Protests against the regime of Ayatollah Khamenei erupted today in Tehran following the government admission of shooting down Ukraine Airline Flight 752. In scenes that look familiar to the 2010 ‘green movement’, thousands of Iranian protestors, many young women, have gathered to express their opposition to the dictatorial government.
Stunningly, it has been reported that the U.K. Ambassador in Tehran was arrested for filming the protests.
(Via Daily Mail) Iranians have gathered in the streets of Tehran to demand the resignation of Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei after the regime admitted it had mistakenly shot down a civilian passenger plane.
Angry crowds gathered on Saturday night in at least four locations in Tehran, chanting ‘death to liars’ and calling for the country’s supreme leader to step down over the tragic military blunder, video from the scene shows.
What began as mournful vigils for Iranian lives lost on the flight soon turned to outrage and protest against the regime, and riot police quickly cracked down, firing tear gas into the crowd.
‘Death to the Islamic Republic’ protesters chanted, as the regime’s security forces allegedly used ambulances to sneak heavily armed paramilitary police into the middle of crowds to disperse the demonstration. (read more)
Protesters in Tehran clash with riot police as they demand the Ayatollah RESIGNS and call for regime change after Iran finally admits to shooting down jet and killing 176 peoplehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876363/Iranian-protesters-Tehran-turn-against-regime-military-admits-shooting-plane.html …
#BREAKING: Reports: British ambassador in Tehran arrested tonight while photographing the protests against the downing of the Ukrainian plane. I bet they’re going to accuse him of being a spy. This is against the laws of diplomatic immunity.
The voice of the Iranian people is clear. They are fed up with the regime’s lies, corruption, ineptitude, and brutality of the IRGC under @khamenei_ir‘s kleptocracy. We stand with the Iranian people who deserve a better future.
The results of a massive turnout vote in Taiwan reflect the country wishes to remain free from the overbearing influence of communist China.
(Hong Kong Free Press) […] Taiwan’s incumbent leader Tsai Ing-wen has won Saturday’s presidential election, defeating her Beijing-friendly rival Han Kuo-yu by a wide margin.
[…] With 8.1 million votes as of 10:30pm, Tsai won the highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in Taiwan’s history of democratic elections. Han, on the other hand, received just over 5.5 million votes, according to the Central Election Commission (CEC).
Tsai stated in her victory speech: “I want to once again call upon Beijing authorities to remind them that peace, clarity, democracy and dialogue are key to positive cross-strait interactions and long-term development,” she added. “I also hope that Beijing authorities understand that democratic Taiwan and our democratically-elected government will not concede to threats and intimidation.” (more)
President Trump continues to dodge a disastrous war with Iran, and my hat is off to him once again.
Many have doubted him and even I thought this was it—we were going to war against Iran. It would have been a war we would win, but at the cost of thousands if not millions of lives, especially if Russia or China got involved. It would have probably cost Trump his reelection.
Houdini-like, he’s been able to maneuver out of traps that would thwart a lesser president. Now if only he could figure out a way to get us out of the Middle East completely. After that, he could also help our country escape from the Federal Reserve’s immoral system of money.
Let’s hope he makes more progress during his second term.
Much of the public discussion since President Trump struck down Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s terrorist Quds Force, calls into question Trump’s reasons, his sanity, and his political motives. Is it possible to disagree with , or even dislike, Donald Trump, but still think the move had a rational basis that may turn out to have been morally and strategically correct. Join Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Stephen Green in debunking some of the top theories about Trump’s decision. Right Angle is a production of our Members. Join them today and find your people at https://BillWhittle.com/register
President Donald Trump is doing three things that should “scare the hell out of Democrats” according to Jonathan Capehart in the Washington Post. Bill Whittle thinks Capehart almost gets it, and then goes wildly off the rails. Can Trump’s historic campaign war chest, plus his outreach to Blacks and Latinos virtually assure his reelection? Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott analyzes the news of the date from a solid conservative perspective, thanks to our Members who fund it. Join them today, and unlock access to Members-only content and features at https://BillWhittle.com/register/ Visit our friends at The Patriot Post: America’s News Digest: http://bit.ly/2rd2Hpx Join Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and a bunch of folks who think right like you on a Caribbean cruise May 15-18, 2020. Find out more and book your cabin at http://bit.ly/StratoCruise2020
The BLS released the December jobs report earlier today showing a stable 145,000 new job gains last month, and the unemployment rate remaining a very low 3.5%.
