Tag Archives: Turkey
Is Tony Blair a Traitor to Britain to Help Politicians in EU?
Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN
Re-Posted Oct 17, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Is Tony Blair just a traitor to the British People to help his fellow politicians in Europe?
JS
ANSWER: Yes. Tony Blair is out there pitching for another Brexit referendum as Prime Minister Theresa May, who also did not want to exit the EU, will be unable to secure a parliamentary majority and this seems to be an intentional plot to overturn BREXIT. Even the propaganda they use with regard to trade is misrepresenting the entire scheme. Britain is FAR BETTER off under BREXIT than remaining within the EU. Any trade deal is subject to the veto of any one of 28 member states. Britain CANNOT reach an independent trade deal for its own people for the French have always vetoed Britain. Let’s face the facts. Britain loses EVERY major case in the European court. This is all about protecting governments – not about what is best for the people. Britain will collapse with the EU if it does not break the chains which bind it.
Italy Sends it Budget to Brussels
Armstrong Economics Blog/European Union
Re-Posted Oct 17, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
The Italian Government has gone and adopted the controversial draft budget for the coming financial year. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that the budget plan would keep the government’s promises, and keep the public finances in order. The government has now forwarded the draft to the EU Commission in Brussels for consideration. This is where we will see the clash of cultures between the people and austerity that focuses on the debt holders – not the people.
What is unique in this budget is the introduction of a basic income for the poor, an earlier retirement age promised during the elections, and tax relief for the self-employed. The losers will be the Banks who lose tax breaks. In order to finance these costly campaign promises, the government plans a significantly higher level of new debt in 2019 than had been promised by the previous government. Therein lies the clash with Brussels as Italy embarks on a confrontation course with the EU.
Under the EU rules, the upper limit for the debt ratio of no more than 60% GDP is the criteria set by austerity. Italy is already sitting on a debt of more than 130%. Only Greece comes in the Eurozone on an even high percentage ratio. Economy Minister Giuseppe Tria made a public statement that he was confident that he could explain the budget to the European Commission. Italy must increase its spending to get the economy off the ground. The deficit target of 2.4% of GDP is “normal”. He has publicly stated that the “idea that this budget could blow up Europe is completely unfounded.”
The economic guidelines of austerity are completely unreasonable. In joining the Eurozone, the German debt converted with no appreciable impact. In southern Europe, converting their past debts to Euro doubled their “real” past debt obligations. Previously, their currencies naturally depreciated ensuring that debt repayment was always with cheap currencies. Under the Euro scheme, the rise in the Euro from 80 cents to $1.60 imposed a tremendous deflationary wave upon southern Europe from which the damage has been inescapable
GDPR Creates an Overwhelming Bureaucratic Nightmare in Europe
Armstrong Economics Blog/European Union
Re-Posted Oct 16, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
The new data protection legislation in Europe known as GDPR. has resulted in simply overwhelming the government with complaints and inquiries from small businesses who do not understand the regs. In Germany, the various agencies are reporting a 500% increase in complaints. Even in Bavaria, 2,974 consultations took place in 2017, and so far this year it has reached 7,000 by October 1st. This legislation was really all about being able to prevent mass email campaigns that were political. They really did not care if people received junk emails. However, creating a law and pretending it is to protect consumers requires broad language to hide the fact it was to prevent political solicitation. They have created a nightmare all to prevent email campaigns that took place in the 2016 US presidential elections.
Merkel’s Conservative Lose Absolute Majority in Bavaria
Armstrong Economics Blog/European Union
Re-Posted Oct 15, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
It is really mindblowing how politicians simply refuse to admit a mistake with the refugees and reverse course. Merkel has dug in her heels in over this issue and it is just not going to get better. From the outset, I warned that in an economic decline, the last thing you do is accept immigrants. This is not my opinion – it is just patterns from the past. That similar event of immigrants coming in during an economic decline led to street battles in the USA when it was just the Irish during the 1840 Great Depression and Sovereign Debt Crisis. History repeats for the same stupid decisions time and again. Merkel has set the stage for violence in Europe and political discontent that threatens to undermine the entire EU projected.
In a further erosion of Germany’s political mainstream is clearly underway. The Bavarian conservative party, the CSU, has lost its absolute majority. Meanwhile, the Greens have become the second-largest political force in southern Germany. Additionally, the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis continues to brew. European officials are back in the spotlight recently as the debt crisis in Italy has cast Europe directly in the eye of the storm. The loss of the CSU in Germany is undermining the survivability of Merkel. With her demise, we will also see the collapse of the Euro.
