Is it Time to Turn the Lights Out on Turkey and just Take Your Losses and Run?


Just when you thought President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was really off the reservation, he suddenly appears off the planet. Erdogan has appointed HIMSELF as chairman of Turkey’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and got rid of the entire management staff. It looks like Erdogan now thinks he can force the free market to do as he commands if he is also the trader for the Sovereign Wealth Fund.

Of course, Treasury and Finance Minister Berat Albayrak, Erdogan’s son-in-law, will also sit on the board, according to a decree published in the Official Gazette. Anyone who actually thinks that Turkey can recover is out of their mind. The fund was formed to try and capitalize on state assets and put a lid on market turmoil in the wake of a failed coup attempt. This is a guaranteed nightmare in the making. We are witnessing a stubborn politician who has become a dictator and believes there is nothing beyond his power. It is just approaching the time to turn out the lights on Turkey as any viable place for investment. Turkey is now approaching the highest Country Risk for investment on the board

Who is the Fool? Trump or Woodward?


According to CNBC, Bob Woodward reported that Trump told Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs/director of the National Economic Council to just print more money to reduce the national debt. Woodward reports this discussion:

Trump: “Just run the presses—print money.”

Cohn: “You don’t get to do it that way. We have huge deficits and they matter. The government doesn’t keep a balance sheet like that.”

Here is a chart of the US CPI not seasonally adjusted. It has begun its sharp advance since the Floating Rate System was adopted in 1971 with the fall of Bretton Woods. In spite of borrowing, inflation over time has actually advanced more aggressively than if we had just printed instead of borrowed.  Cohn has said the book “does not accurately portray” his experience of the White House. This claimed quote demonstrates that someone is seriously out of touch with economics.  Actually, Trump is correct. Now we have Quartz joining the media calling Trump an idiot confirming they too are clueless about debt and printing. In fact, if you did just print the money and retired the debt, it would be DEFLATIONARY and not INFLATIONARY from the budget perspective because these people are clueless themselves about how the national debt works.

 

Before 1971, the debt could not be used as collateral for loans such as Savings Bonds. If you needed the money, you were forced to cash them in.  Under this system, it was logically less inflationary to borrow than to print. However, post-1971, you buy T-Bills and post them as collateral to trade futures. The distinction between borrowing and printing has been turned upside down. A national debt is now worse than printing because itis money that now pays interest forever. Then there is no intention of ever paying off the national debt.

 

 

The truth is had we printed since 1971 instead of borrowing, there would be far less of an economic crisis compared to what we face today. If we simply printed to pay off the national debt, Social Security would suddenly become a Wealth Fund that actually made money instead of a Slush Fund for politicians. Now, Social Security can only invest 100% in US government debt and then the Fed lowers the interest rate to “stimulate” the economy and Social Security goes broke forcing higher taxes. Up to 70% of the national debt at times has been purely accumulated interest which never benefited anyone.  It competes with the private sector in what we call the “flight to quality” and it forms the bank reserves. What is never discussed is the fact that US debt is also the reserve currency of nations – not paper dollars. That means that the interest we pay is exported and it stimulates foreign economies – not domestic.

So who is crazy here? Trump or Woodward? To keep borrowing year after year is insane. To monetize the debt will be DEFLATIONARY from the perspective of government expenditure. In 2019, interest expenditures even at this low level of interest rates will EXCEED military expenditure.

Woodward is by no means qualified to criticize Trump on such an issue he clearly does not even understand. Trump should really address the nation and explain this problem very simply. I will be glad to supply the charts.

Hoard of Roman Gold Found from the Last Days of Rome


There were more than 100 gold Roman coins discovered in a buried hoard in the Cressoni theatre in Como, north of Milan. What I have examined from the photographs supplied to me, is that this is a hoard from the virtual fall of Rome. The coins I identified were from the Puppet Emperor of Ricimer, a Germanic general who ruled Rome through puppet emperors going into the end of the Western Empire. His power emerged in 461AD until his death in 472AD. The official fall of Rome took place in 466AD. After Ricimer’s death, the Germanic King of Italy, Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor Romulus Augustus in 476AD, which is considered to mark the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The photographs of the coins I reviewed clearly show the puppet Emperor Libius Severus III (461-465AD) was rather common in the hoard. This established that the hoard is from this period forward meaning it was a stash place for someone during the fall of Rome. Obviously, the person did not live to come back to retrieve his coins. These coins are worth probably $1 million+ depending upon the emperors in this entire batch which might be discovered. It could possibly rise to at least the $2 million valuations.