During an interview discussing the health of the U.S. economy in 2020 with National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, the DOW Jones industrial average crossed 29,000 for the first time in history.
Earlier today Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin held a press conference in the White House to announce new sanctions against Iran. The secretaries also took questions from the press pool. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here today. I’d just like to make a brief comment before we talk about Iran sanctions. I’m sure everybody saw that the DOW hit 29,000. The President’s economic plans are clearly working. We’re looking forward to the China signing, USMCA, and a very strong economy this year.
As previously announced by the President, we are announcing additional sanctions against the Iranian regime as a result of the attack on U.S. and allied troops.
First, the President is issuing an executive order authorizing the imposition of additional sanctions against any individual owning, operating, trading with, or assisting sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, manufacturing, textiles, and mining. And let me be clear: These will be both primary and secondary sanctions. The EO also allows us to designate other sectors in the future as Secretary Pompeo and me think is appropriate.
Second, we are announcing 17 specific sanctions against Iran’s largest steel and iron manufacturers, three Seychelles-based entities, and a vessel involved in the transfer of products. As a result of these actions, we will cut off billions of dollars of support to the Iranian regime, and we will continue our enforcement of other entities.
Third, we are taking action against eight senior Iranian officials who advanced the regime’s destabilizing activity and were involved in Tuesday’s ballistic missile strike. Secretary Pompeo will comment more on this.
Today’s sanctions are part of our commitment to stop the Iranian regime’s global terrorist activities. The President has been very clear: We will continue to apply economic sanctions until Iran stops its terrorist activities and commit that it will never have nuclear weapons.
I’ll now turn it over to Secretary Pompeo.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Steven. Good morning, everyone.
Today, President Trump is delivering on the pledge that he made the day after Iran attacked American forces in Iraq: There will be a series of new sanctions.
Secretary Mnuchin just mentioned eight senior Iranian officials that are responsible for the regime’s violence, both at home and abroad. We’re striking at the heart of the Islamic Republic’s inner security apparatus. These sanctions targets include the Secretary of the Supreme National Council and the Commander of the Basij Forces; that’s the regime’s brute squad, which has, in the last few months, killed approximately 1,500 Iranians who were simply demanding freedom.
Our action targets other senior leaders close to the Ayatollah. They’ve carried out his terrorist plots in destabilizing campaigns across the Middle East and around the world. They’ve employed soldiers across the region’s battlefields. They’ve trained militias in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the arts of domestic repression.
Today, they’re accountable for murder and mayhem. The goal of our campaign is to deny the regime the resources to conduct its destructive foreign policy. We want Iran to simply behave like a normal nation. We believe the sanctions that we impose today further that strategic objective.
Our campaign is composed of diplomatic, economic components that have deprived the regime of billions in revenue the regime has used to fuel death and destruction across the Middle East and all across the world.
Sadly, the previous administration had opened up revenue streams for Iran. But under our administration, oil revenues are down by 80 percent and Iran cannot access roughly 90 percent of its foreign currency reserves. And not even two weeks ago, President Rouhani of Iran admitted that our sanctions have cost Iran over $200 billion in lost foreign income and investment. As long as Iran’s outlaw ways continue, we will continue to impose sanctions.
Finally, I want to reiterate President Trump’s concern for Americans and dual national citizens detained inside of Iran. Iran knows these individuals have committed no crime. They know the charges against them are fake. And we will do all that we can to get each of them returned home safely to their families.
With that, we’ll take just a few questions.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Mr. Secretary, the administration said this strike was based on an imminent threat, but this morning you said we didn’t know precisely when and we didn’t know precisely where. That’s not the definition of “imminent.” The President has also suggested that there was some sort of attack being planned against an embassy, perhaps several embassies.
Can you clarify? Did you have specific information about an imminent threat, and did it have anything to do with our embassies?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on U.S. embassies. Period. Full stop.
Q So you were mistaken when you said you didn’t know precisely when and you didn’t know precisely where?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Nope. Completely true. Those are completely consistent thoughts. I don’t know exactly which minute. We don’t know exactly which day it would’ve been executed. But it was very clear: Qasem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests. And those attacks were imminent.
Q Against an embassy?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Against American facilities, including American embassies, military bases. American facilities throughout the region.
Q Mr. Secretary —
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, sir. John?
Q Mr. Secretary, in the initial hours after the missile attacks on Al-Asad, in Erbil, it was believed that Iran may have taken steps to avoid U.S. casualties. But then, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, came out, the Secretary of Defense came out, other officials came out to say, “No, these missiles were intended to kill Americans.”
If it was Iran’s intent to kill Americans, does that not deserve some sort of response? I mean, if somebody takes a shot at you and they don’t hit you simply because you duck, does that mean that they weren’t trying to kill you?
SECRETARY POMPEO: So, look, I’ll defer to the Department of Defense on the details, but there’s no doubt in my judgment, as I observed the Iranian activity in the region that night, they had the full intention of carrying — killing U.S. forces, whether that was our military folks or diplomatic folks who were in the region. And I am confident that the response the President has taken is appropriate.
The President said we don’t want war; we want Iran to behave like a normal nation. The reason that the Secretary of Treasury and I are here this morning is to continue this campaign — our strategic effort to get Iran to behave in a way that doesn’t continue their 40-year-long effort to terrorize the world.
Q Mr. Secretary and Secretary Pompeo, do you believe that the Iranians shot down the Ukrainian International Airways [sic] plane? And if the Iranians shot that plane down, will there be consequences?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We do believe that it’s likely that that plane was shot down by an Iranian missile. We’re going to let the investigation play out before we make a final determination. It’s important that we get to the bottom of it.
I’ve been on the phone — I was on the phone with President Zelensky. Just before I came here, I was on the phone with my Canadian counterpart. They’re working to get their resources on the ground to conduct that thorough investigation. We’ll learn more about what happened to that aircraft. And when we get the results of that investigation, I am confident we and the world will take appropriate actions in response.
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: And let me just —
Q Will you allow the NTSB to work with the Iranians?
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Yeah, I was just going to comment on that. The Treasury will issue waivers for anybody, whether it’s Americans or others, that can help facilitate the investigation.
Q The last time that you both joined us in this room, it was back in September and you were announcing additional sanctions, including on the Quds Force. And, Secretary Mnuchin, at that point you said, “I think we’ve done more sanctions on Iran than anybody, and it’s absolutely working.”
Since then, we’ve seen an escalation in violence from Iran: shooting down the drone, attacking the embassy, a contractor who was killed, U.S. troops that were wounded. How are sanctions keeping the United States — economic sanctions keeping the United States and United States’ interests more secure?
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: I think we have 100 percent confidence, and we are consistent in our view that the economic sanctions are working; that if we didn’t have these sanctions in place, literally Iran would have tens of billions of dollars. They would be using that for terrorist activities throughout the region and to enable them to do more bad things. And there’s no question, by cutting off the economics to the region, we are having an impact.
And as the President has said, the fact that the Obama administration turned over $150 billion to the regime, we think we wouldn’t be in this situation had that not been the case.
SECRETARY POMPEO: May I just add, it’s important to keep in mind what’s taking place in Iran today. This country has never been in the place that it is today. Big, challenging problems. Their budget — they’re going to fail by tens of billions of dollars of achieving their revenue for this year. They’ve got real challenges, and figuring out how to make difficult decisions: Do you underwrite Hezbollah? Do you pick Hamas? Do you underwrite the Shia militias in Iraq? Or do you allow your people to have the opportunity to live the life they want and grow your economy? Those are the difficult choices that the regime is facing.
And you can see the protests — protests that we expect will continue — that we’ll demand from the Iranian regime that they begin to treat the Iranian people in the way that they so richly deserve. And this administration will continue to support those efforts as well.
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: In the back.
