathway evident.  Hence yesterday, in anticipation of the first part of the IG report being released next month, we shared the following:

Horowitz has assembled all of the information for his report but the scope of the report is so exhaustive it will most likely be released in segments according to the subject material and the myriad of issues involved.

The first section of the IG report, encompassing the DOJ/FBI political activity -specifically surrounding leaks to the media and fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe- will likely come out first in April.

The McCabe release should be followed by a release of the IG findings on the topic of FBI and DOJ conduct, and the politicization therein, within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The issues with the DOJ/FBI representations to the FISA Court, the October 21st DOJ/FBI application therein and other issues, will flow thereafter; there may be sub-chapter reports released supplemental to the FISA investigation surrounding Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS and/or the private contractors and abuse of FBI and DOJ databases.  (more)

Most of the critical principals attached to the FISA Title-1 application, and the downstream issues, are still within the DOJ.  This is a key point to reference.

The same cannot be said for the principal members of the “small group” surrounding the FBI/DOJ politicization of the Clinton investigation.   Look at the “small group” officials who quit the DOJ and FBI.  Those officials are closely connected to the Clinton operation, but not necessarily the Trump-Spying-Operation: Sally Yates (DOJ), Mary McCord (DOJ), David Laufner (DOJ), along with James Comey (FBI), Andrew McCabe (FBI), Jim Rybicki (FBI), Michael Kortan (FBI).  These are the principals involved in the Clinton operation.

Yes, there is some aggregate overlap amid the top tier (Lynch, Yates, Comey, McCabe) but that’s to be expected.  Remember the BIG PICTURE of corruption was actually three phases:

  • First, exonerate candidate Hillary Clinton. [email investigation]
  • Second, conduct surveillance on candidate Trump. [fisa application]
  • Third, the insurance policy. [fabricated Russia Collusion investigation]

The second phase of the FBI/DOJ small group plan was the “Trump Operation”, and the third phase was the “Insurance Policy”.  For phase two and three there was increased specialty.  Also, phase #3 involved the larger IC (CIA, ODNI, etc.)

FBI Agent Peter Strzok was involved in all three phases along with his co-hort Lisa Page.  However, James Baker, Bruce Ohr and Bill Priestap were more involved in phase-2 (counterintelligence operation, surveillance etc.), and phase-3 (muh Russia Conspiracy) the insurance policy.  Those officials are still employed within the FBI; and as we have shared, likely cooperating.

Horowitz is releasing an investigative report on his review of “phase #1” very soon.  This is the Clinton email investigation, the pre-planned exoneration, the media leaks, and the political corruption to attain the objectives therein.  Again refer to the original January 2017 (pre-inauguration) public information release:

It is in the course of this original investigation, and the surrounding interviews, where the evidence of Phase-2 (spy on Trump) and Phase-3 (Russia Collusion) was discovered.  Hence the outcome of the IG report will predictably follow the same sequence.

Here’s the important part to remember – The evidence already exists.  The documentation, interviews and gathering of evidence of what happened in Phase-2 and Phase-3 already exists.  However, the IG has never announced the opening of that investigation avenue. (Because 2, and 3, were an outcropping of original intent)

Horowitz is not announcing this investigative avenue from a position of only now starting to gather evidence; he already has the evidence.  He is now announcing the context for him to drop a report summarizing findings of content from the investigation; a report that has nothing to do with the original launch of the OIG investigation.

In essence he’s announcing the need to write a report based on investigative material he has already gathered.   Horowitz already has the material.

We can just as likely anticipate another DOJ OIG notice of review for an investigation into how the DOJ and FBI collaborated to manufacture the “vast Russian Conspiracy/Collusion” narrative.  However, that phase-3 “insurance policy” also involves the CIA (Brennan), ODNI (Clapper), and additional elements of the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.  As a consequence Phase-3 accountability is better handled by congress.

Mar 28 2018

KORUS Agreement Announced – Details of Historic Trade Deal and Repositioning Between U.S. and South Korea…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 28, 2018 by

JOINT STATEMENT – Today, Ambassador Lighthizer and Minister Kim are pleased to announce that the United States and the Republic of Korea have reached an agreement in principle on the general terms of amendments and modifications to the United States-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The nations have also agreed on terms for a country exemption for the Republic of Korea from tariffs imposed on steel imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9705, as amended.  The arrangement with respect to steel imports is expected to take effect on May 1, 2018.  (link)

Ever since the original 2012 US-Korea free trade agreement (KORUS) went into effect, the U.S. trade deficit in goods with Korea increased by over 73 percent from $13.2 billion to $22.9 billion (2017), while the overall deficit increased by 70 percent from $6.3 billion to $10.7 billion (2017).  President Trump committed his administration to changing this immediately and renegotiating a deal that benefited the United States.

