Tag Archives: ECB

Aug 18 2017

European Refugee Crisis will Engulf Europe by 2032


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

Re-Posted Aug 18, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Migrants sit in a boat during a rescue operation by the Italian navy off the coast of Sicily on Nov. 28. Italy is looking to revamp the way it handles the hundreds of thousands of migrants who arrive annually.

 

The European Refugee Crisis is really completely out of control. The bulk of these people are by no means refugees. You see no women and children here in the boat – only young men. Now Spain is the new target and will overtake Greece as the second-biggest gateway for economic invader entering Europe by sea. The sudden surge in migration to Spain comes following a crackdown on human smuggling along the Libya-Italy sea route, which has been the main entry route to Europe. Africans are migrating to Europe because there is little to do at home.  Egypt will grow to 100 million people while Nigeria to soon reach 400 million. Europe will be swallowed up whole as it was when the Roman Empire was subjugated by the Barbarians who crossed the Rhine River.

When the Barbarians took over Europe, they at first issued coinage in the Roman tradition. But this began to rapidly diminish. Nevertheless, history is repeating. Europe is being swallowed up once again. By the time we see the other side of 2032, Europe will be a shadow of its former glory just as the main language of California will be Spanish not English. Things are definitely changing

Aug 17 2017

The Plague of One-Dimensional Analysis


Armstrong Economics Blog/Basic Concepts

Re-Posted Aug 17, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Blood-Moon-NASA

The Blood Moon is a term that has been sometimes used to refer to four total lunar eclipses that happen in the space of two years. This is a phenomenon astronomers call a lunar tetrad. The eclipses in a tetrad occur six months apart with at least six Full Moons between them. Just saw one last night that was close and is preparing to the total lunar eclipse that will take place on August 21st, 2017. This event lined up with the Economic Confidence Model which was very interesting (2015.75).

However, all the reports of impending doom due to the Blood Moon prophecy that the world would end back in 2015 were clearly exaggerated, especially since 8 tetrads since 1 AD have coincided with Jewish holidays without the world going coming to an end.

Now the 21st, we have a total eclipse over the United States. The world will not come to an end. Yet this type of analysis is always the same – one-dimensional. They always seek to tie some effect to a single cause. This is in all fields even medicine as well as economics. This is just a human tragedy why too many people try to be analysts and just make a mess of the whole thing

Aug 17 2017

Can the Sanction Work on North Korea


Armstrong Economics Blog/North Korea

Re-Posted Aug 17, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, can the sanctions against North Korea succeed now that China is implementing them as well?

ANSWER:  The UN sanctions are curbs on everything from lead and fish exports to questionable North Korean companies. North Korea is in the middle of a serious drought that’s ruining crops. Food is an issue there so this intensifies an already dark humanitarian picture where estimates are that 40% of the population is already malnourished. Only the people can create regime change.

North Korea is in a very severe recession particularly since 2015. The sanctions directly impact the mining and manufacturing industries, which account for just over 30% of GDP. The increase in food shortages will not deter Kim Jong Un from his ambition of developing an arsenal of nuclear-tipped missiles. Only the people can overthrow him for he could care less about the people.

North Korea’s dependency on Chinese fuel is China’s main ace-in-the-hole. If the fuel is cut off, then we are looking at curtaining his air force and their electricity production will decline significantly.

To the extent that the sanction force the people to rise up, then they can work. Otherwise, Kim will not yield as long as he retains power.

Aug 16 2017

Governments to Control Large Cash Transactions


Armstrong Economics Blog/The Hunt for Taxes

Re-Re-Posted Aug 16, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

 

I have been pointing out the crisis we face moving forward. The gist of this is the total fiscal mismanagement of government for which we, the people, are always blamed. This hunt for taxes has led down the path of arguments for eliminating currency. While people think Bitcoin is an answer, they do not understand government’s hunt for taxes no less the lack of a true rule of law. The government need only pass a law that anyone who fails to report what they have in Bitcoin is criminal and they get to confiscate all your assets.