Q Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned secondary sanctions here. What is your message to our European allies who continue to do business with the Iranians? And then, specifically, if you can, will this impact the INSTEX barter mechanism, which was set up by a number of European countries to avoid U.S. sanctions and continue to do business without using the U.S. dollar?
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Sure. Thank you. I think those are both very important questions.
So let me first comment on INSTEX. I don’t believe there’s been any INSTEX transactions. As we’ve made clear, we are working on a Swiss channel that we have approved for humanitarian transactions. We’ll continue to allow humanitarian transactions. We’ve warned INSTEX and others that they will most likely be subject to secondary sanctions, depending on how they use that. So that’s absolutely the case.
As it relates to the Europeans, both the Secretary and I have spoken to our counterparts in Europe several times over the last few days. We’ve emphasized the impact and the issue of — Iran has announced that they are no longer part of the JCPOA. And we’ve had very direct conversations with our counterparts about that.
Q Secretary Pompeo, what is your definition of “imminent”?
SECRETARY POMPEO: This was going to happen, and American lives were at risk. And we would have been culpably negligent. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, we would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended to the President that he take this action at Qasem Soleimani. He made the right call, and America is safer as a result of that.
Q But then why has there been these — Secretary Pompeo, why have there been these shifting definitions —
(Cross-talk.)
Q Thank you. Thank you, sir.
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Go — go ahead. We’re going to —
Q — shifting explanations of the intelligence?
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: We’re going to try to do one question for everybody, just —
Q Were they trying to hit Iranian troops — was Iran trying to hit our troops or not?
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: — so that as many people can get questions. So I don’t mean to cut you off, but we’re trying to — go ahead.
Q I mean, let me defer to my colleague — but, sir, six months ago, Secretary Pompeo, the President said that U.S. intelligence agencies had been running amok. He spent most of the past three years he’s been in office denigrating and attacking the intelligence community and disputing findings, whether it’s on Russia or North Korea, or really any area that contradicts things that he has said publicly.
Why then should Americans suddenly believe your assertions that you had good intelligence on this when the head of the Executive Branch has been casting aspersions on the intelligence community for most of his time in office?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Look, I served as the CIA Director for the first year and a half of this administration. I watched the President rely on the work that the intelligence community did for the entire time I served as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. I watched him rely on the capable men and women who are delivering exquisite information to the Executive Branch. I watched the President have confidence in that information.
We all challenge their work. We have to make sure we get it right. The intelligence community is not flawless. We — we get it wrong. In this case, the intelligence community got it fundamentally right. Even the reflections we’ve seen after the after-effect, after the strike that Qasem Soleimani took, has demonstrated that we were quite right. There was an imminent attack. There was active plotting. And we took an action that we thought was likely to create less risk for the American people, and I’m confident that we did that.
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Go ahead, in the back. In the back.
Q Thank you. This question is for Secretary Pompeo. There are reports that the Iraqi Prime Minister has asked you to start negotiating some withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq immediately. Is that the case? Can you comment on that?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yeah, he didn’t quite characterize the conversation correctly. But to the larger, more important point, we are happy to continue the conversation with the Iraqis about what the right structure is. Our mission set there is very clear: We’ve been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, the counter-Daesh campaign.
We’re going to continue that mission. But as the — as times change and we get to a place where we can deliver upon what I believe and the President believes is our right structure, with fewer resources dedicated to that mission, we will do so.
We also have today a NATO team that’s here at the State Department working to develop a plan, which will get burden-sharing right in the region, as well, so that we can continue the important missions to protect and defend and keep the American people safe while reducing our cost, our resources, and our burden, and the risk to our soldiers and sailors who are in the region.
Q Secretary Pompeo, if I can — here, today, at the podium, you said that the imminent threat was a threat to U.S. embassies. You didn’t know precisely when or where. Last night, the President said it was a threat to embassies, including to our Baghdad embassy.
Why can you say that here, and the President could say it at a rally in Toledo, but no one said it to lawmakers behind closed doors in a classified setting, as multiple senators have since said?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We did.
Q You said —
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes.