“The improved KORUS agreement reflects the President’s leadership in delivering more reciprocal trade outcomes benefiting U.S. workers, exporters, and businesses. The United States and Korea have strengthened an important economic relationship by agreeing to substantial improvements to KORUS that will help rebalance our trade, reduce our trade deficit, and expand U.S. export opportunities.”  ~ U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer

Here’s the historic details:

♦ 1. PROCESS FOR KORUS AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS

As directed by the President and with authority provided under the terms of KORUS, the U.S. Trade Representative has worked to resolve issues through the Joint Committee process under the Agreement.

In July 2017, Ambassador Lighthizer initiated trade discussions with Korea, leading to special sessions of the KORUS Joint Committee in 2017 and further negotiations for KORUS amendments and modifications in 2018.

Once completed, the amendments and modifications to KORUS will undergo the United States’ and Korea’s respective domestic review procedures. For the United States, modifications to the U.S. tariff schedule will undergo consultation and layover procedures provided under the implementing act for the KORUS Agreement, which include a 60-day consultation period with Congress.

♦ 2. KEY NEW KORUS FTA OUTCOMES

In these discussions, the United States achieved steps to improve the large trade deficit in industrial goods and to address KORUS implementation concerns that have hindered U.S. export growth.

◊ U.S. Truck Tariffs: Korea will extend the phase out of the 25% U.S. tariff on trucks until 2041, or a total of 30 years following the implementation of the KORUS FTA in 2012. (currently scheduled to phase out by 2021).

◊ Growing U.S. Auto Exports: Exports of U.S. motor vehicles to Korea will be improved through the following steps:

  • Greater Access for U.S. Exports: Korea will double the number of U.S. automobile exports, to 50,000 cars per manufacturer per year, that can meet U.S. safety standards (in lieu of Korean standards) and enter the Korean market without further modification.
  • Harmonization of Testing Requirements: U.S. gasoline engine vehicle exports will be able to show compliance with Korea’s emission standards using the same tests they conduct to show compliance with U.S. regulations, without additional or duplicative testing for the Korean market.
  • Recognition of U.S. Standards for Auto Parts: Korea will recognize U.S. standards for auto parts necessary to service U.S. vehicles, and reduce labeling burdens for parts.
  • Improvements to CAFE Standards: Korea will expand the amount of “eco-credits” available to help meet fuel economy and greenhouse gas requirements under the regulations currently in force, while also ensuring that fuel economy targets in future regulations will be set taking U.S. regulations into account and will continue to include more lenient targets for small volume manufacturers.

◊ Customs Improvement: Korea will address long-standing concerns with onerous and costly verification procedures through agreement on principles for conducting verification of origin of exports under KORUS and establish a working group to monitor and address future issues that arise.

◊ Pharmaceutical Reimbursements: Within 2018, Korea will amend its Premium Pricing Policy for Global Innovative Drugs to make it consistent with Korea’s commitments under KORUS to ensure non-discriminatory and fair treatment for U.S. pharmaceutical exports.

♦ 3. CURRENCY AGREEMENT

◊ The U.S. Department of the Treasury is leading discussions on currency with Korea’s Ministry of Strategy and Finance.

◊ An agreement is being finalized on robust provisions to prohibit competitive devaluation and exchange rate manipulation in order to promote a level playing field for trade and investment. Strong commitments on transparency and accountability are included in the provisions.

♦ 4. OUTCOMES FOR SECTION 232 EXEMPTION FOR KOREA

  • The President’s action under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, is designed to protect U.S. national security given the massive and persistent global excess capacity for steel and aluminum and the threatened impairment of U.S. national security from imports of such products.
  • As the President’s proclamations state, the United States is willing to work with any country with which we have a security relationship to find alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security caused by imports of steel and aluminum.
  • The United States has a strong and enduring security relationship with Korea.
  • U.S. negotiations with Korea have resulted in a satisfactory alternative for addressing U.S. national security concerns with respect to steel imports.
  • Korean imports of steel products into the United States will be subject to a product-specific quota equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume of such products during the period of 2015-17. This will result in a significant reduction in Korean steel shipments to the United States.

(Link to USTR News Release)

Mar 28 2018

White House Trade Policy Advisor Peter Navarro Discusses KORUS and Ongoing Trade Initiatives…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 28, 2018 by

White House Director of Trade and Manufacturing policy Peter Navarro discusses the revamp of the KORUS trade deal with South Korea.  In addition Navarro discusses the ongoing Trump administration’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as plans to impose tariffs on Chinese products surrounding violations of intellectual-property rights.

[NOTE: Final USTR 301 Report on China was released last night]

Mar 28 2018

What a Difference Six Months Makes – International Media Discuss Kim Jong-Un Meeting With Xi Jinping…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House  on March 28, 2018 by

It was only six months ago when the international media and U.S. left-wing pundits were proclaiming how we were on the cusp of thermonuclear war with North Korea.  As outlined HERE there was almost no-one paying attention to the approach taken by President Donald Trump to creating the “Magnanimous Panda” outcome.

Well, today those same media are reporting on North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and committing to a denuclearized Korean peninsular:

SEOUL, March 28 (Yonhap) — North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has visited China at the invitation of President Xi Jinping and reaffirmed his commitment to denuclearization during their first summit, the two countries’ media said Wednesday.

The North’s leader made an “unofficial” visit to China from Sunday to Wednesday, accompanied by his wife Ri Sol-ju and key officials, including de facto No. 2 figure Choe Ryong-hae, according to the North’s state-run radio.

It was Kim’s first foreign trip since he took office in late 2011.  The summit came as Kim plans to meet the leaders of South Korea and the United States in the coming months. (read more)

Well, well, well,…. doesn’t this look like the “Magnanimous Panda” outcome previously discussed?

August 2017 […] The end result will be Kim Jong-un giving up his nuclear ambitions for good; a group of nations promising economic assistance (size TBD), and some official enterprise of ASEAN partners enters as an agency to oversee nuclear compliance under carefully negotiated terms. Big Panda (Xi Jinping) promises the world to be the magnanimous insurance policy therein. Everything between now and that outcome is optically chaff and countermeasures.  SEE HERE and HERE

Funny how that works?...

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

…. And likely no-one in media will ever recognize exactly how it all came together.

August 29th, 2017

August 30th, 2017

China’s objective is conquest.  China’s tool for conquest is economics.  President Trump’s entire geopolitical strategy, using economics in a similar way, is an existential threat to China’s endeavor.  Communist Beijing calls the proverbial DPRK shots.

President Trump is putting on a MASSIVE economic squeeze.

♦Squeeze #1. Trump and Mnuchin just sanctioned Venezuela and cut off their access to expanded state owned oil revenue.  Venezuela now needs more money.  China and Russia are already leveraged to the gills in Venezuela and hold 49% of Citgo as collateral for loans outstanding.  Now China and Russia will need to loan more, directly.

♦Squeeze #2.  China’s geopolitical ally, Russia, is already squeezed with losses in energy revenue because of President Trump’s approach toward oil, LNG and coal.  Trump, through allies including Saudi Arabia, EU, France (North Africa energy), and domestic production has driven down energy prices. Meanwhile Russia is bleeding out financially in Syria.  Iran is the financial reserve, but they too are energy price dependent.

♦Squeeze #3. Trump and Tillerson just put Pakistan on notice they need to get involved in bringing their enabled tribal “extremists” (Taliban) to the table in Afghanistan.  Pakistan’s primary investor and economic partner is China.  If U.S. pulls or reduces financial support to pressure Pakistan toward a political solution in Afghanistan, China has to fill void.

♦Squeeze #4. China’s primary economic threat (competition) is next door in India.  President Trump has just embraced India as leverage over China in trade and pledged ongoing favorable trade deals.  The play is MFN (Most Favored Nation) trade status might flip from China to India.  That’s a big play.

♦Squeeze #5.  President Trump has launched a USTR Section 301 Trade Investigation into China’s theft of intellectual property.  This encompasses every U.S. entity that does manufacturing business with China, particularly aeronautics and technology, and also reaches into the financial services sector.

♦Squeeze #6.  President Trump, Secretary Ross, Secretary Mnuchin and USTR Robert Lighthizer are renegotiating NAFTA.  One of the primary objectives of team U.S.A. is to close the 3rd party loopholes, including dumping and origination, that China uses to gain backdoor access to the U.S. market and avoid trade/tariff restrictions. [China sends parts to Mexico and Canada for assembly and then back-door entry into the U.S. via NAFTA.]