Who was the Richest Man in Ancient History


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You are a history buff. Who was the richest person in ancient times? Has there ever been a trillionaire?

PD

ANSWER: The Roman Emperor August. He is believed to have been worth in current dollar terms nearly $5 trillion. The only other person to have reached the trillion dollars net worth status was King Solomon of Judaea. After Octavian/Augustus defeated Marc Antony and Cleopatra, he then possessed the entire wealth of Egypt. In this respect, the wealth really did belong to him. Some have attributed the entire wealth of nations conquered and argued that Genghis Khan was worth probably 100 trillion dollars. However, the Roman system was rather different. Even taxation for a governor of a province would be owed by the governor to the state so whatever he would collect fell to him personally.

Marcus Licinius Crassus was perhaps one of the richest private men in Roman history. He amassed an enormous fortune through real estate speculation buying confiscated property seized by Marius from the supporters of Sulla. Crassus’s wealth is estimated by Pliny at approximately 200 million sestertii. Plutarch says the wealth of Crassus increased from less than 300 talents at first to 7,100 talents. An Attic (Greek, Athens) talent was the equivalent of 60 minae or 6,000 drachmae. A silver Drachm was generally 15mm in diameter with a weight of 4.20 grams. In Roman terms, this was about 26 kilograms (57 lb). If we take Plutarch’s measurement of wealth, that would be 42.6 million denarii.

A Roman soldier earned 225 denarii a year. Today, the average soldier in the US army earns $48,538 per year. That would approximately be $9.189 billion. If we take Jeff Bezos who is reported to be worth $164 billion based upon his stock in Amazon, that works out to the annual salary of 3.4 million soldiers compared to Crassus’ worth being 189,333 soldiers. However, the real difference is that Crassus’ wealth is cash whereas Bezos’ wealth is the current value of a stock. If he tried to sell it for cash, the value would be significantly less.

Crassus’ son, Publius Licinius Crassus (c 86BC – 53 BC), served under Julius Caesar. He did issue coins during the Republic as a “moneyer” who was a person authorized to issue the coins during the Roman Republic. The Senate actually controlled the quantity of money to be produced. There would be a “State of the Union” type of address to the Senate where they would be given the account of money on hand and what they expected the annual expenses would be. The Senate would then authorize the number of coins to be issued that fiscal year. The Quaestors handed the raw bullion and they would turn that over to the official who was the “moneyer” for that year. The moneyers would decide on the design to be issued which often celebrated his ancestors. The coinage would be struck and then handed back to the Quaestors for the expenditure of the government. The office of a moneyer continued into the Imperial period.

Influence & Ranks


COMMENT: Marty; Did you know that your site is listed in the top 20 economic sites in the world? You are in the top 20 with Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, London FT, and even  Brookings Ben Bernanke’s Blog. The rest of the list includes the Economic Policy Institute, Economics & Statistics Administration, and The Berkeley Blog Business & Economics. You may be a lot more influential than you portray.

JS

REPLY: Perhaps. But keep in mind that your enemies always read you because they need to know what you are saying now to feed their hatred. Aside from that, every intelligence service reads our work. They understand there is a cycle to everything and ever since the London FT reported I warned Russia would collapse just before the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management collapse on Russian bonds, they all pay close attention.

Trump Threatens to Cancel NAFTA If Congress Interferes


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Do you agree with Trump that if he canceled NAFTA, the United States would be better off?

SN

ANSWER: Ironically – YES from a jobs perspective, not the consumer. What you have to understand is that these trade deals are all nonsense. They are NOT Free Trade in the least. They are compromises so politicians can pretend they have accomplished something.

Take the deal with Europe. France’s position was that nothing can be called “Champagne” unless it comes from that region in France. Every trade negotiation is a compromise that maintains protectionism. In that regard, if Trump actually canceled NAFTA, his boast that the US would be better off is meant that all products would then be subjected to tariffs and all of the American industry would be protected.

Now, that said, this view is that of the worker – not the consumer. All of these trade negotiations are one-sided. They are always focused only on jobs and not producing the best price for the consumer which in turn raises our standard of living. I have never encountered even one politician who has EVER defended the consumer in trade deals. This violates the principle of Comparative Advantage put forth by David Ricardo. It’s true that Saudi Arabia could grow lettuce but the cost of irrigation in the desert would make the cost 10 times more than simply buying it from Europe or North America. It would cost the consumer far more to simply grow that product in the desert than importing so it is best to buy it elsewhere and focus on your productive capacity in which you have some comparative advantage over others.