Australia Turning Really Authoritative? Is this How a Dark Age Begins?
Armstrong Economics Blog/The Hunt for Taxes
Re-Posted Oct 15, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
The greed of governments in their pursuit of money is the single greatest threat to creating a Dark Age. With New Zealand imposing a $5,000 fine for just landing there and you refuse to hand over your pen and passwords to your phone for them to search, now we have Australia going really nuts to the point that they risk tech companies simply banning the sale of their products in the country. The Assistance and Access Bill 2018 in Australia will force Google, Apple, Facebook, and other technology groups to help Australian authorities decode certain forms of encrypted communications on their systems, or face fines of up to AU$10 million. The government says the legislation will help protect against terrorism, fraud and child abuse crimes, claiming it aims to ensure criminals “have no place to hide.”
The problem that arises that failure to pay taxes they also call criminal. Hence, the hunt for money is greatly aided by this type of legislation far more than any other pretend criminal activity. While the government has stopped short of demanding backdoor access to tech companies’ systems that would allow the government to tap into end-to-end encryption services such as WhatsApp, it does demand access to data at “points where it is not encrypted.”
Apple, FOR INSTANCE, would not be made to create a backdoor for their iMessage where every user’s encryption key is different. But the government could request access to the single encryption key for its iCloud services. When you send a message to a friend, it’s encrypted as it travels between the two devices, and when it arrives, it’s decrypted for your friend to read, which is when the government should get to read it. The Australian government is cleverly demanding not a backdoor, but a “side door” to gain access to whatever people are sending.
Naturally, the cybersecurity minister claims this will only be allowed under strict guidelines, with companies subject to three levels of escalation: an interception agency requesting the company voluntarily assist; a “Technical Assistance Notice” whereby the companies are instructed to help; and a “Technical Capability Notice”, which can only be issued by the attorney-general and basically means “comply or face a fine.” However, such promises from governments are really worthless. They always go beyond their claims of restraint.
Apple has filed a complaint stating that the Australian government previously stated that they would not to weaken encryption or compel providers to build systemic weaknesses into their products for that would undermine the entire internet and bring commerce to a halt. Apple has made it clear that this legislation poses serious risks:
- Overly broad powers that could weaken cybersecurity and encryption
- A lack of appropriate independent judicial oversight
- Technical requirements based only on the government’s subjective view of reasonableness and practicability
- Unprecedented interception requirements
- Unnecessarily stifling secrecy mandates
- Extraterritoriality and global impact
Governments are in serious trouble and they will be raising taxes dramatically before they ever dare try to reform. In 2016, Apple fought back when the FBI attempted to compel Apple to unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. Creating backdoors means that sophisticated hackers will discover them and exploit them faster than you can blink an eye. There is a profound risk of bringing down the entire digital e-commerce world and you are looking at the destruction of the entire world economy. Apple has come out and stated that this bill is still unfit for today’s world. Governments around the world have to realize that their greed can topple our very way of life
Angela Merkel Political Allies Crushed in Bavarian Election…
October 14, 2018
In yet another example of voters rejecting the mass-immigration and suicidal pro-jihad policies of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bavarian voters delivered the most crushing defeat to her aligned political allies since 1950.
The Christian Socialist Union (CSU) lost more than 10% of their previous support; and their closest allies, the Socialist Democrats (SPD) also lost 10% of their base. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party focused on stopping the pro-jihad policies of Merkel, gained a strong foothold; and the Green Party became a landing place for those ‘tweeners’ who do not wish to be argumentative, yet disagree with Merkel’s political allies who accept a few Bavarian deaths as necessary to advance multicultural sensibilities.
[ie. Green Party gains = those who no longer support Germany’s rush to self destructive jihad, but also don’t want to run the gauntlet of being called racist within the AfD.]
BERLIN/MUNICH (Reuters) – Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Bavarian allies suffered their worst election result since 1950 on Sunday, bleeding votes to the far-right and the ecologist Greens in a setback that raised tensions within Germany’s crisis-prone national government.
The Christian Social Union (CSU) won 37.3 percent of the vote, preliminary results showed, losing its absolute majority for only the second time since 1962 – an outcome sure to stoke infighting in the conservative party, already a difficult partner for Merkel in Berlin.