Q So the senators are lying when they say that (inaudible) imminent threat was a threat?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We told them about the imminent threat. All of the intelligence that we’ve briefed, that you’ve heard today, I assure you, in an unclassified setting, we provide in the classified setting as well.
Q To be clear, you told them that embassies were the — were to be targeted? That was the imminent threat?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I’m not going to talk about the details of what we shared in a classified setting. But make no mistake about it: Those leaders, those members of Congress who want to go access this same intelligence, can see that very same intelligence that will reflect what I described to you and what the President said last night, as well.
Q Is that threat now gone with Soleimani gone?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Threats are never gone. Uh, right? It’s always — a lot of danger in the world.
Q The next general will pick it up?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Always — always a lot of danger in the world, throughout the region. Nobody believed that a single mission, in any respect, took down the risk of terror — terror from al Qaeda, terror from ISIS, terror from al-Shabaab. No — no one believes that. The President doesn’t.
Look at the list though; look at the achievements in the administration. We took away the caliphate in its entirety. We took down Hamza bin Laden. We took down al-Baghdadi. We took down Qasem Soleimani. This is a list that has reduced the capacity for terrorists around the world to perform the functions that put American men and women and the homeland at risk. We’re very proud of what we accomplished. We’re going to stay the course.
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Why don’t we take one more over there? Yes. Thank you.
Q I’m curious —
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: No, no. Next to you. Right there. Yes.
Q Me?
SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Yes.
Q Thank you. Secretary Mnuchin, this is a question for you too about the China trade deal. So the Chinese side is going to be here next Wednesday to sign the phase one part of that deal. But China is also a big importer of Iranian oil and Iranian minerals, and that’s a big part of their economy as well. So how do you balance the two? And are you concerned about the Iran issue coming up in either the signing of the phase one deal or the negotiation for the phase two deal?
SECRTEARY MNUCHIN: Well, let me just comment: I had no idea you’d ask that question, but that’s a good last question to end on.
So let me first say that we are looking forward to the Chinese delegation coming next week. Phase one is very significant. It includes very significant components of changes to technology issues, intellectual property issues, and $50 billion of purchases for our farmers.
I would comment: I don’t agree with your comment that China is a big buyer of oil. The China state companies are not buying oil from Iran. And I would just say we are having conversations with China, as well with any other counterparty on sanctions evasion.
UPDATE: TRUMP REASSURES AMERICA HE IS NOT STARTING WAR WITH IRAN AND DE-ESCALATES AS IRAN STANDS DOWN. TRUMP SIGNALS FURTHER SANCTIONS AND NATO ENGAGEMENT.
It’s difficult to draw a cartoon while events are rapidly changing, so this cartoon came to mind. As I penned this I learned a jet crashed outside of Tehran, killing a great many people.
Was it accidentally shot down or targeted intentionally by Iran?
UPDATE: Reports indicate Iranian officials informed the Iraqi government before the attack that they were launching missiles at US bases, and the Iraqis informed US officials to prepare for attack. Conclusion is this attack was meant for Tehran to save face.
Even through Iran is ruled by religious lunatics, they must have some sanity left, because they made it clear they do not a full-blown war with the United States. Let’s hope the president shows restraint and avoids a full war with the Persian nation. We would defeat Iran, but at the cost of many lives on both sides.
It’s time to stop the tit-for-tat game and get out of the Middle East entirely. Iraq wants us to go. We supposedly brought Democracy there, so let’s respect their vote and get out. That probably won’t happen. The neocon deep state swamp, the globalists, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and our military industrial complex want Iran taken out. Trump has done a good job of avoiding war with Iran and I’ve praised him for it. Iran is foolishly playing into their hands by escalating the situation. Did they overreach to save face?
We don’t need another never-ending war. Trump promised to get us out of the useless wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. It’s time for him to deliver on his promise.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I was told that you were indeed the largest forecaster in foreign exchange. The story in London is you advised nearly all the Middle East and were the most important adviser on currency to BCCI, the bank the governments took down back in 1991 along with Salomon Brothers. They made a movie about BCCI. Is it true that you were an adviser to BCCI?
