Tag Archives: Hunt for Taxes

May 21 2017

Asset v Money


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics

Posted May 21, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi Martin, I am a long time reader and so appreciate your daily blogs, You have taught me so much about the global interconnectivity of markets and human nature of the “herd”.Thank you for your life dedication to the pursuit of Truth and justice. You are appreciated more than you know.

My question is that many other economists disagree with you, in particularly —– —-, who believes fervently that Gold is something that will wipe all of us small people out in the coming crash. Can you please explain to us small people who have nothing to hang onto but your words of wisdom and your life long experience of what we need to do as this all reveals itself, with the EU et al, and Debt servicing unwinding worldwide.

Thank you, so much Martin for all your knowledge and your life’s dedication to life, liberty, and justice. I hope to attend your next seminar for the first time ever. I am saving to attend as I like others cannot afford to be caught on the wrong side of what is unfolding and must learn from the ONLY person in the world I trust that is telling us the truth about what is unfolding and how we small people must protect ourselves.

I wish you the best in Health peace and happiness

A

ANSWER: I really do not see where such analysis comes from. If the stock market crash, gold crashes, and everything turns to dust, what goes up? Dollars?

The problem lies in the fact that they are all following Karl Marx. Not that they are communists or even socialists. Marx changed economics. He fought against Laissez–faire and won. It is like putting someone on the witness stand. You then ask the question: “So when was the last time did you beat your wife?” That now sets the agenda. You will respond swearing you never beat your wife and your wife will say no he never did. The cunning lawyer will tell the jury she is not to be believed because she would lie fearing she will only be beaten again.

This is what Marx did. He said government has the right and the power to control the economy to eliminate the Business Cycle. Every economic theory ever since including Keynesian Economics, has all continued down that path. Government is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It can be omnipotent and rule the world.

I have produced a major report, which traces how gold responded through all sorts of events. Sometimes it has rallied, and other times it has failed. The underlying facts are important. During the Civil War, year gold rallied sharply into 1864. However, when the war was over, gold fell, but the stock market then took off big time.

I can find no instance in history where the combination of events of the stock market and gold crashing within everything turning to dust ever existed for a brief time, but that is when cash rises in value and you get deflation – money up assets down. But given the Sovereign Debt Crisis we face, I really see nothing like that on the horizon.

This will be put online next week. It was included in the Hong Kong Conference.

May 20 2017

President Trump in Saudi Arabia – The Big Picture…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 20, 2017 by

The pageantry and scale of the royal reception toward President Trump and the U.S. is reflective of much more than a singular presidential visit to a nation and region of geo-strategic importance.

The word “reset” is frequent amid media reporting of the Saudi trip but few people have followed the recent regional history to thoroughly understand what exactly is being reset.

~ President Donald Trump and Saudi King Salman – Joint Statement.

President Trump is being recognized and respected by the regional Arab coalition for his specific approach and outward worldview which is based on eye-to-eye diplomacy.

Through the contacts, discussions, emissary meetings and individual diplomatic engagements over the past six months, the Arab region members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -and specifically Saudi Arabia- are overjoyed to find a fresh U.S. perspective based on mutual respect.

The pageantry/scale of the royal reception is directly proportional to the scale of respect being shown by the regional partners toward the worlds largest and most influential leader.

Around the world no-one doubts who is the biggest most significant nation; the size of the U.S. economy speaks for itself. It does not need to be proven – it is self evident.

What is different with the Trump administration as they engage each nation is the change in nationalistic outlook, and specifically foreign policy therein, toward other national leaders as independent sovereign representatives – with respect to their individual cultures and norms.

No longer is the U.S. approaching nations from an inherent need to prove we are ‘better than’, or leverage our interests into their neighborhood.

The expressed policy outlook of President Trump is for the United States to be the best; and through our actions and behaviors to lead on global initiatives that show how we define ourselves and our values. This approach is specifically centered around a policy position stating we do not need to demand acceptance of those values, and we respect independent nations’ that may hold values or beliefs not identical to our own.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has cultured this approach throughout each of his diplomatic engagements.   The U.S. leans forward on all Trump policy objectives through the perspective of our national needs first; but that does not necessarily mean we demand or force other nations into a compliance mindset.