♦Squeeze #7. President Trump has been open, visible and vocal about his intention to shift to bilateral trade renegotiation with China and Southeast Asia immediately after Team U.S.A. conclude with NAFTA renegotiation.

♦Squeeze #8.  President Trump has positioned ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as trade benefactors for assistance with North Korea. The relationship between ASEAN nations and the Trump administration is very strong, and getting stronger. Which leads to…

♦Squeeze #9.  President Trump has formed an economic and national security alliance with Shinzo Abe of Japan.   It is not accidental that North Korea’s Kim Jong-un fired his missile over the Northern part of Japan.  Quite simply, Beijing told him to.

Add all of this up and you can see the cumulative impact of President Trump’s geopolitical economic strategy toward China.  The best part of all of it – is the likelihood China never saw it, meaning the sum totality of “all of it”, coming.

Six Months Later – This week:  •India announces $500 billion investment in U.S. steelworks.  •USTR finalizes section 301 report on Chinese trade practices.  •The U.S. and South Korea sign historic renegotiated “KORUS” trade deal.  •President Trump handing out Steel and Aluminum tariff exemption cards…..  And, oh yeah, North Korea tells China it agrees to a full reversal of nuclear ambitions.

Funny that.

 

Mar 28 2018

KORUS Details Emerging – South Korea Agrees to 30% Reduction in Steel, Accepts Doubling of U.S. Autos, Accepts 20 Year Extension on Truck Tariff…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on March 27, 2018 by

The actual announcement of KORUS (“KOR”+”U.S.”), the renegotiated U.S. and South Korea trade deal, has yet to be made by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. President Donald Trump.  However, more details are surfacing inside KORUS media leaks.  Fantastic job by Lighthizer!

TOP LINES:

  • U.S. Gains twice as many exported vehicles into S-Korea (50k per manufacturer, per year).  [No word on possible Kia / Hyundai tariff or quota – RE: “unlikely”]
  • South Korea drops ridiculous customs inspection barriers. [Trade trickery ploy]
  • U.S. retains 25% Tariff on S-Korea pickup trucks with extension for 20 years.
  • South Korea gets two year exemption from a 25% U.S. steel tariff, but must drop steel export level to 70% of prior two years shipments. (A controlled reduction of 30%).

(Via AP) The new deal doubles — to 50,000 — the cars each U.S. automaker can export annually to South Korea, reduces bureaucratic barriers to American products and extends a 25 percent U.S. tariff on South Korean pickup trucks by 20 years, through 2041.

South Korea escapes America’s new 25 percent tariff on imported steel — but must accept quotas on steel exports equal to 70 percent of its average annual shipments to the United States between 2015 and 2017.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the policy ahead of an official announcement.

The United States this month began imposing the steel tariffs, saying imports jeopardized U.S. national security. But it has been suspending the duties on allies like the European Union, Canada and Mexico.

The U.S. Treasury Department is also in talks on a deal to prevent Seoul from deliberately pushing its currency lower to give South Korean exporters a competitive advantage. A formal agreement on currency would be unprecedented — but it wouldn’t have teeth, because it would include no enforcement mechanism.

The U.S. trade deficit in goods with South Korea — nearly $23 billion last year — widened after the original pact took effect in 2012, one reason Trump has denounced it. Trade in autos has been especially lopsided: South Korea last year exported to the United States 929,000 passenger vehicles worth $15.7 billion. By contrast, the U.S. shipped to South Korea fewer than 53,000 autos, worth just $1.5 billion, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

The United States says South Korea has used non-tariff barriers, such as rigorous customs inspections, to block U.S. products.

Trump’s complaints about South Korean trade practices have caused friction between the two allies at a crucial time, as he prepares for a meeting with North Korea’s reclusive leader, Kim Jong Un.

Unions at South Korea’s two-largest automakers, Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp., have already blasted the new agreement for blocking access to the fast-growing U.S. pickup truck market. “It is a humiliating deal that accepts Trump’s strategy to preemptively block South Korean pickup trucks,” Hyundai Motor Company’s labor union said in a statement.  (read more)

Mar 28 2018

Why Syria has ALWAYS been Strategic


Armstrong Economics Blog/Middle East

Re-Posted Mar 28, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Syria has always been strategic throughout recorded history. You had to pass through it between Babylon and Egypt. However, as world trade began to emerge, the connections between China and the ancient Roman Empire were fully developed through the Silk Road. Spices were always worth their weight in gold and even during the Middle Ages, bankers were called “pepper-men” because pepper was more valuable than gold by weight.

