I am confused about the nature of the private wave we are currently in versus the public wave beginning in 1932. Does that mean governments will be more predominant in starting in 1932? This seems contrary to your many statements that the governments today are fighting to maintain control.
Thanks,
GP
ANSWER: During the Public Wave that began in 1934 and ended in 1985, the bond market performed at its best and stocks became extremely undervalued. This started to readjust only after the Public Wave ended in 1985. Only during the final wave does the government start to unravel in a Public Wave. In a Private Wave, stock markets outperform bond markets. Here, people lose their faith in government rapidly. By the half-way mark in a Private Wave, the government becomes aggressive because it sees it is losing control of society. This is why governments will become much more aggressive during the last part of this wave into 2032.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I want to thank you and your staff for a great conference. It was the best ever. Your detailed review of the Repo Crisis demonstrates why mainstream media tries so hard to ignore you while there were more institutions there than at any conference I have ever attended. When the Fed announced its rate cut, not a single journalist asked any question that addressed the liquidity crisis. It is like it did not exist but they seem desperate to cover it up. Do you think the mainstream press is just stupid or are they part of the cover-up to try to hide the liquidity crisis you had forecast at Rome would unfold in September?
JV
ANSWER: It is hard to say how 7 business journalists that cover Wall Street asked questions during the first half-hour yet not a single one asked about the liquidity crisis. It is as if the Fed’s injection into 23 Wall Street securities firms plus one foreign bank in addition to buying up $60 billion a month in Treasury bills from Wall Street dealers has never taken place. It does beg the question are they stupid or deliberately not asking key questions?
The Fed began its Repo loan interventions on September 17th BECAUSE banks no longer trust banks. This liquidity crisis is where the economic stresses will always take place when there is a question as to the security of the players in the market. There have been frightening similarities to the liquidity crisis of 1998 and 2007-2009. Not a single reporter seems to understand what is taking place BECAUSE their domestic sources are also in the dark so they prefer to do Repo with the Fed rather than any other banks.
I am not certain if this is a cover-up. It appears to be more of a complete lack of understanding of what is going on because nobody is talking. We just stand in the middle and have many clients calling in asking questions simply because banks and not talking to banks. Everyone is afraid to talk and thus the press is in the dark.
I am originally from Saskatchewan and I still own farmland there. (Sask will separate along with Alberta). I currently live in British Columbia.
Given global cooling, earthquakes, the commodity boom, civil unrest, global war, Alberta Separation, the rise of China…..Where do I take my family and young son?
Thanks for all of this invaluable work,
NH
ANSWER: That is a difficult question to answer at this point in time. Normally, if there is a crisis in one part of the world there is always an alternative. This time, every place you look there is political uncertainty. There will be pockets of safe harbors. Alberta may be one if it separates from Canada. The issue stems from oppressive control coming from centralized governments that are not ready to reform. They will crackdown on society in a desperate attempt to retain power. There are some pockets in the United States, but we may be looking more outside the continent. So far, the best spot in Asia has been Thailand.
The Federal Reserve, as expected, cut rates a quarter-point. The Fed also warned that further moves to ease interest rate policy may be coming to an end. The rate cut of 25 basis points to a range of 1.5% to 1.75% has been the third cut this year, which Fed Chairman Powell characterized as a “mid-cycle adjustment” in a maturing economic expansion. The Liquidity Crisis that has emerged in the REPO Market has been deeply concerning behind the curtain as many remained clueless as to why it was even unfolding. Many analysts claimed the Fed was hiding something and US shares of banks tumbled when they were traceable to Deutsche Bank exposure.
This year’s WEC was interesting since every part of the world was in crisis and we have gone into great detail with respect to the REPO Crisis. This year’s attendance set new records for the number of people flying in from around the world which included Russia down to South Africa, Europe, North, South, and Central America, all of Asia from China and Korea as well as Japan down to Singapore and India. The cross mix from fund managers, pension funds, banks, to central banks and even heads of separatist movements from around the world provided for a very interesting cocktail party this year.
Even the third-day training session exceeded 400 attendees. We are looking at holding two conferences outside the USA in 2020 in addition to Orlando – Frankfurt, and Shanghai. Perhaps holding three sessions we can reduce the size of these events. When they reach 700 attendees they are getting just a little too big.