Compliance implies aversarialism.  President Trump and Secretary Tillerson do not view international engagements as necessarily adversarial.

The U.S. can engage eye-to-eye with the same level of respect to the smallest as we exhibit toward the largest (our own size does not need to be part of the equation, it is self evident), and work policy objectives toward the point of mutual benefit.  If the engaged nation does not receive benefit from the policy, we do not demand an acceptance of it; and more importantly we express both an understanding and a respect of their position and inability.

This Trumpian approach, a willingness not to undermine and to accept the partners downside position within any policy, is grounded on inherent truth.

President Trump and Secretary Tillerson openly accept and admit when the engaged partner will be unable to meet our defined terms, we discuss what actions can be take to remove the inherent obstacle in the future, we make a commitment (or not) toward removing that obstacle, we shake hands, and we part company retaining the position of friendship and optimism for the potential of re-engagement at a later date.

In all recent previous administrations there was an implied message that engagement with the United States came with terms and conditions that might be antithetical to the sovereign nations’ best interests.  If you want “X” (their need) you must deliver “Y” (our need), and the “Y” might be something which creates conflict or tension.

President Trump and Secretary Tillerson ask about the impact of “Y”, the possibility of the downside, prior to making a decision on fulfillment of the request (“X”), but the inquiry does not necessarily preclude our willingness to deliver.

This dynamic is unique to the engaged nation because no member of the Trump Administration’s policy team is approaching any of the policies from a position of their own inherent politics.   Team Trump, writ large, represents America’s best interests, not the political construct of America’s best interests.  [Coincidentally this approach is why Trump has so much domestic opposition]

This non-political approach and respect, exhibits honesty within the transaction.  Yes, both Tillerson and Trump approach politics through the transactional prism, it’s what deal-makers do.

This non-political approach is what causes leaders like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi make the following remarks:

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi: “I first saw the campaign of his excellency President Trump, and I listened to his speech of the neccessity of facing and confronting terrorism all over the world; that he is a great personality and a unique individual, and that he will find great success.”

“I fully trust the capabilities of President Trump, and I have full conviction that he can do things, exert efforts, that very few people can do.  And he can succeed in so many fields that others cannot.  I trust him wholeheartedly.”

“I followed all his announcements through his campaign, he has a very unique personality and administration, and now I’m speaking with full confidence of unprecedented success for him.  He is seeking the interests of the United States and the American people in a very clear manner, and a very direct manner. And a very strong manner as well.”

“His true will is a very strong will to counter terrorism and extremism in the world; and that is a very strong commitment from his excellency the president, and in addition I am very supportive with full force in facing this terrorism.”

“There is a true understanding to the realities in the region, and there is a seriousness and responsible actions in facing extremism and terrorism in the region, and that’s a wonderful thing indeed.  There is nothing better than to counter evil.”  (link)


FULL BACKSTORY

May 20 2017

President Trump Arrives for Royal Banquet at Murabba Palace – Video: T-Rex and Wilburine Dancing With Sabers…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 20, 2017 by

The size and scale of the pageantry is directly related to the scope of expressed respect.

Update: Video Added

.

.

A good day simply becomes a great day when you get to see T-Rex and Wilburine dancing with sabers.

 

Livestream link

May 20 2017

Communism Began During the French Revolution in 1793


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics

Posted May 20, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Good morning Martin,recently you stated communism originated in France was wondering if you could give us a short history on that sometime.Keep up the good work as always.

W

ANSWER: Communism emerged during the French Revolution. It was an experiment known as the Parisian Commune of 1793. Marx was introduced to the idea whereas Marx had been at first just a socialist. He was converted to communism whereby the government owned all property compared to socialism where you own, are taxed and regulated to prevent you from doing what you would like to do without government permission.

I have gone into the complete history in the 2017 Cycle of War, for this edition deals with civil unrest and revolution.