Switzerland has its “wealth tax” which they argue is nothing just 0.02%. However, it requires you to report all assets worldwide. They then know precisely what you have and it is merely one vote away at anytime to raise the tax or impose criminal penalties for failure to report everything. Yet, once Switzerland has that info, under G20 they must share it with all other governments.

We have stood by and watched India cancel all high denomination notes. Try walking around with €500 notes in Europe and they look at you funny or won’t accept them. ATM machines have been reduced in Europe to taking a maximum of €200 in cash at best. This is all th hunt for taxes because government cannot function ethically no less morally.

Now the German Federal Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schäuble, is proposing to control all large cash transactions claiming this will prevent black money transactions and money laundering. Of course, they see these two issues not as typical crime like drugs, but tax avoidance.

Schäuble is coming up with an alternative for the resistance to eliminating cash is rising globally. He knows he cannot abolish cash. If you cannot eliminate cash, then Schäuble said there should be an upper limit placed on cash transactions, from which cash transactions must be registered and reported to the tax authorities. This is also happening in Europe where you cannot pay for a hotel bill greater than €1000 in France. Schäuble said cash transactions must be registered declaring who are the parties to the transaction on each side to prevent the black money transactions, money laundering and terrorist financing.

It has become painfully obvious that the real winner in the Terrorism War was Osama bin Laden. What this single man did was change the entire world into a hunt for taxes destroying our liberty and right to privacy. He destroyed our liberty like no other invader in history. Osama bin Laden has certainly made the list of the top 10 most influential people in history, but has not surpassed Karl Marx.

Schäuble previously said he was against eliminating cash and imposing ceiling on cash payments as were the French and Italy. Schäuble is joining the ever increase microscope to hunt down citizens for taxes always using Bin Laden as the excuse. Even the IMF recently published a handbook on how the reduction of cash could be implemented as silently as possible.  Australia is stalking children going to private schools and has declared “cash is for criminals!”

This trend is only going to end in revolution. Historically, all revolutions are about money.

Aug 16 2017

The Legal Challenge to Quantitative Easing


Armstrong Economics Blog/Central Banks

Re-Posted Aug 16, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

General view of the buildings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

It has taken almost 10 years for the ECB’s controversial government bond purchases to finally reach the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to be reviewed as to their constitutionality. There have always been serious questions whether the PSPP (Public Sector Purchase Program) was compatible with the ban on monetary budgetary funding that has been imposed upon member states. Italy, for example, asked for an exemption from the budgetary constraints to take care of the refugees, The EU Commission said absolutely no!

The German high court has been hearing a case that proposes it rule that financing government budgets would not be covered by the mandate of the European Central Bank (ECB). That has long been a thorn in the side of Draghi that he was acting unconstitutional at the end of the day. The ECJ has been requested to expedite the procedure, because “the case requires a quick settlement” after almost 10 years?

The background of the case is three constitutional arguments are fairly straight forward against the PSPP. The ECJ has not answered these issues which has been preventing the German court from finally decide the constitutional complaints.

The argument claims that the European System of Central Banks, with the program for the purchase of securities of the public sector which it has set up, is contrary to the prohibition of monetary government financing (Article 123 TFEU) and the principle of limited individual authorization (Article 5 1 TEU in conjunction with Art. 119, 127 et seq. TFEU).Therefore, the Deutsche Bundesbank should not participate in this program and the German Bundestag and the Federal Government are obliged to take appropriate measures against the program.

The plaintiffs in Germany wanted the Bundesverfassungsgericht to stop the Bundesbank’s participation in the ECB program. Germany, they argued, would suffer a complete loss if the bonds failed. The risk to the German national budget is disproportionate was their main point.

The ECJ has a political mandate which is strangely different from the Supreme Court of Germany or the United States for that matter.The ECJ has a mandate to promote integration within the EU, which is clearly a political element. If we add this political element, that one can see that the ECJ can view the purchase of government bonds as a permissible means of integration.

