Do Tall Buildings Signal a Recession or Depression?


Madison Square Garden was constructed in New York City and was opened on September 29, 1891. The 304-foot (92.66 m) building had been completed a year earlier and was the second-tallest in New York City, just in time for the Panic of 1893. It was named after James Madison, the fourth president of the United States. The first garden, leased to P. T. Barnum, had no roof and was inconvenient to use during winter.

It was demolished after 11 years and a new Madison Square Garden was designed by noted architect Stanford White. It was constructed by a syndicate which included J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, P. T. Barnum, Darius Mills, James Stillman, and W. W. Astor. The third version began construction in 1925 after it was demolished and that lasted until 1968. The fourth version began construction in 1968 and was completed in 1969. That too was timed with the Panic of 1968.

The Flatiron Building marked the Panic of 1903. This was a triangular 22-story building that became the landmark building at the time. Construction was completed in 1902, and it was one of the tallest buildings in the city at 20 floors high. For the Panic of 1907, it was the Singer Tower on Broadway. With 47 stories, it was the tallest building in the world from 1908-1909.

There is the well-known story of how the Empire State Building, which was 102 stories, became the symbol of the Great Depression in the 1930s. The design for the Empire State Building was changed fifteen times to make it the world’s tallest building as a symbol of hope during the Great Depression. Construction began on March 17, 1930, and the building opened thirteen and a half months afterward on May 1, 1931. Despite the publicity surrounding the building’s construction, its owners failed to make a profit until the early 1950s.

As you can see from the chart above, after the 45% correction in the Dow, the market began to bounce. The project of the Empire State Building went ahead. Many assumed that the market was recovering and new highs would come again. Little did they know that most of Europe, South America, and Asia permanently defaulted on their debts in 1931.

The original World Trade Center destroyed in 2001 was a large complex of seven buildings in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan. It opened on April 4, 1973. This became the symbol of the 1974 Crash and the beginning of Stagflation. Likewise, the Aon Center in Los Angeles opened in 1973 which also marked a peak in the economy.

The 1987 Crash was marked by One Liberty Place in Philadelphia, and then the SEC later destroyed Drexel Burnham with Michael Milkin because of their competition with New York City. The SEC never has destroyed any firm in New York City as they have done in Philadelphia and Chicago.

Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur became the symbol of the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis and the 1998 Crash due to Long-Term Capital Management. That was the mass liquidity crisis from the emerging market collapsed that began in Russia.

In New York City, construction began on April 27, 2006, of the new One World Trade Center just in time for the Panic of 2007. It did not open until November 3, 2014.

The  Burj Khalifa, known as the Burj Dubai, also became the symbol of the 2007-2009 crash.

Like the wise tale that markets go up with women’s skirts and fall when then drop back to their ankles (i.e. Roaring 20s), the competition to create skyscrapers and always build the biggest in the world has also been an interesting correlation to major crashes in the world economy. The Jeddah Tower(Arabic: برج جدة‎), also known as the Mile-High Tower, was to begin construction in 2008. It was put on hold. This promised to be the tallest building in the entire world. It appears that plans for such buildings coincide with the boom days. All work was paused with the tower about one-third completed due to labor issues with a contractor following the 2017–19 Saudi Arabian purge. This too seems to be the symbol of this correction and the crisis in the Middle East.

Iran & War


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, your forecast for Iran back in 2012 has been correct. It picked 2016 which in January the International economic sanctions on Iran were lifted after UN said it was satisfied with progress on fulfilling the nuclear agreement. President Rouhani then embarked on the first European state visit of an Iranian president for 16 years. But that same month is when the serious rift in relations took place after Saudi Arabia executed a leading Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr. During May 2017,  Hassan Rouhani won re-election as president.= and by June that is when there was a co-ordinated attack on parliament and the shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini. That is when the Islamic State group claimed responsibility. That sparked major protests in December 2017 over economic grievances. The next year in 2018, President Trump announced the US withdrawal from the 2015 international deal on Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran in turn warned that it will begin increasing its uranium enrichment capacity if the deal collapses as a result of the US move.

I have followed your report and it has been truly remarkable for someone that is covering the entire world. My question is now, your array showed the 2016 turning point which was amazing, but it also showed 2020. There are increasing tensions once again. Do you have an update on this forecast?