This will go on sale after the Hong Kong Conference next week

May 20 2017

Cyber attacks & the Vulnerability of a Cashless Society


Armstrong Economics Blog/Technology

Re-Posted May 20, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Cyberattacks vs. Cash elimination – an argument against eliminating cash. Hello Mr. Armstrong, it is quite apparent that no government, no financial institution, Anti-virus software developer, or either ‘whatever’ is is really capable to stop cyberattacks. Now these people want to eliminate cash, make larger cash amounts illegal. So theoretically these cyber attackers could/ maybe will, eventually just stop the whole economy. Nobody may even be able to buy food. So instead of eliminating cash, should it not be policy people carry at least a month’s worth of expenses in cash? Your reply should be quite interesting to us, your readership!

Best,

AP

ANSWER: The WannaCry ransom attack is actually variant from a February 2015 sample attributed to the Lazarus Group, a Kaspersky-tracked actor tied to the North Korean government. Parts of the code go beyond shared code. It appears to be written by the same programmer.

Let’s get something straight here. At the core of those responsible is really the NSA and Microsoft itself. The attack exploited a Windows networking protocol to spread within networks, and while Microsoft released a patch nearly two months ago, it’s become very clear that patch didn’t reach all users particularly because institutions often do not install patches fearing that proprietary software may not function.

If behind the curtain we have government demanding back-doors into iPhones and computer so they can listen to everything everywhere, well guess what – so can everyone else. Patches will work for individual users, but not major institutions. Trying to upgrade their operations is a real effort. They are slow to act and thus vulnerable.

The NSA was well aware of this little trick. The real answer is the NSA and FBI must do investigation the old fashion way. Stop asking for secret back-doors that never remain secret very long. The entire world will become vulnerable and they use to counterfeit an adversary’s currency to undermine their economy. Today, if we keep this nonsense up, they will hack into the entire thing and shut it down.

The idea of moving to a cashless society is just insane. Somebody has to give up something here. Trust me – the intelligence community will not take responsibility.

May 19 2017

Comey “Friend”, Benjamin Wittes, Outs Himself As Source for New York Times “Comey Memo” Storyline…


Re-Posted From The Conservative Tree House on May 19, 2017 by

Long time CTH readers will note we extended well over a year of benefit-of-the-doubt to the motives of former FBI Director James Comey with regard to the severity of his politicized nature and disposition.  Throughout the entire Clinton investigation we remained ambivalent to Comey’s motives.

Indeed it wasn’t until after the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack when Comey obtusely noted the FBI had been contacted (prior to the attack) about the sketchy behavior of Omar Mateen by a ‘random concerned citizen’ -and our finding that the actual ‘citizen’ was the far more substantive St Lucie county sheriff Ken Mascara– that we recognized how far Comey was willing to go to save his political face.

Yesterday, a friend of James Comey by the name of Benjamin Wittes, editor and writer for lawfare blog, now steps out and admits he was one of the primary sources for the New York Times Comey Memo article (Michael Schmidt); and in so doing outlines the severity of the political nature of the former FBI Director:

[…]  I called Schmidt Friday morning after reading his earlier story, which ran the previous evening, about Comey’s dinner with President Trump and the President’s demands at that dinner for a vow of loyalty.

[…] I did this interview on the record because the President that morning was already issuing threatening tweets suggesting that Comey was leaking things, and I didn’t want any room for misunderstanding that any kind of leak had taken place with respect to the information I was providing.

[…]  I insisted that Schmidt record the conversation and give me a copy of the recording, so that we had a good record of what was said.

[…]  Comey understood Trump’s people as having neither knowledge of nor respect for the independence of the law enforcement function. And he saw it as an ongoing task on his part to protect the rest of the Bureau from improper contacts and interferences from a group of people he did not regard as honorable.

This was a general preoccupation of Comey’s in the months he and Trump overlapped—and the difference between this relationship and his regard for Obama (which was deep) was profound and palpable.  (read full article)

The gist of Benjamin Wittes outline is that he interpreted his friend -the magnanimous harbinger of truth, justice and the American way- James Comey, as expressing a feeling of undue potential influence by horrible Trump that Comey did not feel with the more well regarded Obama.  etc. etc.  {insert pearl-clutching/couch-fainting violin music here}

Except there’s a problem.

Not only did FBI Director James Comey testify to congress that neither President Trump nor President Obama ever attempt interference; but there are earlier media reports which outlined President Obama’s administration specifically interfering with an investigative intention of FBI Director Comey (emphasis mine):

March 29th 2017 – Newsweek:  FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek.

[…]  the source with knowledge of Comey’s request says that the FBI director wanted the Russian interference made public earlier and that it was a sluggish White House that denied Comey and delayed the announcement. “The White House shut it down,” that source says. “They did their usual—nothing.” Both sources spoke to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press.  (link)

Funny how FBI Director James Comey, as relayed by his good friend Benjamin Wittes, was concerned about Trump’s potential innuendo of influence, but Director Comey was perfectly okay with Obama’s specific interference to block Comey’s intended investigative action.

Additionally, the New York Times and Washington Post feeder pools are writing articles based on the hearsay recollections of Mr. Comey’s good friend Mr. Wittes.  Those feeder stories are fueling second, third, fourth toward infinity level rehashes and revisions of the same structured woe-is-Jim narrative.

When journalists write articles based on media reports of media reports, the concentric circles of self-serving sanctimony expand toward the infinite horizon of nothingness.

Personally, I hope Benjamin Wittes keeps writing on behalf of, and with full approval of, his good friend James Comey.  We are bound to find out much more about how severe the former FBI director was willing to go in advancement of his political objectives. After all…

[…] “This was a general preoccupation of Comey’s in the months he and Trump overlapped—and the difference between this relationship and his regard for Obama (which was deep) was profound and palpable”…

Remember what we previously said about “motives“?

All of the daily accusations against Trump, as presented by his political opposition and media, are based on the false premise that President Trump is carrying a malicious intent and self-interest.

His political opposition seem to miss this structural flaw in their argument because they are not familiar with facing a political opponent who is absent of career self-interest, influence or power.

The factual reality that Trump harbors no malicious disposition, evidences itself, and inevitably means all the attacks go nowhere.  In every single manufactured media controversy President Trump is inherently never in a position where he is personally gaining from the details within the controversy du jour.

[…] Political Trump uses this “intent” and “motive” approach to draw attention to his opponents, and it is structurally successful because the opposition is, FACTUALLY, always holding a motive.

When political Trump gets to the point where he’s ready to crush his opposition he simply points out their obvious motive and intent; it becomes common sense for the observing public to see it.  Trump’s opposition cannot do the same.  (more)

May 19 2017

Hamburg Still Seizing Property for Refugees


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

Re-Posted May 19, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

germany-refugee-shelter

Back in October 2015, we reported that “in response to the refugee crisis, the German city of Hamburg has enacted a new law that will enable the government to seize vacant commercial properties to provide temporary housing for refugees. The law will go into effect next and will last until March 2017. Despite the additional measures, many refugees will die of exposure during the cold German winter.”

Hamburg authorities confiscated six residential units in the Hamm district near the city center. The city is now renovating the properties and will rent them against the will of the owner to tenants chosen by the city. Worse yet, all renovation costs will be billed to the owner of the properties.

Hamburg is still at it and this raises serious questions about the right to property in Germany. The measure is obviously unconstitutional, but exactly why it has not been stopped raises even more concern. Those who seriously think the Euro will be fine since Macron won the French election remind me of the old joke about the optimist and the pessimist who are blown off the top of a 100 story building in New York City. The pessimist immediate begins to pray for forgiveness. The optimist as he is passing the fourth floor says: “Well, so far so good!

May 19 2017

Gold & Euro & Dollar


Armstrong Economics Blog/Euro €

Re-Posted May 19, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; You said gold was still vulnerable in dollars but that the low was probably in place in Euros. I have been trying to reconcile that statement in my mind. The only way that happens is a real crisis in Europe and a strong dollar. Correct? It seems really naive that people get bullish on a few weeks of price movement and predict the next 10 years. The dollar first is week with Trump and bullish euro for Macron? Right?

Thank you for a lone voice in the wilderness of analysis.

OT

ANSWER: Yes. Just compare the two chart patterns. Notice that gold in euros bottomed back in December 2013 compared to December 2015 in dollars. The numbers will not come down unless gold makes a new low in dollars. Then the breakout will drop from the 1362 level. Just looking at gold in euros exposes the real trend.

The fools keep saying see the euro rallies and the dollar declines so I have to be wrong. The European Central Bank is the one at risk of collapsing. Draghi bought 40% of all Eurozone debt. He raises interest rates at his own balance sheet takes the hit. This fool is really in trouble and then you have Germany turning against the Draghi. Neither the Fed nor the Bank of Japan are in such a dangerous position.