The ECB has clearly altered the bond market destroying liquidity. Banks are rushing to sell their bonds to the ECB in anticipation of rising rates which will cause their bond holdings to decline. Hence, the ECB has actually functioned as a place to dump financial toxic-waste.

The Germany Federal Constitutional Court has thus suspended further litigation pending the ECJ ruling.

The Federal Constitutional Court announced in a Press Release No. 70/2017 of 15 August 2017

Decision of 18 July 2017
2 BvR 859/15, 2 BvR 980/16, 2 BvR 2006/15, 2 BvR 1651/15
With the decision published today, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court has suspended the procedure concerning the question whether the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) of the European Central Bank is compatible with the Basic Law for the purchase of public sector securities and asks the Court of Justice of the European Union several questions For a preliminary ruling. According to the Senate, there are important reasons for the fact that the decisions underlying the bond purchase program are in breach of the ban on monetary budgetary financing and go beyond the mandate of the European Central Bank for monetary policy and thus fall within the competence of the Member States. The Senate seeks the implementation of the accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union, since the nature of the case requires its speedy completion.

Facts:

The PSPP is part of the Expanded Asset Purchase Program (EAPP), a framework program of the European Central Bank (ECB) for the purchase of assets. The PSPP accounts for the largest share of the total volume of the EAPP. On 12 May 2017, the EAPP achieved a total volume of EUR 1 862.1 billion; Of this total, EUR 1,534.8 billion accounted for the PSPP.

The complainants, by their constitutional complaints, claim that the European System of Central Banks, with the program for the purchase of securities of the public sector which it has set up, is contrary to the prohibition of monetary government financing (Article 123 TFEU) and the principle of limited individual authorization (Article 5 1 TEU in conjunction with Art. 119, 127 et seq. TFEU). Therefore, the Deutsche Bundesbank should not participate in this program and the German Bundestag and the Federal Government are obliged to take appropriate measures against the program.

Important considerations of the Senate:

1. Article 38 (1), first sentence, of the Basic Law guarantees to German nationals the right to democratic self-determination, which is enforceable with the constitutional complaint, in the scope protected by Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law. On the basis of the responsibility of integration, the German constitutional authorities have the duty, within the limits of their competences, to work towards compliance with the integration program. It is the task of the Federal Constitutional Court to examine whether measures taken by bodies, bodies and other bodies of the European Union are based on apparent excesses of competence or affect the non-transferable area of ​​the constitutional identity, with the result that German state institutions are not allowed to participate in their condition or implementation ,

2. There are doubts as to whether the PSPP decision is compatible with the ban on monetary budgetary financing.

(A) Article 123 (1) TFEU prohibits the ECB and the central banks of the Member States from purchasing debt securities directly from the institutions of the European Union and the Member States. Purchases on the secondary market may not be used to circumvent the objective pursued by Article 123 TFEU. A program dealing with the purchase of government bonds on the secondary market must therefore be provided with sufficient guarantees to ensure effective compliance with the prohibition of monetary government financing. The Senate is of the opinion that the Court of Justice of the European Union considers the terms which it sets out to limit the scope of the OMT program of 6 September 2012 within its scope as a legally binding criterion The purchase of government bonds.

(B) The PSPP covers bonds issued by States, state enterprises and other government bodies, as well as by European institutions. These bonds are purchased exclusively on the secondary market. However, for an infringement of the PSPP decision against Article 123 TFEU, it is argued that details of purchases are announced in a manner which could give rise to factual certainty on the markets that the Eurosystem will also purchase issued government bonds, The time limits between issuance of a debt instrument on the primary market and its acquisition on the secondary market is not verifiable, that acquired bonds are held to maturity until now, and that bonds with a negative return are obtained from the outset.