HS
ANSWER: The ’80s were the wild west in finance. I have told the story of how many banks operated back then. I would be called in and told someone wanted to give me $1 billion to manage back then when $1 billion was a lot of money (now it’s trillions). I would go to various banks and there would be a curtain between me and the potential client. I was not allowed to know who they were. I was turning down that business because it was just too wild for me.
Yes, we were advising BCCI on foreign exchange. They were passing it on to specific clients who at the time I did not know. I became concerned when I accepted an account for who I believed was a Saudi individual. The account was opened at Rudolf Wolf in London and after a few months of tracing all the various layers of corporations, it turned out I was managing money for none other than Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi. I closed the account and within a matter of weeks, he was back through a completely different channel.
Perhaps one day I will write a book about those days. I ended up managing money for even Mr. Khashoggi once owned one of the world’s largest yachts, the 86-meter Nabila, which appeared in the James Bond film “Never Say Never Again,” which was later bought by Donald Trump. On top of that, what I thought was a company turned out to be a secret partnership between Gaddafi, Khashoggi, and Ferdinand Marcus of the Philippines.
The Floating Foreign Exchange Rate system had just begun in 1971. This was not a subject you could go get a degree in. This was a field built from scratch and it took a trader’s understanding of the world economy to cope with the events of the 70s and 80s. I was the leading adviser in FX because there really were no others with any track record. When I say I was called into just about every crisis from 1973 onward, it is not an exaggeration.
I was advising BCCI on currency globally. I was advising a company called GRANEDEX which turned out to be a front for Russia. I could never tell who was who. I had even the counter-revolutionary army in Iran coming to me for they were trading to make money to overthrow the religious government in Iran. I would be on a phone call with a client from Saudi Arabia who asked about gold and I said it depended on what OPEC would say that day. He put me on hold and dialed into the OPEC meeting and they put me on speakerphone. Those days taught me about war and how capital flows could be used to forecast war and geopolitical events. It cut my teeth of those wild west days.
I have handled some of the biggest projects ever and advised globally. To this day, we have people attending the World Economic Conference from 137 different countries. Because the world was such a crazy wild west sort of atmosphere, I turned to be just an institutional adviser of public corporations because I gave up on trying to figure out who the clients really were at times.
QUESTION: Marty, you said that central banks can only control short-term rates not long-term. Do you see a scenario where they could control the long-term rates?
Thank you for your insight
DH
ANSWER: If you ASSUME that there is a free market, then the answer is no possible way. Under a hybrid market, a central bank can split between public and private debt as is taking place in Japan. The Bank of Japan has announced it will buy unlimited amounts of government bonds to prevent interest rates from rising.
Under this hybrid market, a central bank can simply buy all government debt but this results in the total destruction of any free market in government debt. The government should at that point just print money and not even bother to issue any debt.
This results in a divergence between the fake government bond rates and the free market private interest rates. The spread will widen dramatically. Even during the Great Depression the spread between AAA corporate debt and government debt fluctuated according to where the confidence resided. As the sovereign debt crisis took place in 1931 with governments defaulting on their debts, the spread diminished as people began to trust corporate debt more so than government debt.
The third possibility is a closed market which means that the government can fix long-term rates that were done with usury laws. Even in Roman times, Cicero tells us how the cap on interest rates existed only in Italy. This led to excessive interest rates being charged by Brutus in Cappadocia of 40% compared to 10% in Rome.
Paul Volcker had to have the usury rates raised in order to raise interest rates to 14% to fight inflation back in 1981. It was also illegal for a Catholic to charge interest in loans so the Jews were the first bankers coming out of the Dark Ages. The Catholics got around that by stacking the interest costs into the price.
The final type of system that would control long-term rates would be Communism where everything is just outlawed and the economy is entirely closed.
Under a free market, the central bank sets the wholesale short-term rates which is why it has been focused in the repo market. If it attempts to just buy in all government debt, then private rates will rise and that is what is taking place right now. The Fed can peg long-term rates as they did during World War II, but that applied only to government debt. To prevent prices from rising the political legislature imposed wage and price controls.
So there are ways to fix the long-term, but at the cost of a free market.
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