There was so much to cover this year we provided extensive materials because there was just no way we could have covered in detail all of the information when we have a REPO Crisis, Liquidity Crisis, Pension Crisis, Sovereign Debt Crisis, Monetary Crisis, and a Crisis in Democracy with rising civil unrest and growing separatist movements around the globe.
We want to thank everyone for all your loyalty and the show of so many who have been making this an annual gathering as if this were a university reunion.
Thank you very much. We will be posting photos in a special sector for attendees onl
CTH has some new readers, so against the backdrop of the UniParty in Washington DC jumping into action to criticize President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria; and against the backdrop of President Trump authorizing an operation last night that killed ISIS leader Baghdadi, perhaps a little factual and historic refresher is in order….
The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:
[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.
This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)
When you listen to the audio recording (embedded below) it becomes immediately obvious what was going on in 2014, 2015 and 2016 as an outcome of policy from the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to the prior 4 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.
This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans, and explains how the prior action placed President Trump into a precarious position requiring a careful approach.
The key Secretary Kerry moments are at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.
The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:
.
@18:30 Secretary John Kerry [transcript]:
[…] “Well, the problem is the Russians do not care about law, and we do. And, we don’t have a basis -our lawyers tell us- unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto and Chinese, OR unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia was invited in by the legitimate regime, well, it’s illegitimate in our mind, by the regime. And so, they were invited in and we’re not invited in.”
“We’re flying in airspace there, where they can turn on the air defense and we have a very different scene. The only reason they’re letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we’d have to take out all those air defenses, uh, and we don’t have a legal justification, frankly, for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis, which some people argue we should – by the way.”
“Uh, but so far American legal theory has not gone into these so called “right to protect”, uh, and we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had an, you know, an existing resolution and so forth. Uh, even though we went alone.”
“And so it’s complicated, it’s not easy. And we’ve been fighting. How many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve fighting -you know- in the region for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe that we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another country. That’s the problem.”
“The congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we’re trying to do is help Syrians fight for their own country; and we’ve been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort to try and help do this. So, there’s an opposition there; the opposition is doing very well. Russia came in, and that’s a problem I know, because, uh, y’ know, uh, we don’t behave like Russians, it’s just a different standard.”
“So we are trying to see if we can test whether Russia, you see, is serious about a political solution. And if they are not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But I don’t think that’s particularly good for Syrians in the end because it will mean more fighting.”
Secretary Kerry is then questioned by an obvious sympathizer toward the extremist elements (calls pro-assad Sunni faction “Sunni Jews”) about why the U.S. fights the extremist Sunni (ISIS), but not the extremist Shia (Hezbollah). Kerry’s response:
“Well, they’re [Hezbollah] a terrorist organization, we’ve designated them a terrorist organization. The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us; and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us; Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, they’re not attacking now, and on Syria where they are attacking in support of the, uh, in support of Assad.”
“So it a, uh, it’s…”
[Interrupted]
Question: “But how to make the majority of the Syrian people accept this approach, that because Hezbollah or the Iraqi or Iranian groups are not attacking the U.S. now when they are attacking against the terrorism in Syria?”
Kerry: “Well, they, they are targeted by the opposition who we are arming and training.”
What the recording reveals is substantive:
♦ First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the 2013, 2014, and 2015 goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS (’13, ’14, ’15) by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.
♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the objective, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.
Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully. Because the audio, along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.
The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.
When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.
Against the backdrop of this recording we can reconcile so many historic issues. We already know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.
2012:WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. (link)
Further consider how this Kerry audio tape, and the now transparent Obama policy toward Syria, absolutely confirms our earlier research as contained within the Benghazi Brief surrounding Syria. [Previous post]
President Obama, Secretary Clinton (2011, 2012) and later Secretary Kerry, together with John McCain, and the CIA tentacled team within the Republican party (2013, 2014, 2015) were willing to support extremist (under all factional names) in order to overthrow Bashir Assad…
…THIS WAS THE Obama/Kerry POLICY.
This was their 2016 admitted policy, only because they were caught.
Nothing else mattered.