3. The PSPP decision could not be covered by the mandate of the ECB.

(A) monetary policy should be distinguished, in particular, from the economic policy which is primarily the responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with the wording, system and objective of the Treaties; The objective of a measure to be determined objectively, the means chosen to achieve this objective, and its link with other arrangements.

(B) From the Senate’s point of view, the PSPP decision could not be seen as a monetary policy measure, but rather as a predominantly economic policy measure, on the basis of an overall view of the relevant delineation criteria. While the PSPP has a stated monetary policy objective and is committed to the pursuit of this objective of monetary policy, But the economic policy implications arising from the volume of the PSPP and the associated predictability of the purchase of government bonds are already directly reflected in the program itself. This would render the PSPP disproportionate in relation to the underlying monetary policy objective. Moreover, the decisions constituting the basis of the program do not provide a comprehensible explanation which would allow the continuous continuity of the program to be reviewed on an ongoing basis during the several years of implementation of the decisions.

4. On the basis of the risk allocation between the ECB and the Bundesbank, the budgetary right of the German Bundestag, protected by Article 20 (1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law, and its overall budgetary responsibility by the PSPP decision Or its implementation in view of possible losses of the Bundesbank, can not be foreseen at present.

(A) An unlimited risk allocation within the Eurosystem and the resulting risks to the national central banks’ profit and loss account would constitute a violation of constitutional identity within the meaning of Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law if it were to recapitalize the national central banks with budgetary resources Which the Senate has committed to the approval of the German Bundestag in its jurisprudence to the EFSF and the ESM. For the success of the constitutional complaints, it is therefore important whether such a risk allocation can be excluded under the primary law.

(B) the decision-making by the Governing Council on the nature and extent of the risk-sharing between members of the European System of Central Banks is hardly determined by primary law. This could allow the ECB Council to amend the rules on risk-sharing within the Eurosystem, which could lead to risks to the national central banks’ profit and loss account and, moreover, to the overall budgetary responsibility of the national parliaments. Against this background, the question arises whether an unlimited risk allocation in the event of default of bonds of central governments and equivalent issuers between the national central banks of the Eurosystem against Article 123 and Article 125 TFEU and Article 4 (2) TEU With Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law).

Aug 16 2017

Wall Street Banks Stunned At Trump’s Proposed Reform


Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis

Re-Posted Aug 16, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

 

Trump’s economic consultant adviser, Gary Cohn, has declared a return to the separation system in the US banking system in effect restoring Glass-Steagall Act which dates from the 1930s and was adopted as a result of the Great Depression yet abolished in 1999 by the Clintons. Trump had already spoken during the election campaign for a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act. So Cohn is simply repeating this position. Yet we have to look deeper here. Why is a former Goldman Sachs guy now against the Glass-Steagall Act?

In the banking sector, restoring the Glass-Steagall Act will reduce competition for Goldman Sachs. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup would all be cut-off from investment banking services. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would be benefactors. Expect now that Congress will drag its feet to protect the banks making sure this will not take place in the short-term. Much of the argument focuses on reducing the size of banks and separating the powers between investment and commercial banking will prevent the too-big to fail problems.

Aug 15 2017

The Currency & Banking Crisis for Europe


Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis

Re-Posted Aug 15, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Thanks for this free advice. But, in this comment: “/our-european-tour-part-ii-seizing-all-bank-accounts-throughout-eu/” You write: “Clearly, people should be fully aware of the thinking process in government. Brussels will become authoritarian when the free markets rain on their parade. I strongly recommend that everyone should keep 30 days worth of cash to cover your basic needs.”

But, it is better in dollars that in euros, no?

Thanks for all,

J, Portugal

ANSWER: Yes, the dollar will rise after this year from Political Hell. Keep in mind that a rising dollar will break the world monetary system – not a weak dollar. Keep in mind that the entire system is headed to a reset probably no later than 2021. So we are not talking about long-term decisions here. You have to stay fluid about this.