Following the death of  Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his generals divided up the territory he had conquered. After the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, Seleucus I Nicator (458-281BC) won the territory of Syria. Seleucus founded four cities in northwestern Syria, one of which was Antioch. He named this city in honor of his father Antiochus or perhaps his son who was named after his grandfather. It was founded on a site chosen through ritual means. Reportedly, an eagle, the bird of Zeus, had been given a piece of sacrificial meat and the city was founded on the site to which the eagle carried the offering. Seleucus did this on the 22nd day of the month of Artemisios in the twelfth year of his reign, which in modern terms was May 300 BC.

Antioch quickly rose to become the Syrian capital. Antioch flourished due to trade. Caravan merchants began to bring goods from China to the marketplace in Antioch. This was the beginning of the Silk Road in ancient times. Antioch benefited from Roman rule. The Historia Augusta mentions a great fire in Antioch, implying that the emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161AD) offered help to restore the city because it had become the gateway to a fabled great empire in the East. This legend of a great Empire in China had even inspired Alexander the Great to attempt to reach it giving up in India.

Antioch became an extremely important port of trade in the ancient world. It flourished and any major natural disaster would send financial panic down the banking street in Rome – Via Sacra. When the city sometimes suffered earthquakes as recorded during the reigns of Tiberius (14-37AD), Caligula (37-41AD), Hadrian (117-138AD), and Diocletian (284-305AD). Its governor Pescennius Niger (193-194AD) proclaimed himself emperor, he lost the war against his rival Septimius Severus, (193-211AD) who temporarily took away its independence of Antioch, giving it to Laodicea to control as punishment.

During the 3rd century, Antioch was the city of innovation. Street lighting appears also in this city during the 3rd Century AD as Saint Jerome (345-420AD) commented in his writings that the capital of ancient Syria was lit up at night by oil lamps hung over ropes that were strung over the streets. By 371AD, this invention spread to Caesarea in Turkey. China, on the other hand, was reported to be lighting up its streets using natural gas supplied through bamboo pipes by Medieval times.

China throughout history became rich by trade with the Roman Empire. Yet the history of Rome that claimed to rule the world (orbis terrarum) stood at the opposite end of the world from the strikingly similar Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD) in China, which also claimed to have ruled the world (tianxia). There is the History Book for Tang-Dynasty in China covering the period 618-907AD. Yet the text mentions 17 times what appears to be the Roman Empire . It also describes an envoy that was sent by the Roman Emperor to China. The Roman Emperor was recorded to have been “Anton” .

The account of such an envoy who visited the older Han Dynasty predates the Venetian traveler Marco Polo (1254-1325) by more than 1,000 years. This envoy has been attributed to 166AD during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180AD). It is the death of Marcus Aurelius, that has marked the peak in the Roman Empire and the turning point that begins the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire where its monetary system collapses just 72 years thereafter. This envoy established diplomatic contact at the peak of the Roman Empire from which a disastrous decline begins. Any political-economic aspirations to further such a relationship would then die with Marcus Aurelius. Yet also, both empires would suffer the same fate of barbarian invasions. The Han Dynasty falls in 220AD from which emerges the chaotic period known as the Three Kingdoms (220-280AD) – the division of the once unified Chinese Empire.

There is hard evidence that demonstrates that there was direct contact between Rome and China going back to the period of 180AD. The connection point has ALWAYS been Syria. China is also backing Syria with money. The Chinese are looking to build on the old world power position of the historic Silk Road (One belt, one road). China has never actively participated in the war militarily but has ensured financing their goals. Syria maintains close economic relations with Russia and China because of the stupidity of the West, which began with stopping a pipeline to compete with Russia. Likewise, despite being a member of NATO, Turkey is flirting with the expansion of Turkish-Chinese relations in addition to it historical ties with Russia.

As strange as it might sound, China has more skin-in-the-game with Syria than Russia. The Russians had to intervene after it became apparent that the international and Islamist mercenaries were heading for the Russian military base in Latakia. Russia and China clearly complement each other on the worldwide stage of politics. Both suffered Communist revolutions and they are the most important security players in that part of the world. China has provided the economic security while Russia provides the military security.

Syria is the focal point in the Middle East. It is where all the power meets for economic reasons. This seems to be the way for thousands of years.

