Schulz Warning if Italy is Not Given Aid by the EU The Refugee Crisis Will Explode Again


SPD chancellor candidate Martin Schulz has come out and warned that if Italy is not given support, then it will send the refugees to Germany which it can no longer afford to accept any more. Schulz is warning that the refugee crisis in Germany will explode, IF Italy is not provided support from the European Union. Schulz is saying that since 2015, over one million refugees had infiltrated Germany and it is just beyond control. The question becomes whether this will get much worse and disrupt the German elections in the come of September.

If the EU does not stop the refugee invasion, they are going to suffer a tremendous economic decline beyond imagination going into 2021.

Poland Suggests Using Refugees to Form an Army – Very Bad Idea


Nike-Riot

Poland’s foreign minister has proposed forming an army out of the refugee men arriving in Europe. His logic is that Poland could ill-afford to send its troops to the Middle East. That may sound good use of refugees, but there is a serious problem. If Europe creates an army out of refugees, Brussels will then have the power to defend itself from Europeans with an effective mercenary army. This is the most dangerous proposition ever for an army with no community ties to the people will easily be used to oppress the people. Just look at the history of the Nika Revolt in Byzantium as an example. The emperor used foreign troops to slaughter the protesters when the local army would not kill its own people.

Martin Armstrong ✹ Why The Next Major Economic Collapse Is Rapidly Approaching? (MUST LISTEN)- upda


Published on Jul 17, 2017

Martin Armstrong ✹ Why The Next Major Economic Collapse Is Rapidly Approaching? (MUST LISTEN)- update .
Please click above to subscribe to my channel
Thanks for watching!

Martin Armstrong 2017 Has The Date Been Set For The Great Economic Collapse


Published on May 4, 2017

Martin Armstrong 2017 Has The Date Been Set For The Great Economic Collapse Please Subscribe to my NEW Channel!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Rr…
Alex Bennett

China – A Different Central Bank Altogether


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I believe you once said at your conference that you were surprised when you were asked to fly to Beijing to meet with the central bank because you were not an academic, but a trader. I think you said when you got there they were traders working in the bank, not academics. Did I recall that story correctly?

ANSWER: Yes. The central bank had sent staff to work on trading desks around the world in Tokyo, New York, and London. They then returned to run the bank. When the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis hit, I was very surprised that they asked me to come and not some academic. When I got there, I discovered that they were traders and we spoke the same language.

When I returned to the States, people I knew in the Fed and in Treasury called to ask me my opinion after these meetings with the Chinese government. I responded: It was great. They only hired people with experience!

I understand so many people think China does whatever I say. I think the real story is they may take what I say, but they see it through the eyes of a trader rather than an academic. Hence, they adopt it quickly but never blindly. They have a good nose for trends themselves.

Does CNN Really Have the Right to Freedom of Speech?


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I read your article on CNN imposing a fiduciary duty upon the directors as a public corporation. I tried to search if corporations truly have constitutional rights. It seems that there is a conflict on that subject and they may not have such rights at the end of the day. Would you care to explain this matter?

Thank you for your financial and legal expertise.

KE

ANSWER: You are correct. There is a tremendous conflict of laws when it comes to constitutional rights and corporations. My own case of contempt illustrated that conflict. I was never actually held in contempt P E R S O N A L L Y. I the individual was never held for 7 years. It was only the corporate officer since the Supreme Court deemed in 1988 that the 5th Amendment Privilege does not apply to corporate officers. Braswell v United States 487 US 99 (1988)  held “The custodian of corporate records may not resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production will incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Then you have the decision in Citizens United, where the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on political issues under the First Amendment. Corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same manner as individuals. Yet there is a great deal of conflict of laws regarding various rights. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Riley v. California (1914)  that Corporations cannot be arrested and do not have “bodies” to be searched under the Fourth Amendment.

Arthur Andersen used to be one of the big five accounting firms. The government criminally charged it and put the firm out of business back in 2002 when companies were not too big to prosecute.  In 2002, the firm voluntarily surrendered its licenses to practice as Certified Public Accountants in the United States after being found guilty of criminal charges relating to the firm’s handling of the auditing of Enron, the Texas energy corporation, which had filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Arthur Anderson agreed to admit it committed a crime by shredding Enron-related documents. Yet a corporation cannot be jailed. So how can it be criminally prosecuted?

The criminal charge faced by Andersen was obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C., Section 1512(b), which easily could have applied to Hillary’s lawyers, but Comey gave them immunity while the Justice Department put 85,000 out of work by criminally prosecuting the firm. In order to violate that section, the defendant must “corruptly persuade” someone to destroy documents. The defendant also has to intend that the documents won’t be available for legal proceedings. Former Arthur Andersen partner David Duncan pleaded guilty to obstruction as an individual.

A corporations is a legal construct that dates back to ancient Rome. It cannot commit a physical act such as obstruction of justice. So, how did Congress get past this problem when it wants to punish a company as a whole and destroy it? The government simply attributes the acts and intentions of the company’s employees to the company itself. This approach was sanctioned by the the Supreme Court which first endorsed the idea back in the 1909 case of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States. When government wants to get around something, they just play with the words and reasoning. There the Supreme Court ruled that since corporations were already liable in civil cases for their employees’ bad conduct, then why no extend that rule to the criminal law despite the fact that the corporation cannot be imprisoned?