“Of course today is not an easy day for the CSU. We did not achieve a good result,” Bavarian premier Markus Soeder told a gathering of his party. “We accept the result with humility,” he said, adding that the CSU nonetheless wanted to form a stable government as soon as possible.
The result, which saw the pro-immigration Greens come second and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) enter the state assembly for the first time, means the CSU will need to form a coalition – a humiliation for a party used to ruling alone. (read more)
A Case of Calumny
Marya Farah, legal research consultant with a human rights organization in the West Bank, was a visiting speaker at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) School of Law, on October 11. The event was held in the Moot Court, yet “moot” or “debate” was discreetly discouraged. We learned that the woman with the mic was told not to extend it to those whose opinions might prove inconsistent with the speaker’s narrative.
Professor of Law Avi Cover invited Farah to address students seeking Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and aptly served as her “cover” when she would decline to address certain issues. A self-described Palestinian, she has come to delegitimize and denigrate Israel and the international Jewish community; this is stealth jihad. She repeatedly spoke of Israel as the occupiers of areas she referenced as “occupied Palestinian territories” (OPT), and supports boycott-divestment-sanctions, BDS, against the Jewish state, ignoring the 4,000-year history of Jewish presence, preceding Christianity and Islam by more than two millennia. Clearly not expansionist, Israel’s legality stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments accepted by the international community. Her boundaries have changed only as a result of her winning a defensive war against the armed aggression of five Arab countries.
Here it should be noted that the Palestinian nomenclature designation is the largest hoax of the Twentieth Century, and it continues today as part of the plan to eradicate the Jewish State, taking control of small parts at a time. The territories are neither “occupied” nor Palestinian; there is no Palestinian sovereignty.
One slide was described as a section of the wall that separates Israel from “Palestine,” and its serious inconvenience to the Palestinians. Farah did not say why the wall exists; it was begun in 2002 to protect Israel’s citizens when Arab terror attacks had reached unprecedented levels. Neither did she mention the considerable expense to Israelis to fund the barriers, bomb shelters, and all manner of security measures, so this wall is no frivolous undertaking. Of course, despite the protective barrier, Palestinians have killed or maimed many thousands of Israelis through suicide bombings, stabbings, explosives, rocket fire and mortar shells, and most recently the use of incendiary balloons and fire kites that have destroyed more than 3,000 acres of forestry and agricultural land, livestock, wild animals, homes and industry – not to mention lung ailments from the smoke and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.
The speaker also criticized the color-coded license plates on cars that made it difficult for friends from different city sections to meet but failed to explain that the color-coding is necessary to distinguish the vehicle of a potential terrorist. She spoke of the inconvenient road system, but not that they were designed to ensure safe access by Arabs and Israelis alike, and thwart Arab rock throwers from hitting passing Israeli cars and causing damage and deaths. Another gripe was the tiresome checkpoints, again without clarifying their purpose of preventing armed terrorists from entering crowded places.
Another slide was one of bulldozer moving earth on a deep embankment, which she identified as the destruction of homes. Houses are destroyed if built illegally, and when they are the homes of the families of martyred killers of Israelis. Israel has learned that this destruction is the greatest deterrent to terrorism because families will actually report a potential terrorist in order to avoid losing their home. The excavator might also have been demolishing a terror tunnel, through which terrorists gain underground access into Israel proper, to kill Jewish children and families.
Farah lamented the assault and war (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, attacked Israel) that immediately followed Israel’s Independence in 1948 – and the 462,000 to 750,000 Arabs who remained homeless. However, they had been commanded to leave by the Arab military leaders, with a promise of return upon the Arab victory. Another 160,000 Arabs accepted Israel’s invitation to stay and live as Israeli citizens. It is the subsequent generations of those who fled that are now hostages for negotiation. No one cited the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab lands around the same time. They were absorbed by Israel and some European countries, not held as displaced pawns. The war of 1967 was yet another attack by five Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq) on Israel, yet Marya Farah said this was a war over water rights! Absolutely not.
We spoke to Professor Cover after the event and Q&A. He posited that he wants no barriers around Israel and that it was unjust that the many were inconvenienced because of the actions of the few. The Koran still commands death to Jews, and weaponizes their children to kill Jews. If, indeed, only 10 percent of the Palestinians were overcoming the border wall with firebombs and explosive devices, launching thousands of arson kites and booby-trapped incendiary balloons into Israeli communities, they are still killing indispensable people and wild-life. Would the American citizens accept being blown up in coffee houses, pizzarias and schools by the 10 percent, or would they demand that their government protect them?