President Trump took office in January 2017, and began a process to kill and remove, with extreme prejudice, the ISIS forces that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry armed. He began with the end in mind, and delivered the following quote:…
During the last Mortgaged Backed Security scandal which undermined the entire world economy, they created mortgage modifications which enabled millions of delinquent homeowners to avoid having their home foreclosed. Since 2007, it has been estimated that some 8.7 million permanent mortgage modifications were created. There are still over $800 billion of these bubble-era loans outstanding. How were they allowed to survive? For at least the past five years, between 75% and 95% of all mortgage modifications have taken the past interest due that was in default, included it in a capitalization of interest arrears, which means the resolution was never for the benefit of the homebuyer.
By adding the past-due interest, they have been paying interest on the interest. This failure to address the issue by some partial debt forgiveness with respect to prior interest means that the mortgage crisis has been simply postponed. If a new financial crisis hits, the old one will simply be sent off into foreclosure and real estate values can still plummet even more in the low-end of the market.
Barrons did a good review of the problem. They came to the conclusion that re-defaults will be more likely as home values fail to get back to par and these people will just walk away. Indeed, the resolution should have been the forgiveness of past-due interest. Then the value of the homes would have been less impacted. But the bankers refused to accept the loss and as a result, real estate has been unable to recover on the low end of the market which is why the economy has not been robust as it should be boosted more by capital inflows than true economic recovery.
When we look at our broad real estate index, it has been making new highs in 2019. However, when we plot this in Euro, we can see why there have been foreign capital inflows. But the foreign capital has been buying the high-end, not the class where the mortgage bubble of 2007 impacted. From a foreign perspective, the high investment end of the markets has been above the 2007 high for the past 4 years. This is why the new highs have tended to be concentrated in the major centers like New York City and Miami – not local main streets.
Barrons reported that if we look at JPMorgan Chase (JPM) which holds the second-largest residential mortgage portfolio in the nation, we see in its second quarter of 2019 report, that almost $10 billion of modified loans (known as troubled debt restructuring)remained outstanding. Of this restructured debt, 43% were listed as having re-defaulted. Bank of America (BAC) has stated that 41% of its modified loans had re-defaulted.
QUESTION: Might you clarify this response you gave on one of your very recent blogs. You said bail-in may NOT be permitted on US soil. Did you mean that despite the laws written in the USA to allow it, you don’t think it is likely to happen to USA citizens banking in the USA?
OR were you only meaning in regards to overseas banks with locations within the USA would most likely not use bail-in.
OR because of all the EU money fleeing to USD/USA that the banks stable in the USA (for now) and thus no bail-in needed?
Do you think there would EVER be the case for a USA bank bail-in? Or is this just more conspiracy talk? For obvious reasons, this is of great concern to all of us as this USD repo madness, liquidity crisis and DB’s derivative contagion begins to spread throughout Europe into the next ECM turn in mid-January 2020.
Thank you in advance for your efforts and response to this question.
L
ANSWER: The bail-in laws were passed during the last crisis which was a popular response at that time because no bankers were ever punished for what they did in New York City. To the extent that FDIC exists, they would certainly honor that or it would be political suicide. However, the fine print is FDIC cover per person. Putting money at 5 different banks would seem to get around their limitations, but I would not count on that.
The gray area comes in two aspects.
First, there are at any given time money from one bank which can be at another (REPO) which is also why there is a liquidity crisis
Second, there are business accounts which exceed $100,000
The problem with a bail-in is that the ramifications would be far worse than the Great Depression. You would destroy businesses that would then be unable to make payroll and the unemployment would be massive – far greater than the 25% high of the Great Depression.
The BAIL-IN policy of Europe is a different animal altogether. This has nothing to do with bailing-out bankers. This stems from the refusal to consolidate debts. If banks failed in Southern Europe, then a bailout would mean money from the north could go to the south. This is the structural design. It is WHY Europe adopted the bail-in, quite different from the question of bankers’ conduct. Germany’s demand to join the Euro was that there would be no consolidation of debts. As I have said, the EU is like a family reunion with the cousin who is the drunk than people smile at, but would never lend him a dime. You can pretend it one happy family, but that is just the surface.
A bail-in would actually be devastating economically. It defeats the very idea of banking for if the burden is shifted to depositors to monitor banks when we have agencies who are supposed to do that, then why do we need governments or pay taxes?
Despite the laws, they were never thought threw and it is a huge difference between a regional bank and Goldman Sachs. The hatred was directed at the New York Banks – and rightly so. Because the federal court in New York City has protected the bankers, they have actually undermined the entire country by their stupid actions.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 