Tag Archives: Central Planning

Sep 5 2017

EU Refuses to Honor Solidarity to Share Expenses of Refugees


Armstrong Economics Blog/European Union

Re-Posted Sep 5, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

The EU has been dictating to the member states but has failed to shoulder common costs for the refugee crisis they did not create. The EU denied Italy to subtract the cost of feeding refugees from their budget restrictions imposed by the EU. Now the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban called for a payment of €400 million for the Hungarian border fence. What is clear is that “European solidarity” is a one-way street. Everyone must do as the EU commands and pay up to support Brussels, but Brussels will not share the costs of the crisis they have created. This is tearing the “solidarity” apart because it is clearly a one-way arrangement.

Sep 5 2017

The Crash & No Bid


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized

Re-Posted Sep 5, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hey Marty,

Love your blog and the insight you have given all your readers. However I am wondering that when you say the markets are going to become more volatile – how does that effect the trigger that sets off the dominoes ??
what i mean is, if the economy around the world hits rough water; what is the rogue wave that sinks the ship? is it a quantity/ volume of capital money that shifts, or is it a short circuit due to political turmoil?
I read that the whole 2008 “crash” was triggered by 500 billion dollars, which is minuscule amount of the total USA GDP. But i have also read from your blog that Germany has 5X its GDP in synthetics on the book !
*IF the markets are more volatile, does that mean there is LESS threshold due to a minor tremor in the gov or markets?
your insight on how volatility increases with regards the tipping point, and WHY the tipping point may happen would be of great interest.
N From Canadaor
ANSWER: Markets crash when the majority are long and anything can spook them because there is a lack of new buyers coming in to carry the market higher. Some longs try to sell and they find a lack of bids. The crash comes when you hit the no bid and market-makers withdraw. That is the sharp increase in price volatility that is different from volume volatility. With price volatility, there need not be major volume – just a gap and a lack of bids. The event need not even be real – just a rumor.
The panic unfolds because of price movements rather than volume. When large gaps appear WITHOUT supporting news, even professionals sell because they cannot make a decision in a vacuum.
Sep 5 2017

Wyoming’s Money Grab Against VW Dismissed


Armstrong Economics Blog/Germany

Re-Posted Sep 5, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

A Federal Judge Breyer ruled against Wyoming and in favor of Volkswagen (VW) dismissing the claim that because of VW’s manipulation of diesel emissions, they caused environmental damage and should pay damages to the State in addition to individual car owners. Judge Breyer stated that despite the fact that VW was indeed responsible for manipulation. However, since these were carried out during the production of the diesel cars, the Congress had decided that the EPA, rather than the individual federal states, was in the best position to deal with damage regulations.

VW had agreed with Wyoming and most other states in the controversy about claims from buyers. What this suit was focused on getting fines in the billions of dollars from the company based upon alleged environmental damage. This was clearly a political decision because if Wyoming was allowed to proceed, every state and local country would jump on the free lunch and claim they too are entitle to damages that could never be proven since the air is not stagnant over any single State or county.

VW had already agreed to pay $2.9 billion as punishment for the increased pollution caused by its diesel cars. The company had committed $25 billion to meet claims from buyers, dealers, environmental authorities and federal states. In addition, the company has offered to repurchase half a million diesel vehicles. If every single jurisdiction then sued VW, they company would go into bankruptcy.

Sep 4 2017

Report: Trump Will End DACA Tuesday With 6 Month Delayed Deportation Enforcement Window For Congressional Action…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on September 3, 2017 by

Generally speaking, anticipatory media reports can often be subject to incorrect assumptions and false conclusions.  However, a Politico report on the outline of President Trump eliminating the DACA program passes the general sniff test of a process likely to be consistent with the actual outcome.

Encapsulated, the report states President Trump will announce the end to the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals on Tuesday, but will delay implementation of the enforcement therein for a period of six months allowing congress to debate legislative action prior to DACA designee’s receiving deportation notices.

This tracks with what most people have anticipated because President Obama’s DACA executive action is similar in unlawful executive overreach as the courts, including the Supreme court, upheld in the prior DAPA ruling.  Any state that challenges Obama’s DACA program will likely win, and it’s impossible for President Trump’s DOJ to legally defend it.

The delayed enforcement aspect will allow voters the ability to begin primary challenges against congressional Republicans who are guaranteed to drop their masks and work earnestly to deliver UniParty legislative amnesty to illegal aliens.

WASHINGTON DC – […]  Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.

In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”  (read more)

This Politico Report tracks with our previous discussions and outlines on the need for President Trump to show the American electorate the issues with the UniParty.

There is one political enterprise within Washington DC and national politics. There is only one enterprise. That enterprise is the UniParty. There is only one political party in Washington DC, with two internal caucuses – Republicans and Democrats.

The “Big Ugly” is the moment when President Trump decides to rip the masks off the remnants of the Republican wing of the UniParty within Washington DC.

In many ways the “Big Ugly” is the elimination of the Republican party, and the beginning of an era when a second party, a MAGA party, actually enters the blood stream of U.S. politics and stands against the UniParty.

The confrontation is inevitable. It has been inevitable since the entire GOPe apparatus, including every single GOPe candidate within the 2016 Republican primary, stood up against Donald J Trump. Candidate Donald Trump held an entirely different series of campaign platform issues the Republican apparatus abhors. That’s why he won, and they didn’t.

However, Since the 2016 victory, the UniParty has thrown everything they can in front of him to block any advancement of those policies and platform issues. Every political tool in the Republican armory has been deployed to eliminate the threat Trump represents. Reminder:

President Trump gave them a budget that reduces a trillion in spending; the republicans in congress balked. They openly said reducing spending is not their goal. Those same republicans are now suing President Trump and trying to force the State Department to spend on USAID and NGO’s. Those same republicans supported Omnibus spending bills. Those same republicans will not support removing ObamaCare. Those same republicans are fighting renegotiated trade deals. Those same republicans don’t support a border wall. Those same republicans supported launching ridiculous Russian conspiracy investigations; and the list goes on, including senate republicans using a strategic maneuver to block their own President from recess appointments during their summer recess…

This is the behavior of opposition, UniParty opposition. During the recent Arizona speech and MAGA rally, President Trump came closer than ever before to igniting the fuse on the Big Ugly.

Now, with President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA being eliminated, we see yet another example of masks falling. Many republicans will oppose the unlawful Obama DACA program being removed.  This reality only amplifies the signs the Big Ugly confrontation is needed more than ever.  It’s President Trump against a unified DC system.

Corporations (special interest groups) write laws. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.

Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome.

But the important part to remember is that the origination of the entire system is EXTERNAL to congress.

Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.

When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.

While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.

This is the way legislation is created.

This is the reason why congress had ZERO legislation for President Trump’s platform. There is no entity within Washington DC, republicans or democrats, who support the Trump agenda. That’s why no legislation has advanced. President Trump’s entire patriotic perspective on MAGAnomics, national security, and focus on “America-First” as a priority is adverse to Washington DC’s decades-long political and financial interests.

There are dozens of “Amnesty Bills” and “Open Border” legislative constructs, created by special interest groups and supported by lobbyists, waiting for the UniParty to pick them up.  We will now enter a phase where those bills will be advanced.

The bank accounts of the lobbyists are bulging with cash to pay off congressional representatives, and they have the Citizens United decision to spend unlimited amounts of money in the 2018 election to protect the purchased congressional representatives from primary challenges.    The lobbyists have billions at their disposal to influence this process.

A confrontation to draw out this truth is needed. That confrontation is “The Big Ugly”. DACA is merely symptomatic as a potential trigger for the confrontation. The federal budget, trade-deals, non-military global intervention, corporate regulations, immigration enforcement, the border wall, financial bailouts etc. are all similar triggers.

Ever since Donald Trump entered into politics there is a key element he knows he needs to keep at the forefront to succeed against the UniParty. To continue succeeding Trump needs all of his adversaries, our adversaries, to drop their masks.

Donald Trump has done a remarkable job at drawing-out the enemy behind the wire. No-one would argue they hold the same perspectives on the Republican apparatus, and the GOPe punditry, they previously held prior to Businessman Trump becoming Politician Trump.

As both a candidate and a president Donald Trump has exposed a jaw-dropping number of political deceivers. He’s also single-handily exposed their hidden agenda(s), and proved beyond a shadow’s doubt that Republican’s were lying about policy and principle for years.

When President Trump speaks, he’s always highlighting these issues. He is also speaking on these issues, repeatedly, to draw out the hidden truth and create a larger awakening. It is really, really, important to see that Trump is always trying to engage that larger awakening.

This weekend he probed again. Judged the UniParty and media response to his visit to Houston. Sensing their attack position. Measuring the severity of the opposition. Always probing, always working on instinct. Always aware of the need for the larger awakening.

If, following his probes this weekend, President Trump does decide to eliminate the President Obama DACA program, yes it will clearly indicate the Big Ugly has begun. The reason is simply because of the predictable consequences.

With the elimination of DACA, the Republicans will threaten funding for border enforcement and the border wall.  The Republicans will demand immigration amnesty. The Republicans will openly threaten every principle of ‘America First’ trade renegotiation as leverage to fight back against President Trump.  The Republicans will also hold the debt ceiling as hostage and fight Trump’s budget cuts.  The Republicans will be willing to join with Democrats and force a presidential shut-down of government, etc. the list of unity enterprises within the UniParty is longer than you can imagine.

Within all of that action the Republicans will be fully unmasked; and with that unmasking the U.S. electorate will see that President Trump’s opposition is a UniParty of Paul Ryan joining with Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell joining with Chuck Schumer, and both Democrats and Republicans united against President Trump.

Just like it was during the 2016 GOP primary and general election, for the UniParty it becomes a zero-sum game.  Destroy Trump and the existential threat he represents; or their very livelihood is at risk.

President Trump will, yet again, be one man against an entire well-financed and corrupt political apparatus with only deplorable voters on his side.

Sep 4 2017

Gold – Oil – Dollar


Armstrong Economics Blog/Energy

Re-Posted Sep 4, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; At the cocktail party in Hong Kong I am the one who asked you how China should proceed to make the yuan a reserve currency. You said the rule of law must first protect property and surprisingly you said to issue commodity contracts redeemable in gold. Well, everyone knows whatever you seem to advise China does and very fast. The news is they will now do exactly that. Start a oil contract redeemable in gold. Can you explain why you took this position? You were surrounded at that moment and did not explain in detail why oil should be redeemable in gold.

DK

ANSWER: It was not based upon the rise or fall of gold. The objective is to establish the yuan as a reserve currency until we reach the Monetary Crisis Cycle conclusion. The logical step is to try to boost the yuan as a redeemable reserve currency with stability. You either PEG it to the dollar (unwise for political reasons) or you “LINK” it to gold – but do not PEG it to gold. If you attempt to PEG the yuan to gold, that would fail for you are making the same mistake as Bretton Woods. The only possible way is to “LINK”  it to gold but on a floating exchange rate. That way you are encouraging confidence in the yuan allowing it to be redeemed on a floating basis with gold. Hence, the political risk of the currency is reduced for it could become possible that the currency system breaks apart and politically currencies could be politically frozen and nonredeemable.

This is a long-term structural reform. Do not expect it to be a real game-changer just yet. There will be hype, of course, but we are looking at structural reforms that will take some time. Naturally the hype will claim this is the end of the “petro dollar” for they will use any excuse to call the dollar down. They do not understand that ONLY a rising dollar will break the world monetary system. A lower dollar will buy everyone a lot more time because most foreign borrowing is in dollars. They also are living in the past. The USA is not a net exporter – its a net importer.

Sep 4 2017

ECB – Draghi & Tapering


Armstrong Economics Blog/Central Banks

Re-Posted Sep 4, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

The European Central Bank (ECB) is expected to begin reducing its bond purchases gradually tampering its stimulation program of Quantitative Easing (QE). Nevertheless, reliable sources tell of the ECB being extremely cautious fearing what will happen if buyers do not appear and rates begin to rise sharply. The difference between the ECB and the Fed is stark. The ECB owns 40% of Eurozone government debt. The Fed does not even come close.

Obviously, the European financial markets have become addicted to the unprecedented inflow of cheap money even though there has been no appreciable rise in economic growth or inflation as was expected. This raises the question only asked behind the curtain: Will the economy spiral downward if QE ends? The Fed never reached the levels of ECB’s QE program so there is no comparison with the States.

The ECB expects to gradually lower the constant QE purchases of government debt in the Eurozone, which has really kept the governments on life-support. In part, this is why Macron is pushing to federalize Europe in its budgetary and financial markets. There is a fear that there will be severe distortions on the exchanges in the months ahead. What is hoped is that the Euro will decline and make the difficult weaning more tolerable by increasing exports and creating inflation. A lower currency will help to stimulate the Eurozone whereas a rising currency will only add to the deflationary pressures.

The ECB will most likely allow bonds to simply mature rather than sell them back to the marketplace. Any news of the ECB actually selling bonds would send a wave of panic through the European markets. Thus, the only practical way to approach this is to (1) reduce purchases and (2) allow current holding to mature and hopefully they money will be reinvested by the private sector. Accordingly, allowing bonds to simply mature and not the ECB will not reinvest, will eventually lead not to a meltdown of bond purchases but and transfer of buying to the private sector. This wonderful scenario of private reinvestments will not take place at current interest rate levels. It is more likely that the ECB will be compelled to continue to be a major player in the Eurozone bond market for many years to come. They are more likely than not trapped and unable to escape from this life-support system without grave consequences.

The central bank itself, however, is covered by how it reinvests the money from maturing papers. The ECB announced that it would be flexible and as long as necessary. European analysts predict that the majority of funds from matured securities will flow into federal bonds. They hope that Italian and French government securities will also benefit. The ECB has been buying government bonds and other securities on a large scale since March 2015. The purchases of public debt securities were with maturities of two to thirty years. The total program has now amounted to €2.28 trillion.

Draghi has put off any discussion until this month’s meeting at best. The ECB will proceed as slowly as possible. The ECB is expected to reduce its monthly purchases from  €60 billion to €40 billion in 2018, but it will most likely avoid any definitive target leaving it open for fear of market disruptions. His June 2017 speech that the ECB could possibly go a less expansive course because of economic recovery, sent the markets down, not up. The DAX peaked in June with Draghi’s first statement on reversing QE. That result was painful and Draghi has been criticized behind the curtain.

Sep 4 2017

Scandal of Selling Insurance on Products, Mortgages & Loans


Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis

Re-Posted Sep 4, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

One of the biggest rackets contributing to digging a deeper hole of economic decline in growth since the 1990s has been the insurance protection scam. When you go to a store they offer you protection on whatever you buy. The profits on these deals is exceedingly high. In many cases, computers or a TV has some warranty and they are just getting you pay for something you already have.

In Britain, this has become known as the PPI Scandal. They were selling you insurance that if something happened they would pay your mortgage payment. PPI policies were being sold since the 1990s on mortgages, and loans and credit cards. They were supposed to repay people’s borrowings if their income fell because they became ill or lost their jobs. In reality, their payout was just 15% according to the Guardian. The British courts have ruled against the bankers and insurance companies and they have to repay billions of pounds.

Selling such insurance has been outrageous exploiting consumers and reducing disposable income that has contributed to the lower economic growth in recent years. In the States, add the ballooning healthcare costs under Obamacare and the average person has little left after basic living expenses. This is resulting in fewer marriages, declining birth rates, and children still living with their parents well into their 30s.

It is time to clean up the insurance scam in every aspect.

Sep 4 2017

WHY are banks Too Big to Fail & Too Big To Jail


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption

Re-Posted Sep 4, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

There is something much more sinister going on behind the curtain. I have warned that you really are taking your life in your hands doing business in New York City with a bank because NOBODY ever wins against the bankers no matter what they do. This begs the question about why are banks paying huge fines, yet nobody goes to jail, and there is never a trial while class action suits are summarily dismissed? Something is seriously wrong here. To discover the answer, as always, just follow the money!

Back in 2003, Judge Milton Pollack dismissed two class action suits against Merrill Lynch for putting out bogus research during the DOT.COM Bubble after the investment bank plead guilty and paid huge fines. Judge Pollack wrote a 43 page decision protecting banks even when they produce intentional fake research. The judge said that investors were eager to take that risk and were to blame for their own losses. Pollack then dismissed another 25 lawsuits against the bankers. Similarly, another judge dismissed suits against Credit Suisse First Boston, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. Why is it impossible to sue the bankers in America where justice is supposed to exist for all?

So why are the banks paying huge fines but then nobody can sue them? An inside source coming from a lawyer who worked internally at a bank, explained that the New York Attorney General simply walks into his office and informs them they will hand over $1.2 billion in fines and he does not care about defenses or the rule of law. It is plain criminal extortion.  The bankers pay these fines because they cannot afford to go to trial and lose for then class action lawsuits from depositors and shareholders will bury the institution. So the judges are in on the scam and class action lawsuits are dismissed with absurd reasoning and the government makes billions in the process. Hence this corruption (1) leads to too big to jail and (2) it merely encourages bankers to do whatever they desire knowing they will pay a small percentage of what they make.

Who pays for all these fines? I was told they simply set aside an amount for what is called “protection” money just like dealing with the Mafia. The bankers raise fees to fund these so the consumer is the one paying for these huge fines not really even the shareholders. It is indeed organized crime at the government level.

Sep 3 2017

Two Seismic Events In North Korea are a Suspected Nuclear Test – Possibly: One Explosion, One Collapse…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on September 3, 2017 by

Two seismic events happening in North Korea are suspected to be a nuclear test.  The first event was reportedly measured at a 5.6 Richter Scale magnitude. The second event is being reported at 6.3.  Both seismic events are potentially related to a nuclear detonation:

SEOUL (Reuters) – An earthquake 5.6 was recorded on Sunday in North Korea near the country’s known nuclear test site Punggye-ri, Yonhap news agency reported, citing South Korea’s meteorological agency.

The quake appeared to have been man-made, Yonhap quoted the agency as saying, suggesting the isolated country had conducted a sixth nuclear test. (read more)

(Via CNBC) KCNA via KNS | Associated Press –  North Korea was struck by strong tremors on Sunday, with the South’s officials saying it could be due to a nuclear test.

The USGS initially reported the first tremor as a 5.6 magnitude, but later raised it to 6.3, while China’s earthquake administration said it detected a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in Northeastern North Korea, calling it a “suspected explosion,” Reuters reported.

The depth of the first quake was recorded as zero kilometers, the China earthquake administration said, according to Reuters.

The report cited the USGS as saying the first tremor occurred at around 12 noon North Korea time.

China’s earthquake administration later said it detected a second quake of magnitude 4.6 at a depth of zero kilometers, which it called a “collapse,” Reuters reported, noting the second tremor came eight minutes after the first at nearly identical coordinates.

A South Korean military official told NBC News that the first quake was artificial, while Yonhap reported the military said the first tremor was located near the North’s nuclear test site.

South Korea’s Blue House, the country’s equivalent of the White House, said that the North may conducted another nuclear test, its sixth, the South’s official news agency Yonhap reported.

The South’s President Moon Jae-in has called a National Security Council meeting, while the country’s military raised its alert level, Yonhap reported.

Previous tremors in the reclusive country have been caused by nuclear tests. The wave form signal for an explosion and an earthquake are different, allowing geologists to distinguish a man-made tremor.  (read more)

Sep 3 2017

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – Equity v Law


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Sep 3, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Many people have written in on both sides of the issue concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Some totally disagree with me and cite that the law is the law. But there is a historical problem with the rule of law – there are times when the rule of law is unjust. For example, if someone tried to kill you and you defended yourself and killed them, are you a murderer because you killed someone by the strict interpretation of the law?

King’s Bench

Historically, there were two courts in England – the King’s Bench and Chancery. In modern practice, the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made in the United States was to merge the two into the same court. That is what has given judges unbridled discretion to tear up the constitution any time they desire relying on the ancient powers of Chancery rather than the rule of law.

There is a clear distinction between someone who was brought here as a small child, grew up here, married, and had children with an American and a child sent across the border on their own. The deportation of the former would be a injustice not merely to the child who grew up here and is unfamiliar with the customs of his parent’s origins no less their own children here who are Americans depriving them of a parent. The deportation of the latter would not be an injustice.

Court of Chancery

The most important distinction between law (King’s Bench) and equity, which was administered by the Court of Chancery,  is the set of remedies each offers. The most common civil remedy a court of law can award is monetary damages. Equity, however, enters injunctions or decrees directing someone either to act or to forbear from acting. By the 14th century, the English Court of  Chancery was affording remedies where the strict procedures of the common law worked injustice or could not provide a remedy to a deserving petitioner. The writ of Habeas Corpus was equity – not law. The judges or Chancellors presiding in Chancery were often theological in background yet were also knowledgeable of Roman law and canon law. Over time, a body of rules emerged but they varied from Chancellor to Chancellor and they tended to become more fixed only during the 17th century. The became the system of precedent much like its common-law cousin.

The Court of Chancery assumed a vital role in many areas from false or unjust imprisonment to establishing a framework that the common law could not accommodate. This role gave rise to the basic distinction between legal and equitable interests. However, when one hands discretion to any judge, the net result is always, and without exception, the progression of corruption. By the 19th century, the Court of Chancery was hopelessly corrupt and as such, so was the United States Federal courts because the Founding Fathers merely this discretion with the rule of law and as such there can be no rule of law that is consistent in the United States.

The distinction of a child who grew up here and married an American and one that was recently pushed across the border is of tremendous importance. To deport the former will deprive children of their parent. This is what Chancery was for at the beginning. Unfortunately, we no longer have a court of real chancery nor do we have a court of law. The federal Judiciary is a corrupt system incapable of honoring either the law or equity.

In 1853, Bleak House was written by Charles Dickens, in which he describes how corrupt Chancery became during the 19th century. He concluded, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!” That was a sad statement of what had become of honor, dignity, and justice. We have reached that same point in American history where there is nothing left.

” On such an afternoon some score of members of the High Court of Chancery bar ought to be–as here they are–mistily engaged in one of the ten thousand stages of an endless cause, tripping one another up on slippery precedents, groping knee-deep in technicalities, running their goat-hair and horsehair warded heads against walls of words and making a pretence of equity with serious faces, as players might. …  This is the Court of Chancery, which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire, which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse and its dead in every churchyard, which has its ruined suitor with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress borrowing and begging through the round of every man’s acquaintance, which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right, which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope, so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart, that there is not an honourable man among its practitioners who would not give–who does not often give–the warning, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!”