How 10% of the People Can Make a Difference & Real Estate’s Role


QUESTION: Dear Marty,
First I would like to thank you for all the help you provide especially for us little guys.
I’m from Barcelona, and happily attended the release of “The forecaster” when you were there a few years ago.
I’m under 30 and working my butt off trying to save what I can while paying rent with my partner on a smallish 50m flat (which has become prohibitevely expensive for young local people as rents are at all time highs).

Following your recomendations I’ve put my small savings into movable assets (US and European equities).
With regards to the chart you posted on Spanish Real Estate I was surprised to see the price still so near the bottom of the Housing Crisis. I live in Barcelona and prices are in most cases near or at all time highs for most of the city neighborhoods (of course in € nominal prices wich have dropped quite a bit in $ terms) but as you move away from the city the recovery has been more modest to say the least.

In Barcelona price increses are mostly due to foregneirs moving in and maybe also because people here don’t ussually invest in the stock market but instead put savings into RE (despite the housing bubble people have a big chunk of retirement savings into real estate).
RE is not cheap to say the least but I’m wondering wether I should contract a 30y fixed mortgage and buy a house. My biggest fears are two:
– If long term mortgages dry up I may find out in mkt to mkt loss positions on the house as prices might collapse.
– If the economy declines I have the risk of maybe being fired but still chained to a mortgage.
I fear the later specially since my father has been recently notified that he is going to get fired. The company he works for has decided to fire all employees who are up to 13y!!! close to retirement age (and will probably replace 1/4 of the workforce with cheaper labor).
Given the above do you think it’s still a good time to buy in the big Spanish cities like Barcelona using a fixed mortgage or that you might be better off renting and waiting for the collapse.
Thank you
A.

ANSWER: Barcelona is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. It is even one of the best places to live. In terms of local earning power, yes, rent in Barcelona is high. In terms of international value, they are cheap, which is why you have so many foreign investors who have poured into your city. Even economically, Barcelona is extremely productive and this was in part behind the reason for the separatist movement. It also had its own history of separatist movements from the Roman Empire (see Maximus 409 AD).

You have noticed the foreign buyers. As the euro drops, the value of property will look cheaper to a foreign investor than domestic. If you stay in the city proper region, this will have an international bid based on currency. In real terms, of course, the property will decline in value. However, this is more of a short-term trend. We all need a place to live. If you can buy with a FIXED rate mortgage, then you will be better off and certainly do not do floating rates. The risk with banks remains that they will stop lending on property as loans turn bad and political turmoil unfolds. Soon it will be an issue of whether Spain will stay in the euro, or whether the euro even exists. The property in the rural area will always be cheaper. So it depends upon what your personal goals might be. Rural property where you have a bit of land and can grow some food is not a bad hedge. But it has been getting cold even in Spain, a country that normally supplies Europe with food during the winter.

We will be heading into a currency crisis. Tangible assets are the way to survive. The biggest problem with real estate is that you cannot take it with you. So keep that in mind. We need a place to live so that is the bottom line. You do not want all your wealth in one asset. You are young enough to survive the major government reset. That will happen. I remain hopeful that if enough people understand the causes behind this crash, then we can make a difference and push back against tyranny.

Make no mistake about it. Government will ALWAYS act in its own self-interest to survive. There has NEVER been a single government that has EVER admitted it is wrong. They must always suppress the people to survive. Remember one thing: even in the USA, there were only three presidents who ever won slightly more than 60% of the popular vote. So, about 10% of the people really decide the fate of nations. We do not have to convince 100% or even 50%. We just need that 10% to make a difference.

Sen. Booker: If You Like Your Eggs, You Can Keep Your Eggs


Published on Feb 18, 2019

SUBSCRIBED 121K

Sen. Cory Booker tells VegNews that eating eggs doesn’t “align with his spirit.” He doesn’t want government to regulate your diet. If you like your eggs, you can keep your eggs. He just wants to nudge America toward fake cheese. Yet, if we’re going to save the planet, you need to stop eating meat. Right Angle is a production of the Members at BillWhittle.com, who enjoy Members-Only shows like this

Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud to Increase Governmental Power


There is a serious question that no one wants to address. How did Al Gore create the global warming scare and earn hundreds of millions of dollars in the process? Before Al Gore, science was worried deeply about what we are experiencing today — global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek magazine published an article in which they sounded the alarm bell and proposed solutions to deliberately melt the ice caps:

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting thearcticc ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.”

This sounds very similar to today’s proposed solution of putting particles in the atmosphere to deflect the sunlight to reduce global warming.  Indeed, TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977, cover featured the cover story, “The Big Freeze.” They reported that scientists were predicting that Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit. Their cited cause was, of course, that humans created global cooling. Then suddenly the climate cycles shifted and it began to warm up.

There was this core group of people who seemed to enjoy all the attention they were gathering by predicting the end of civilization caused by humans. As the temperatures began to warm, suddenly they had to switch the dire forecasts from global cooling caused by humans to global warming caused by humans.

Al Gore came to the rescue. Global cooling meant that government should stockpile food for everyone, but that would cost money. Switching to global warming would create a different agenda that they were familiar with. Like smoking, they could tax it to HELP people. Of course, when they did stop and tax revenues began to decline, they introduced taxes on e-cigarettes and didn’t try to deter people from smoking.

With global warming, they could tax everyone for things they did every day from driving a car to heating and cooling their homes. Suddenly, global warming was a lot more profitable for government than global cooling. The alarm bell stopped ringing that warned of a continued global cooling, seen between 1945 and 1968, that was creating a new Ice Age.

Al Gore took the position of Vice President under President Bill Clinton. In that capacity, with Bill Clinton chasing women, Hillary became the de facto President and Al Gore was given free rein. No other Vice President enjoyed that power until Dick Cheney under George Bush, Jr.

Gore set out to enact policies that would alter government and our future by placing humankind in harm’s way. Gore directed all funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority for the United States Government. Gore created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, and the “Scope of Activities” was dramatically altered. Gore directed that the agenda was to be EXCLUSIVELY a global warming agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He claimed there would be NO DEBATE regarding the science behind the new agenda. Gore deliberately silenced all opposition.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development was to focus EXCLUSIVELY on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting the U.S. economy to his agenda. The Council shifted from economic development to environmental development even though it would reduce economic development. Gore flipped the purpose of the Council to a global warming and then set about his agenda to create a crisis to increase government control and power. That can only happen when there is a crisis, which Gore then manufactured.

To pull off the new agenda, Gore’s strategy set out to purge the government of anyone who disagreed or opposed his agenda in any way. He instilled, not the fear of God, but the fear of Gore throughout the high-ranking government officials in the agencies that included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their funding would be cut unless they adopted Gore’s agenda.

When physicist Dr. William Happer, who was the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 in disagreement with Al Gore, he was instantly fired. Harper would later comment: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore’s propaganda machine has been amazing. From the position of vice president, he changed the entire world while Bill was preoccupied with the line of girls waiting for their turn in the White House. His net worth exploded from $2 million to an estimated $300 million. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, even made him $24 million with its apocalyptic forecasts that are an embarrassment today. He went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which is awarded not for peace, but whatever agenda they want to push at any given moment. He was awarded that prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power.

Farmers going Bankrupt – A Prelude to a Boom?


Part of the cycle for a commodity boom is typically preceded by a commodity depression in which the productive capacity is reduced. We are witnessing that in the agricultural sector. Additionally, extremely cold weather continues. Bankruptcies in the farming sector have been on the rise since 2014. These are the pre-staged events that are required to create a commodity boom for the next cycle — the reduction in supply.