Tag Archives: NAFTA

Aug 2 2019

Coming Political Change


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Aug 2, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

Cycles of the past
lead to future predictions

By Dinah Wisenberg Brin
The Associated Press Philadelphia

 

The political upheaval of 1994? They saw it coming two years ahead of time. The devastating Japanese earthquake? They’d been expecting it, albeit a year earlier….President Herbert Hoover … might be pleased with board Chairman Martin Armstrong’s prediction of the extinction of the Democratic Party after 2020.

In late 1992, Armstrong accurately predicted either “a sweeping Republican victory on Capitol Hill” or a victory for a independent party in 1994.

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I found an article from February 21, 1995, in the Associated Press that you had also correctly forecast the elections back in 1994 which became known as the Republican Revolution and warned that the Democratic Party could ride off into the sunset. Your forecast on Trump and BREXIT also show your computer is on to something. Will you be doing the elections in 2020 at the Orlando WEC?

CM

ANSWER: People do not understand that it is not the cycle by itself; it is a reflection of the trend of the whole. The crisis in the Democratic Party is reflected in the turmoil from the Squad of Four who are receiving all the press and painting the Democratic Party as the extreme left. Then you have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They are just not in the center, to say the least. This raises the potential for a major shift in the political system as we saw with Trump wiping out career politicians in the Republic Party. You can see the Array on the Democrats (Combined Senate/House) showed a Panic Cycle in 2019 which gave them the House, but the big turning point will be the 2020 elections with a Panic Cycle due there as the result in 2021.

Yes, we will be doing political forecasts at the WEC.

Jul 28 2019

Is Inflation Inevitable?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics

Posted Jul 27, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong is there any way we can not have inflation. If so how? If not what would you say 5% or more?
S

ANSWER: It all depends on your definition. The type of inflation coming is more STAGFLATIONwhere prices rise due to cost-push (shortages) but there is a declining economic growth. The more familiar inflation is a DEMAND lead event because the economy is booming. Because governments are desperate for money, they keep raising taxes and are increasing enforcement. This trend is DELATIONARY for it reduces disposable income. The INFLATIONARY pressure comes from the rising costs which are set in motion by raising taxes.

Then we add the impact of the climate chaos creating shortages in food and that furthers cost-push inflation. The end result will be the shift from PUBLIC to PRIVATE where people will run away from government debt on all levels and move to tangible assets to survive.

Jul 25 2019

President Trump Remarks During Oval Office Swearing-In Ceremony – Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper…


RE-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on July 23, 2019 by 

This evening President Trump delivered remarks during the swearing-in ceremony for newly appointed Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper.  [Video and Transcript]  The Senate voted 90-to-8 easily confirming Secretary Esper.

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much everybody. We have a very important moment in our country’s history, actually. And we had a lot of our great Republican senators in the White House, and I invited them over and many of them wanted to be here. And as you probably heard, the vote just took place, and it was 90 to 8. That’s a vote that we’re not accustomed to, Mark, I have to say that. So congratulations, that’s great.

But I’m honored to be here today for the swearing-in of our new Secretary of Defense, Mark T. Esper. I especially want to thank Justice Samuel Alito — highly respected and a great gentleman, a great man — for joining us to administer the Oath of Office. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sam.

We’re also delighted to welcome several of Secretary Esper’s family members and friends to the White House today, including his mother, Polly. Hi, Polly. (Laughter.) Boy, are you proud of him, Polly? You better believe it. Yeah. (Laughter.) His wife, Leah. Thank you, Leah, very much. And his three children — Luke, John, and Kathryn. Thank you very much. Congratulations, too, most importantly. Congratulations. That’s an incredible thing.

There is no one more qualified to lead the Department of Defense than Mark Esper. A West Point graduate — great student, actually — Secretary Esper served our military for 21 years, including in the Gulf War. He also advanced U.S. national security in government and in private sector, most recently as Secretary of the Army, where he played a critical role training and equipping our armed forces. That’s where I got to know Mark. And there was nobody that did a better job than Mark and there’s nobody that loves it more than Mark. And thank you very much.