Thank you

ABSR

ANSWER: There is a rising tide in Iran toward a confrontation. In February 2020, the hardliners scored big wins in parliamentary elections, but this was with a record low turnout of only 42.6% while any moderate would-be candidates were barred from running for not meeting strict eligibility criteria.

Back in 2013, the State Department blew everyone away after admitting that they officially and intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing to mislead the press over the Iranian nuclear deal under the Obama Administration. Then in 2o16, Iran also tried to sell oil in euros in a futile attempt to end oil’s link to the dollar. They clearly failed to understand this was not a SERIOUS blow to the USA, but in fact, they took on the currency risk of the euro and lost.

It appears that 2020 is the low for oil and we should see tension rise sharply with Iran which will help oil into 2024.

Socrates & the Whole


COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong – as a subscriber to Socrates, I find it remarkable how prescient its analyses have been. (Wish I were a better trader to benefit more financially! But that’s another story – live & learn. At least Socrates has kept me out of trouble, so far.)

My observation/question is, now that Vermont has gone full-on Politburo, directing retailers to “CEASE IN-PERSON SALES OF NON-ESSENTIAL ITEMS”:  I wonder if the timeline for the dissolution of the Union has accelerated? When Government decides what is essential, we’re all in trouble.

Thank you again for your work.
N.A.

REPLY: Yes, Socrates has done something that no human could have ever foreseen. Even its forecast that unemployment would be like a slingshot I questioned myself since that has never taken place in history. Only something that can analyze and do so without passion, bias, or conflicts of interest would survive such an event. Not even during the Great Depression did we see unemployment rise so fast.

This has NOT been about merely forecast the collapse of the stock market. This is far greater than any single market forecast. If you cannot see the whole, you will never understand what is taking place within a single market.

Just so everyone understands, Socrates is not even in one location. It is monitoring the world from multiple locations around the globe to prevent it from being blocked at least by a single governmen

Rank and Vile – DOJ Inspector General Identifies 93 Percent Non-Compliance Within FISA Review – Issues So Bad IG Presents Interim Report Before Reviewing Details…


After the DOJ Offfice of Inspector General (OIG), Michael Horowitz, presented his December 2019 findings of the FISA application used against U.S person Carter Page, the gross deficiencies and intentional fraud were so extensive the IG said he was going to review a sample of FISA applications to identify if the fraud and abuse was widespread.

The OIG began reviewing FISA applications from eight field offices (the proverbial “rank and file”).  The OIG selected 29 FISA applications from those field offices over the period of October 2014 to September 2019.  Additionally, every field office and the DOJ-NSD generate internal “Accuracy Reviews”, or self-checks on FISA applications; so the OIG inspected 42 of the accuracy review FISA files to determine if they were compliant.

The results were so bad the IG produced an interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI [pdf link here].  Within the 17-page-memo the IG notifies Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray that all of the claimed FISA processes, in every field office, are grossly deficient, and in most cases there is zero compliance with FISA standards.  The IG memorandum is presented before the IG even looks at the specifics of the non-compliance.

Below is the report/memorandum.  Additionally I am summarizing the stunning top-lines identified by the IG memo:

  • The IG reviewed 29 FISA applications, surveillance warrants, used against U.S. persons.
  • The 29 FISA applications were from eight different field offices.
  • The FISA applications were from Oct/2014 through Sept/2019.
  • All of the FISA applications reviewed were approved by the FISA court.

The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application.  Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.

♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File.  Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application.  [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the woods file requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20.  Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated.  [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20]

♦ Half of the FISA applications reviewed used Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s).  The memo outlines that “many” of applications containing CHS claims had no supportive documentation attesting to the dependability of the CHS.

♦ Two of the 25 FISA applications reviewed had renewals; meaning the FISA applications were renewed to extended surveillance, wiretaps, etc. beyond the initial 90-days.  None of the renewals had any re-verification.  Both FISAs that used renewals were not compliant.

But wait… it gets worse.

The DOJ and FBI have an internal self-check mechanism.  The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel, and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications.  One per field office (25 to 30 field offices),which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.

Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review.  Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself.  The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.

However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application.  The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.

So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review.  The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel.  However, the IG finds that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.

The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed).  These were the FISA files with the greatest possibility of being accurate.  Let that sink in…

Here’s the OIG Report/Memorandum: