QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; In Germany DWN wrote that Cohn of Goldman Sachs is in favor of returning Glass–Steagall. This seems strange. Do you have any insight?

ANSWER: Very simple. Glass–Steagall was separating investment banking from banks. Goldman Sachs is by no means a traditional bank but were always an investment bank. If you restore Glass–Steagall this will help Goldman reduce its competition from JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. All three would then be barred from investment banking.

Cohn’s remarks obviously surprised many on Capitol Hill, but that’s because they do not understand the banking industry they claim to regulate. Bloomberg reported: “Many high-ranking representatives of the banking industry have apparently thought that the integration of former bankers like Cohn in the White House would prevent major upheavals such as a reintroduction of Glass Steagall. But Wednesday’s remarks rather suggest that Cohn could become the trump if the Congress is actually tackling the project.”

Keep in mind that now the actual banks who take deposits and lend money to individuals will lobby against Goldman Sachs which is still an investment bank, not a commercial bank. You do have Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and even Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona demanding a “Glass Steagall Act of the 21st Century.” However, neither one of them really comprehends the industry to say the least.

My bet is any reform coming will include more reporting of cash transactions and we may even see Democrats push to eliminate the $100 bill.

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I read the quote that Kenneth Rogoff made about the predictions of the attendees at Davos. He told Bloomberg: “A joke, which I have been telling since the last meeting in Davos, culminates in the fact that the predictions made in Davos are always wrong… No matter how unlikely, the most likely event is the one that is the opposite of the Davos consensus.”

I was talking to a friend who is rather high ranked in a European bank and he said when they really want a forecast they call you. Why do you not speak at Davos? Everyone knows you. So why are you not taking a more prominent role?

Thanks for what you do share with us on the outside.

DY

ANSWER: The Davos meeting is way too public to be important. Its just a convention for food, drink, and parties. It is not serious. However, the media thinks it is like the Bilderberg meetings. I know people who attend both. They no more can decide the fate of the world than they can weather for their flights home. The majority MUST always be wrong. That is how all economics and markets move. Look at the Dow. This is historically the most bearish rally in all of its history. The major have been addicted to predicting every new high is its last. People keep trying to short it and they get stopped out. The shorts keep feeding the rally – not fresh longs. That is why the majority of people are NOT in this market.

The majority must ALWAYS BE WRONG and that goes for both Davos and Bilderberg meetings. For years, being perhaps the largest institutional adviser covering the world, my clients NEVER wanted to see our forecasts on the front page of the WSJ when they were paying for that info. The people who spout out their forecasts to everyone who will listen are trolling for business. If you have the business, you do not need to troll.

There is never any point in appearing publicly at Davos or the Bilderberg meetings to hand out advise for free when they will not listen anyhow until there is a crisis. So you cannot stop or alter the trend for no politician will change course until compelled to do so. Hence, it would be just a waste of time. The such time I would consider speaking at either is when the crisis comes. I have always regarded myself as a crisis manager because nobody will listen to prevent a crisis. They always hate to let go of power.

The latest report on tax comparisons within the USA has been released. A report from Attom Data shows just how nuts things are becoming with regard to taxes. Property taxes have become really insane in the North. The average annual property tax bill in Alabama in 2016 was $776 compared to the the highest average is New Jersey where it stands at $8,477.

Now filter in the State Income Taxes and what emerges is human nature. For all the people who complain about multinational companies moving offshore and then deny that it is tax related and try to characterize that as simply labor is cheaper, need to look more closely. The multinational companies I restructured we looked at the whole picture. Wages were a small part and only one component. What was the amount of social taxation on top of the wages, property taxes in a region, and then the corporate tax. Ger – it looks like the individual is making the same analysis.

The net migration of people within the United States mirrors the same thing taking place corporately on a global scale. They are leaving the highest taxed states and moving to the lower taxes states. Taxes are more than just what you pay, they push up the cost of living because everyone is paying a higher tax rate. I took a friend out with his family down from NJ and the bought ice cream cones. The bill was about half that of what they pay at the Jersey shore. I said see: high taxes ripple through everything within the economy raising the price of everything you buy. The net bottom line – taxes rob much more of your disposable income than anyone actually attributes to government directly

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington has published a Working Paper on “de-cashing” the economies and the implications. This paper clearly demonstrates that this is the direction we are headed into. It provides advice to governments who want to join in the latest thing – abolishing cash. IMF-Analyst Alexei Kireyev recommends in his conclusions:

Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system. 

 

The paper does not advocate eliminating cash. It merely goes through the plus and minus to such a policy. While governments are pressing this using terrorism as the excuse, you do not eliminate the entire monetary system of the world to even catch 100 terrorists and their camels. This is all about the collapse in socialism and the desperate need to raise money.

IMF De-Cashing Paper