I am most dismayed at the American professor who identifies with a people who yell, “Death to Israel,” and “Death to America,” while expressing no sympathy for America’s steadfast ally, Israel, whose people are consistently attacked and slaughtered.
Finally, I also had a moment to ask Farah where, exactly, was her country of Palestine and when was it established. She hesitated only momentarily and said she would not deal with a challenging question, and that I was denying her identity as a human being. No, but the land is not “occupied” by Israelis. Israel’s legal presence has been accepted by virtue of her history, documentation, and that the Jews’ built a thriving nation out of desert and malarial swampland; the only illegality is the “Palestinian” presence. By this time, she had backed away so much, that she was against a wall, inviting others to queue up to her new position.
In summation, we heard not one iota of truth during the entire session. I fault the school’s programming director, Professor Avi Cover, and his choice of speaker, who together altered the facts of every sub-topic raised. This was no impartial criticism of a country or its policies, but anti-Zionist revisionism. How is it that pure propaganda is acceptable for a CLE class? How are the students perceived to benefit? How did this activity qualify for law credit? The majority of the attendees seemed either to not understand or not care to question the allegations, but surely they would remember some of the misinformation; a seed of hate has been sown, and there was no debate from anyone prepared to counter the fallacies.
In addition to current rules by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), and the commitment to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, I recommend that CWRU review the Trump administration’s new definition of antisemitism in schools, which includes the demonization or delegitimization of Israel. For the sake of academic and intellectual honesty, CWRU is obligated to hold a CLE that presents and defends Israel’s position.
I herewith expressed my indignation at what transpired and asked that the department be called to account. I look forward to a reply and explanation of how this may be avoided in the future.
(SENT TO: Sent to: Barbara Snyder, President, CWRU; Barbara.snyder@case.edu; and Jessica Berg, Dean of the School of Law; Jessica.berg@case.edu)
By Tabitha Korol

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Your Global Market Watch picked the high in the S&P as September and called for a waterfall on the monthly level. That was amazing. Yet, with the stock market crash, gold could not even rally above the previous week’s high. If the bonds look like death warmed over, equities crash, then surely gold should have rallied but it could not overcome its own weight. Is gold dead to the world?
Thank you for a great system
WK
ANSWER: No, gold is not dead to the world. I am preparing a special gold report for it is time to ascertain the projections for the future. Keep in mind, this hunt for money has seriously altered everything. Gold, once upon a time, was the alternative to cash. But you cannot legally store it in a safe deposit box. You cannot hope on a plane with it. About all you can do is dig a hole in the backyard. Gold is not the complete alternative it once was
Nobel Prize is Not Handed Out For Accomplishment but for Politics
Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics
Re-Posted Oct 11, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Hello Martin,
It would be very interesting to hear your thoughts about this year Nobel Prize winners in Economics and their work. I insist it should be you and your team that gets such prize, but will that ever happen?..
Much appreciation for your great contribution to humanity, best wishes from Scandinavia,
AM
ANSWER: They gave Obama the Nobel Prize for just being the first Black president before he even did anything. The Yale economist William D. Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize in economics as always not for actually proving something, but for supporting something they just want to hear. Nordhaus has spent the better part of four decades trying to persuade governments to address climate change, preferably by imposing a tax on carbon emissions. Many countries had adopted his views and used it to justify imposing taxes such as Canada right down to every home.
Economics is a “SOCIAL SCIENCE” which means you do not have to actually produce anything and prove it is true as in physics. Every year we have disappointment after disappointment because there are no actual criteria to warrant a Nobel Prize in Economics. All you have to do is paint a pretty picture like Karl Marx that Utopia is just around the corner and all we have to do is surrender more if not all our rights to the government.
The fundamental idea upon which Nordhaus has based his proposition is that government can alter and manipulate society by punishing them with taxes. Nobody advocates smaller government and more freedom to the people. That is simply heresy in Economics. There is NEVER any study of the past. There is also just the assumption that we are sheep to be herded and slaughtered. There is no belief in the rights of the individual. It is always that the good of the whole (government) takes precedence over God, Family, or human rights.
I will NEVER win a Nobel Prize because I believe in human rights, free markets, non-governmental interference, and that the best of civilization has been created by individuals and not by governments. Handing power to governments to manipulate the economy opens the door to corruption for then special interests will bribe the politicians for favors – i.e. Clintons making student loans nondischargeable at the request of bankers.