He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Infantryman Badge. He holds a doctorate in public policy from George Washington University and a master of public administration degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

I am confident that he will be an outstanding Secretary of Defense. I have absolutely no doubt about it. He is outstanding in every way. And we’re honored to have you aboard. And I would ask Justice Alito, please, to administer the Oath of Office. Thank you. Thank you, Judge.

(The oath is administered.) (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Would you like to say something?

SECRETARY ESPER: Yes, sir, if I may.

THE PRESIDENT: Please.

SECRETARY ESPER: Well, thank you, Mr. President, for your kind words, for your confidence in me, and for this incredible opportunity. And thank you, Justice Alito, for administering the Oath of Office. I really appreciate you being here this afternoon.

I’d also like to Senate — to thank the Senate Armed Services Committee for its quick action on my nomination and for the strong bipartisan support that I received today from the entire United States Senate.

It is an honor of a lifetime to be appointed Secretary of Defense and to lead the greatest military in history. And I will do so with that same energy and commitment to duty, honor, and country that I have for nearly four decades since my early days at West Point.

Mr. President, it is a privilege for me and for my family to be here with you today. Thank you for your leadership and for your commitment to a strong national defense and to all of our service members. Our military has made tremendous gains in recent years thanks to your leadership and we stand ready today to take on any challenge.

And while our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines stand guard each and every day, we will ensure their families are well taken care of.

On a personal note, I would like to thank my wife, Leah, who has been by my side now for 30 years as a military spouse herself; my children, Luke, John, and Kate; my mother, Polly; my in-laws, Tom and Von; and my sisters who join me here today. And everybody else who has been a steadfast supporter of me over the years.

Again, thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to serve our great country once again, as Secretary of Defense. Thank you, sir. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mark. Congratulations.

SECRETARY ESPER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. Proud of you. Come on over here.

SECRETARY ESPER: Okay. Leah?

(A certificate is presented.)

THE PRESIDENT: He’s going to be a great one. Thank you very much.

END 5:50 P.M. EDT

Jul 25 2019

The Real Adam Smith: Ideas That Changed The World – Full Video


Published on Mar 28, 2016

The Real Adam Smith: A Personal Exploration by Johan Norberg, takes an intriguing, two-part look at Smith and the evolution and relevance of his ideas today, both economic and ethical. It’s difficult to imagine that a man who lived with horse drawn carriages and sailing ships would foresee our massive 21st century global market exchange, much less the relationship between markets and morality. But Adam Smith was no ordinary 18th century figure. Considered the “father of modern economics,” Smith was first and foremost a moral philosopher. The revolutionary ideas he penned in The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, changed the world. Norberg explores Smith’s insights regarding free trade and the nature of wealth to the present, where they are thriving and driving the world’s economy. In the second hour, Ideas That Changed The World, Norberg traces Smith’s insights regarding the benefits of free trade and the nature of wealth to the present, where they are currently in operation. He talks with some of the most distinguished Adam Smith scholars, as well as leaders of some of the world’s most admired companies to discover how Smith’s ideas continue to be relevant and drive the global economy today.
Jul 24 2019

Milton Friedman Speaks – Myths That Conceal Reality


Published on Jul 31, 2012

Five myths cloud our perception of both the past and the present. (1) The “robber baron” myth, which holds that in late nineteenth-century America there were powerful men who became rich at the expense of the poor. The reality is that they became wealthy by being productive, and that there is no other period in history which saw such a rapid and widespread improvement in the well-being of the average individual; (2) The myth that the Great Depression was caused by a failure of business, when it was, in fact, produced by a failure of government and specifically by the Federal Reserve System; (3) The myth that government in the economy has expanded in response to public demand, when, actually, the public has had to be sold “hard” for politicians to enact every major social program; (4) The “free lunch” myth, which forces the individual to pay more, no matter how the government raises money – by taxing individuals, by taxing businesses, or by printing more money; and (5) The myth that government, like Robin Hood, transfers wealth from the rich to the poor, when the reality is that the government usually transfers wealth and income from both the very rich and the very poor to those in the middle. Check out our Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/FreeToChoose…
Jul 23 2019

Why Hedge Funds Have Missed the Moves


Armstrong Economics Blog/Dow Jones

Re-Posted Jul 23, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Well, Ray Dalio was short the market, missed the rally, and lost almost 5% for the first half of the year. Obviously, they don’t use Socrates – lol.