In 1886 the Supreme Court accepted the argument that corporations were people and that “their money was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.” Another example is that in Nike v. Kasky, Nike asserted a free speech ‘right to lie’, while in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Hobby Lobby asserted a freedom of religion ‘right’ to exempt itself from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

There are just too many inconsistencies. Either a corporation has constitutional rights fully, or it should have none. You can’t be just little be pregnant as they say.

The End of Diversity? Prepare Yourself Accordingly.


A good discussion on the current situation we are in politics.

Google’s Antitrust Case in Europe


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Is Google really violating European antitrust laws to warrant such a huge fine or is this really a trade war?

KQ

ANSWER: It’s a trade war. Granted, the EU hit Google with a record-breaking fine of €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion, £2.1 billion) by European regulators who accused the California-based technology giant of abusing its dominant position and promoting its own shopping service in its search results over those of its competitors.

The European Union Commission claims this is the culmination of a multiyear investigation into Google’s business practices dating back nearly a decade. This in itself proves this is nonsense for the past decade has witnessed a dramatic change in how products are being sold. Amazon has been growing tremendously in sales putting many stores out of business like Sears.

Things are changing. The beginning of this whole antitrust violation took place with the Sherman Antitrust Act passed in the USA back in 1890. The theory was you had all these small railroad companies and they were merging into large regional railroads. The politicians called this a monopoly that put people out of jobs as companies merged and eliminate duplication.

Once again we have dramatic changes to the retail industry. The politicians behind this nonsense of fining Google are just (1) greedy and (2) ignorant. Amazon is already starting to create showrooms where you can go at look at products and then it will be delivered to you in days. This is the way retail is changing. Here is a search I entered for a Sony Laptop. Yes at the top it come up with Google shopping and it says sponsored. However, it shows competitive brands. At the bottom of the page is Amazon. Yes they are competing against Amazon. Does that warrant a huge fine or are politicians just trying to come up with creative means to get more money because they are dead broke?

Multinational Corporations and The Export of American Wealth…


To understand the larger objectives of the global and financial elite it is important to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect. Global financial exploitation of national markets:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Since initially explaining this modern import/export dynamic some have asked for specific examples in order to gain a better understanding.  There are a myriad of interests within each sector that make specific explanation very challenging.  However, here’s an attempt.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly.  Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

People with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future.  But what’s brutally missed in the discussions is the fundamental truth that advocates selling this “global” message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it’s just a natural outcome of progress.

It’s not.

It’s not natural at all.  It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude without falling prey to the esoteric weeds.  I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand.  In essence, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.).

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production.  (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry.  From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged.  The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc.  National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production.  These are now multinational corporations.   They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations.  But most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws).  During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the interests within a specific nation.  The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3  ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market.  This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead.  In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it’s now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices.  The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price.  This is how the corporation maximizes it’s profits.

Back to the lemons.  A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida.   The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. harvest is abundant, they will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price.  A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process.  In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly BS.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market.   Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud.  Currently, massive multinational corporations control the majority of product inside each nation and therefore control the entire global product market and price.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process, the approval, within individual nations allowing the exploitation.  As such, their lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations one sector or industry at a time.

EXAMPLE:  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years.  These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot).   It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation.   To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries).  Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, it’s almost everything.

Individual flower growers in Florida out of business because they didn’t join the global market of flower growers (controlled market) by multinational corporate flower growers in Columbia and South America, who have an umbrella company registered in Mexico allowing virtually unrestricted access to the U.S. market under NAFTA.

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘.  Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product.  Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive.  We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor.  Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies.  (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel.   China/India purchases the raw material, ore, then sells the finished good back to the global market at a discount.  Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic.  Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).  ‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.

This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.

RELATED:

♦The Modern Third Dimension in American Economics – HERE

♦The “Fed” Can’t Figure out the New Economics – HERE

♦Proof “America-First” has disconnected Main Street from Wall Street – HERE

Next up: How the Stock Market is disconnected and why that matters.

The Hunt for Money – “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”


 

QUESTION: 

Dear Mr Armstrong, with great compliments on your work I now see a chance to do something back. …
On the topic of government hunger for money, they are now using speedtraps for boats here in Amsterdam. Just 2 miles over the limit will cost already cost you €90. Yes they have laserguns for such low speeds… This only a few years after they tripled the tax on boats. There is also a raging debate on “erfpacht”, the soil many houses here are built on is owned by the city – you can imagine how potentially disastrous that can be if you’re an owner.
I would be interested if you see governments around the world not practicing this, or not so much. Or are they all the same?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DvdP
ANSWER: Unfortunately, the problem we have with government is historic and of epic proportions. They always abuse their power of taxation and consequently, governments always fall by their own hand. They will never reform and constantly raise taxes because they are incapable of restraint. It is just the way everything functions throughout history. There is NOTHING we can do. This must simply run its course. When the crash comes, then perhaps we can offer real reform. The question becomes – how long can that survive before it starts all over again?
There has never been a revolution that ever resulted in true change. Even Napoleon crowned himself “Emperor” rather than “King” so you just change the title but you end up with the same thing. It was Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr (1808 – 1890) the French critic who said: “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”