Aug 15 2017

Government & Revolution – Is it Inevitable?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Police

Re-Posted Aug 15, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

I have been warning that as governments move closer to this major event of a Sovereign Debt Crisis which begins next year with the start of the Monetary Crisis Cycle, they historically will ALWAYS, and without exception, bite the hand that has fed them. The object for government is survival of the fittest and that is them. This is never really about helping people as they raise retirement ages, punish the youth with school loans they cannot discharge, and exempt themselves from most laws that apply to us. This is also never about how to properly run the economy for the benefit of all. It always boils down to it being them against us. Throughout history, there has never been even one benevolent government that has ever surrendered power willingly for the good of the country or the people. That has NEVER happened even once. Power has always had to be ripped from their grasp either by the people, an internal coup, or some foreign invader.

Yes, not every revolution has to be blood flowing down the streets. It will depend upon the military. In the case of Russia, the military did the honorable thing and stood-down. That is indeed an extremely rare event. From Byzantium and the NIKA Revolt to Tiananmen Square Massacre, the military has often first just slaughtered the people following orders. The German soldiers killing the Jews said the same exact thing – they were just following orders. That has certainly not been the case even recently as in Venezuela where this soldier is killing his own people while standing behind a barricade that reads: “If the order is against the people your honour is to disobey.”

More-often-Than-Not, the revolutions throughout history come about when the taxes of government simply break the back of the economy. We are reaching one of those moments as we cross the threshold into 2018.

Aug 14 2017

Gordon Chang Rightly Explains The Key-holder to North Korea is China…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on August 13, 2017 by

Asian policy specialist Gordon Chang interviewed by Maria Bartiromo on her Sunday talk show and accurately outlines the key to a denuclearized North Korea is an economically defeated China.  It appears Mr. Chang fully understands the Trump policy of using economics to achieve national security.

As we have continued to outline, China, specifically the old guard communist control agents within Beijing, use Kim Jong-un as a foil against the west, specifically against the United States.  The long-term objective in using the DPRK is retention of China’s economic strategy, and blockage of President Trump from upending their goals.  Watch:

.

As we have outlined extensively, President Trump holds all of the cards in this economic and trade standoff.  The U.S. is China’s customer and there’s a $500 billion trade deficit.

However, President Trump cannot be completely open with the strategy because part of the long-term plan is to allow China to save face by giving up North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. It would be against Trump’s interests if the entire global and geopolitical community understood what was happening.

So they question becomes, how will we know when President Trump has won in the economic and national security challenge?

Well, first let’s look at the geopolitical landscape and the known and identified calendar to view the goal timeline:

♦We know President Trump is planning to attend an ASEAN meeting in November.

♦We also know that President Trump is planning to visit China later this year.  Most likely that trip will be part of the ASEAN engagement.

So it makes sense that President Trump would like to conclude the outline of the economic diplomacy by the time of the ASEAN and China visit – such that: A.) President Trump can outline the agreement and stroke the panda’s ego on his turf; and B.) President Xi Jinping can announce his magnanimous victory on behalf of great Panda’s incredible achievement in providing great security to the world.

::::smiling:::::

Yup.

Meanwhile, just prior to the ASEAN/China meetup, President Trump’s secret weapon, Ivanka, who happens to be the most beloved American in China, is deployed to India to capture the world’s attention with Narendra Modi hugs.

President Modi is the “Trump Card” in the geopolitical economic gamesmanship.  China is currently at odds with India’s rise to economic power; Ballywood is very hot in the U.S. right now; and a warm Modi – Trump economic relationship is a foil against China’s heavy-handed extortion of their economic partners.

Whoopsie sounds like the makings of a fork in China’s One Road/One Belt plan.

Strategery.

::::still smiling::::

Again, President Trump holds all the economic cards.  Just look at what he did to neuter Russia’s economy when everyone was paying attention to the bouncing laser dot on the wall.  The American and Western media missed it, but President Trump moved the entire geopolitical world via a strategic energy platform.