LB

REPLY: I do not advise Bridgewater and I have no idea if they even subscribe to Socrates. But what you have to realize is that a lot of these hedge funds form their strategy based upon opinion for the broader view. When you have a portfolio of that size, you cannot simply trade it back and forth for each move. The question becomes critical as to where to draw the line to realize your broadview strategy is wrong.

I have stated many times that the trend does NOT begin to shift until you reach the Monthly Level. We saw that in Gold when it finally got through 1362.50 after nearly four years of bouncing off that number. In the case of the Dow Jones Industrials, our hedging models for institutions were long one month from the low and has remained in that position. This is just a hedging model which is either long or short. It at least tends to keep institutions on the right side of the trend for long periods of time.

Aside from the Reversal System, the Energy Model is extremely helpful in identifying the position of the market and if there is a risk of a crash or a rally. The Energy Model turned negative, demonstrating that there was no possibility of a crash as most analysts were forecasting from a gut perspective. A crash would have been possible ONLY if the Energy Model was at a peak. When it is testing the lows or a negative, it is warning that the energy in the market has already dissipated.

We are simply headed into a Monetary Crisis Cycle where the majority of people will never be able to forecast what will unfold from a personal gut perspective. This is not a time for lucky calls. We need objective time-tested analysis that is not clouded by human bias. This is when we need the global approach to let Socrates simply correlate the world to enable us to see the real trends that are in motion. The worst thing you can do is ASSUME you have missed something, as that is typically the kiss of death for investors where they inevitably buy the high or sell the low.

Jul 20 2019

Flashback: Former Secretary of State John Kerry Admits Giving Hostile Instructions to Iran to Undermine U.S. Interests…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on July 19, 2019 by 

With Iran now openly engaged in hostile efforts against western maritime navigation, and hijacking western oil tankers, I find it remarkable -albeit predictable- how U.S. media refuse to reference Former Secretary of State John Kerry’s instructions to Iran just a few short months ago. [Reference Article late 2018] [Reference article early 2018]

Reminder of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s anger:

.

There is a direct line, a direct connection, between former President Obama and former Secretary Kerry’s engagement with Iran -and the advice presented therein- only a few months ago, and the current hostile conflict Iran is attempting. Yet despite the connection, U.S. media are silent on the association.

Jul 18 2019

Agricultural Loans Declining Right on Target


Armstrong Economics Blog/Agriculture

Re-Posted Jul 18, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

One of the most fascinating observations I have made over my career has been that the banks always lend at the top and contract lending at the bottom in every market. Going into 1980, banks were calling me to ask if I wanted to borrow money. Recently, I got a phone call from my bank asking, once again, if I would be interested in a loan. This to me is merely a confirmation that we are approaching a major turning point.

When I look at lending into the agricultural sector, the big Wall Street banks are once again perfectly in line with the cycle. They peaked in loans to farmers back in 2015, and have been declining ever since going into 2020. Bank lending to the agricultural sector peaked with the ECM and we will see it bottom in 2020. Our model will be correct in forecasting the next wave, which will be a cost-push inflationary wave. As the agricultural sectors come back to life, thanks to shortages, then the bankers will be willing to lend once again. The banks are the PERFECT indicator of how not to run a business. They make decisions emotionally and always get the economy dead wrong (i.e mortgage-backed securities peaked in 2007)

Jul 16 2019

The US Treasury Does Have the Constitutional Right to Mint Coins


Armstrong Economics Blog/Regulation

Re-Posted Jul 16, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty, You are wrong. The US Treasury can create the money as the Constitution says it can. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. The Congress shall have the Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