The perpetual dollar bears cannot see the light. Just how is the world economy going to crack with a lower dollar? They look at the dollar as if it is a SHARE PRICE up is bullish and down is bearish for America. Currency is the opposite of share prices. The higher the currency, the greater the deflation and the lower the economic growth. They never heard of “competitive devaluations” or currency wars. Every crisis has come with a rising dollar. The solution was a dollar devaluation as Roosevelt did in 1934. They look at everything backwards and that’s why the lose a fortune consistently buying highs.

Here is the CAC40 of France. The high in the French stock market is 1999. Yet everyone is cheering as if the US is down and Europe is the new wonderland?

Compare the German stock market in euros and in dollars. It has finally made new international highs only in 2015. We have to look at everything from a global perspective. The new highs in the Dax in international terms is ONLY because of the decline in the euro. With the bounce in the euro, the Dax will rally in euros, but only to a point.

A spike up in the dollar can be achieved from political chaos, but also geopolitical. Only a rise in the dollar will break the system and end the dollar as the reserve currency. The debt crisis we face is building and with higher interest rates, then there will be the risk for major loses overseas and capital will contract once again. It was the US capital outflows that rebuilt the world. A lower dollar encourages overseas investment. A higher dollar causes a contraction.

Only a total idiot forecasts the long-term by one month worth of price action. We need these fools to make the trends. Somebody has to buy the high and sell the low. This entire political-geopolitical mess us starting to bubble up. Why are two Republicans, McCain and Graham, acting as Trump’s worst enemy trying to destroy the Republican Agenda? They are being paid by their lobbyists to protect the corrupt establishment. They are against their own Party and should just join Hillary on vacation. Oh that’s right. They have the same backers. Graham’s number one contributors are law firms really on behalf of their clients to hide the source of the money I believe.

Categories: Euro €, Gold, USD $
May 19 2017

Gold & the False Move


Armstrong Economics Blog/Gold

Re-Posted May 19, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Dear Marty, could the current ongoing deleveraging in China cause Gold and Silver to fall beneath 1000$ (Silver under ?) or is this currently no big deal what`s going on in China? Keep up the good work!

Best regards,

B

ANSWER: There are so many fundamentals out there is hard to predict which one causes what. Combined, they are all a nightmare. What is essential, is if we are going to really rocket up in a major phase transition, you MUST always have the false move first. These are just minor swings creating the false move which is always counter to the ultimate trend. To swing down under the December 2015 low will cause people to capitulate and then you will make a run and swing out to new highs.

With the stock market crash into 2009, this was the PERFECT storm, which was a FALSE MOVE. Even Barrons as last of 2011 ran a story saying tongue in cheek how I was forecasting new highs. They thought it was a joke. That’s because these people have never been traders or students of the market. The chart patterns are always the same regardless of the instrument because you are plotting human emotion – not really that instrument.

The most powerful move up for gold requires a false move of a slingshot proportion.

May 18 2017

President Trump Releases Additional Statement on DOJ Special Counsel Appointment…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 18, 2017 by

President Donald Trump held an informal luncheon with news reporters and TV anchors today in advance of the upcoming international visit.  Brett Baier reports President Trump was relaxed, warm and comfortable and showing no change in disposition from all prior encounters. Most of the discussion was off the record, however the president did release the following response to a question from one of the participants at the meeting:

Reporter Question: “You made a point about the special counselor and and you believe it hurts this country” —

President Trump: “I believe it hurts our country terribly, because it shows we’re a divided, mixed-up, not-unified country. And we have very important things to be doing right now, whether it’s trade deals, whether it’s military, whether it’s stopping nuclear… all of the things that we discussed today. And I think this shows a very divided country.

It also happens to be a pure excuse for the Democrats having lost an election that they should have easily won because of the Electoral College being slanted so much in their way. That’s all this is. I think it shows division, and it shows that we’re not together as a country. And I think it’s a very, very negative thing. And hopefully, this can go quickly, because we have to show unity if we’re going to do great things with respect to the rest of the world.” 

~ President Donald J T