Mar 28 2018

Will the Euro Survive by 2021?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Euro €

Re-Posted Mar 28, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

The results of the Italian election is just starting to sink in. The rise of comedian Beppo Grillo to Italy’s most successful politician, who won 32.7% of the popular voted compared to Merkel winning 32.8% in the German election.  Following the election on March 4th, Grillo’s “five-star” party took by far the first place. Brussels is still in shock and trembling as its mood has changed from he is just a joke to “OMG! This threatens the very existence of the EU”.

Grillo’s party sharply criticizes the EU, and above all, it questions the very purpose of Euro. The skepticism in the EU’s founding country Italy where they signed the Treaty of Rome, is rather amazing that those still focused on domestic issues in the USA are clueless about the threat to the Euro.

The threat Italy poses to the Euro stems from Brussels’ refusal to aid Italy with the refugee crisis and the outrageous demands that the increased expenditure for the refugees must be deducted from other expenditures to stay within the EU demanded guidelines, This has maintained a serious deflationary atmosphere in Italy and Brussels simply ignores the economic impact of what their policies have imposed. Italy’s public debt amounts to €2.2 trillion, and the risk of this debt going into crisis undermines the entire existence of the Euro. This is the direct result of the failed structure of the Euro I have warned about from the outset. (see 1996 reports)

Brussels tries to blame the misconduct of banks and takes no responsibility for the failed design of the Euro or for EU legislators and the European Central Bank, which have also played a profound role is turning Italy against Brussels. Swapping the old debt into Euro that then doubled in value, created a massive wave of deflation that 10 years of flooding the economy with money by the central bank has produced nothing but undermined then the pension system throughout Europe.

 

The world is lost, yet politicians fail to even understand that they are lost in their misconceptions of economics. The peak in the Euro came precisely in 2008 and ever since we have witnessed the erosion of economic confidence. The peak of the first 8.6-year wave into this new cycle for Europe came 2013.13 and then the low was 2017.43. We are now in a wave due for its peak in 2021.73 and by that turning point, we will see the Euro under tremendous pressure if it can even survive. There is no doubt that by 2030.33, that the Euro will probably not exist. The complete failure of the design is a profound mistake that is tearing Europe apart

Mar 28 2018

How Do We Really Forecast the Future?


Armstrong Economics Blog/AI Computers

Re-Posted Mar 28, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; It is obvious that you have indeed been behind the curtain for your knowledge of even global politics is amazing. Kim Jong Un is here in Beijing. You said he would back down. You said the risk of war lies in the Middle East, not Korea. Your model calls the markets. You said the Dow would bounce for two days and then turn down. Even that took place today. Where do you begin and the computer ends?

UGH

ANSWER: That is a hard question to answer. The computer can show me the region for conflict. That is determined by cyclical trends for each region yet at times it is augmented by a combination of capital flows. Picking things like the fall of communism back in 1989 and picking when the Berlin Wall would fall were based cyclically on the outcome of that trend. That was 72 years from the Russian Revolution of 1917. That was the perfect target for the volatility models within the ECM. Both converged so it made it really a piece of cake.

The collapse of the Soviet Union came in 1991, that was a simple 2-year reactionary process all within a cyclical forecast. Now, the collapse of the Russian bond market which set in motion a major contagion and the Long-Term Capital Management debacle was determined from a capital flow and cyclical perspective. That came 8.6 years following the fall of the Berlin Wall. When that forecast made the front page of the second section of the FT, that is when even the CIA came. They suddenly realized that our model could forecast the rise and fall of nations. But that is also when the bankers began to complain to the CFTC and SEC that I was “manipulating” the world economy because they were all long Russian bonds and blamed me for their losses using the FT article as proof. They said I had too much “influence” rather than consider the possibility that just maybe we were able to forecast events that they thought bribing politicians would prevent.

The above chart is calculated from the day the Berlin Wall fell – November 9th, 1989. Our forecast for the fall of the Russian financial system in 1998 was 8,6 years from the fall of the Berlin Wall. But look at the dates beyond that 2002 (low in the US market post-DOT.COM Bubble), 2007 (the peak in the world economy & start of real estate meltdown), 2015 (Russia invade Syria, Refugees welcomed into Europe by Merkel, start of the rise in interest rates at the Fed), and the dates to come are 2019, 2024, 2028, and 2037.

This is the collapse of socialism which is the collapse of pensions and will result in a new monetary system. We will see 2019 as a financial crisis and 2024 as a rise in commodity prices.

Each domino is set in motion by the previous. Yes, my experience behind the curtain allows me to understand the real risks, but the model defines where they are and the computer will continue to write reports when I am gone.