Sip this next paragraph slowly to enjoy:

From OPEC (Saudi Summit) to the EU and Baltic States (Poland Pre-G20); to North African energy development via President Macron (Libya and Mali); to walking away from the Paris Climate agreement; to discussions with Theresa May on a bilateral trade deal; to massive shipments of coal to U.K. and France; to closing a deal to deliver Ireland massive amounts of Texas LNG; to our own internal U.S. energy production policy with pipelines, Oil, Coal and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) etc.

President Trump used all of those “allied” relationships to lower global energy prices.

The bigger part of the ‘big-missed-picture‘ was how that energy strategy impacted adversaries like Russia and simultaneously supported the larger America-First economic and geopolitical space.

President Trump thinks seriously long-term, and really BIG picture.

President Trump thinks so far out in front of his detractors they genuinely cannot fathom the sequential logic behind the day-to-day granular activity.

Yes, in large part this is what makes President Trump so enjoyable to watch politically. Just like the American media, our international adversaries and competitors have no reference point for a U.S. President that is entirely independent from influence.

::::Yup, smiling::::

So we can safely predict that sometime in late fall, most likely before the ASEAN visit timeline in November, President Trump and Rex Tillerson will be engaged in a new round of Six Party Talks, initiated by request of the increasingly desperate China.

China will structure the DPRK talking points to set up the meetings.  This is a part of how China is allowed to save face and sets up the magnanimous Panda narrative.

The six party talks will be essentially a Marshal Plan of sorts for North Korea.  Japan, South Korea, The United States, China, Russia and North Korea will enter into a set of negotiations publicly sold as engaging in diplomacy and reducing tension.

President Trump (or T-Rex) will sit on the patio complimenting Xi Jinping (or deputy), and Russian, Japanese and South Korean emissaries.

Meanwhile, in the conference room, Secretary Wilbur Ross, USTR Robert Lighthizer and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will play the role of Willy Wonka handing out the golden economic tickets to the representatives who all line up with their requests.

President Trump’s golf partner Shinzo Abe will already have his ticket, but he’ll play along.  The only real negotiations will be between the U.S. Russia and China.  Russia will be negotiating for higher regional energy prices to get their GDP growing again, and China negotiating to retain as much of the $500 billion trade surplus as possible.

The end result will be Kim Jong-un giving up his nuclear ambitions for good; the U.N. enters under carefully negotiated terms, and Big Panda promises to the world to be the magnanimous insurance policy therein.  Everything between now and that outcome is optically chaff and countermeasures.

That’s essentially the way the bright economic and national security future looks today.

Then again, it might get brighter – gilded even.

After all, this is President Donald Trump we’re talking about.

Aug 14 2017

The Civil Unrest in Charlottesville is Part of the Cycle into 2020


Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest

Re-Posted Aug 14, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

The violence that erupted ahead of a planned rally where thousands of white nationalists were expected to gather for an alt-right protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday, led to numerous injuries of which at least two people were seriously injured. A video appears all over YouTube showing the confrontation as a man is being dragged away by officials. The Unite the Right rally was being held at Emancipation Park with hundreds moving through the city, wearing militia uniforms, waving flags and chanting ‘Blood and Soil’ as they made their way towards the event.

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer had denounced the ‘cowardly parade of hatred, bigotry, racism, and intolerance march down the lawns of the architect of our Bill of Rights’ and warned for residents to stay away from the rally. Clearly, this rally is anti-immigration with many pointing the finger at Europe.

We must realize that such riots against immigrants is by no means new. Turn the economy down and unemployment rises, the first thing people blame is the immigrant. For the major to label this event simply caused by “hatred, bigotry, racism, and intolerance” demonstrates he does not comprehend the cause nor does he even think this is something that has occurred in the past. The people who oppose this alt-right also are typically the people who are students and have lost nothing yet.

We will most likely see these type events explode peaking out in real bloodshed by September 21/22nd, 2019 (2019.725). So expect to see this civil unrest continue to rise especially after 2017.