To coin is used as a verb. At the time the Constitution was written, to coin money meant to create or to make money. Today’s Dictionary defines to coin as a verb meaning to make or to invent.
Why did you fail to mention this in your Blog today?
TD

ANSWER: Yes, you are correct. I suppose I was referring to the 99.99% of the money supply rather than the coins put into circulation by the US Treasury. President Nixon only closed the gold window in 1971. He did not demonetize “gold” as money under the Constitution. Yes, technically the US Treasury can coin money, but it coins today’s coins. The Fed does not do that. The coinage it creates is minimal in comparison to the overall scheme of things. Since 1913, the printing of currency has been delegated to the Federal Reserve. Prior to 1913, the Treasury issued the paper currency which was backed by coins.

This was the last issue of paper currency issued by the United States Treasury in 1913, the year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

Note that in 1934, the Fed actually issued $10,000 bills

Jul 16 2019

Lawsuit Claims Julian Assange Confirmed DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich – Not a Russian Hack…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on July 15, 2019 by 

A rather stunning report from Gateway Pundit outlines information contained within a lawsuit filing.  The lawsuit, filed by Businessman Ed Butowsky, alleges Wikileaks founder Julian Assange confirmed to Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner that the DNC leaked emails were received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron.

The details contained within the lawsuit filing (full pdf below) are stunning.

If this information is true and accurate, the DOJ claim of a Russian hack –based on assertions by DNC contractor, Crowdstrike– would be entirely false.  Additionally the DC murder of Seth Rich would hold a far more alarming motive.

(Source, lawsuit filing – pdf link, page 13)

Here’s the Full Court Filing:

REPORT THIS AD

.

The ramifications here are almost too large to describe.

If this information turns out to be true and accurate, the entire narrative around the DNC “hack” will have been proven to be intentionally manufactured.

Despite the FBI’s prior admissions about never reviewing the DNC servers; and despite their recent admissions about never actually seeing the forensic computer analysis, the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and former DAG Rod Rosenstein, cannot blame a simple investigative ‘mistake‘ for the wrong attribution of who gave the DNC emails to Wikileaks.

The FBI, the DOJ and the Mueller special counsel have each purposefully claimed specific Russian actors were responsible for hacking the DNC in 2016.  If it turns out those claims were based on falsehood, the integrity of the DOJ and Special Counsel collapses.

Mr. Butowsky is making a very serious allegation in this court filing.

Additionally, the previously discussed motive to arrest Julian Assange would now be further enhanced.  Heck, the reason for Assange’ arrest would be brutally obvious.

♦Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when Boente actually left the DOJ-NSD or the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) role.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Dana Boente had shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker) where Boente remains today. As Mueller was using 19 lawyers, and 50 FBI investigators, Boente was/is the legal counsel to FBI Director Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

[Remember, Robert Mueller never interviewed Julian Assange.  Additionally, it is worth noting for the U.S. side of the legal framework, the charges against Assange are not related to Russian efforts in a hack of the DNC; nor is Assange charged with anything related to the 2016 U.S. election interference activities, the Podesta email release or anything therein as previously described by the DOJ.]

The April 11th, 2019, Julian Assange indictment stemmed from the Eastern District of Virginia.  From a review of the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018: (The DOJ sat on the indictment for 13 months, until Mueller finished)

REPORT THIS AD

(Link to pdf)

However, on Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to December ’17..

The investigation of Assange took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

Why was there a delay?

Why did the DOJ wait until the Mueller report was complete?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

REPORT THIS AD

If you overlay the timing, it would appear the FBI took a keen interest in Assange after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama – December 29th, ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looked like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story.

The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview.

Right there is the FBI motive to shut Assange down when the Mueller report was released.

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike.

Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse.

Lastly, if we are to believe everything that is factually visible; including the admissions by the FBI and DOJ itself; and it is proven that Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails and there was no hack; well,… what does that say about Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein, who would have had to know they were pushing abject lies in their dubious Russian indictments.

The ramifications of this court filing are huge.