• Where Do We Go From Here?

  By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

  A great deal of human behaviour is unmistakably genetic.

  Usain Bolt is clearly genetically disposed to outrunning drowsy cheetahs, while Michael Phelps is only part human with the other part clearly fish of some kind. Both have a physiological edge compounded by what I can only imagine must be a vomit inducing amount of punishing hard work.  But I suspect in order for it all to work they have a deep love and passion for their chosen profession.

  While I’m not Buddhist, I think Buddha summed it up nicely when he said:

  “Your work is to discover your work and then with all your heart to give yourself to it.”

  Passion is infectious and felt when talking to someone who clearly loves their work, and Worth Wray, the Chief economist and global macro strategist at STA Wealth Management, is definitely one such gent with such passion. No doubt this is why I enjoyed so much speaking with him.

  Last week I published the first part of a conversation I had with Worth.

  And today I have for you the second part of the recording where we dive into:

  • The type of world that Worth is positioning for right now.
  • The effect of robotics on emerging market economies and a really interesting impact that this could have on Japan – something I had not thought about at all and which has given me a lot to think about and research.
  • We spend quite a bit of time on China and discuss why the vote on the 1st of October is so important to the future of China and the renminbi and how this may play out. The ramifications and portfolio positioning going into and post this vote are I think worth considering.
  • We discuss the political changes coming across Europe and in the US and what this can mean to entire countries in a globally interconnected world.
  • We also discuss a theme which I’ve been banging the proverbial drum on here at Capitalist Exploits: the mechanics of increasing instability in markets due to both geopolitical as well as economic events unfolding right now as well as how companies are already preparing for a protectionist world.

  Listen to it here and tell me what you think by leaving a comment on the blog.

  

  (Click on the image to listen to the podcast)

  – Chris

  “The prospect for a global FX shock may seem unsettling, but we believe it’s exactly what global markets need to bring good assets back to reasonable prices.” — Worth Wray

   

  ————————————–

  Liked this article? Don’t miss our future articles and podcasts, and

  get access to free subscriber-only content here.

  ————————————–

  

• Negative Interest Rates Are ILLEGAL

   

   

   

   

  Negative Interest Rates Are ILLEGAL

  Written by Jeff Nielson

  
  

  

   

  We used to live in societies which observed the Rule of Law. Among the many great ironies and perversities of our social/legal devolution is this. Many of our fundamental principles of law (and justice) were such an integral part of our lives that they were taken for granted, and thus rarely discussed in explicit terms. Now, in the Corrupt West, many of these same principles of law/justice have been forgotten – seemingly erased by our lawless governments.
  

  
  

  One of these elementary principles of law is the commercial doctrine of “consideration”. The premise and legal principle is a simple one. In order for any commercial transaction to be recognized as being legitimate (and thus legal), both parties to any transaction/contract have to derive some material benefit. In law; this material benefit is known by the name “consideration”. There must be consideration, on both sides of any/every commercial transaction.

  
  

  At this point; many readers will already grasp that so-called “negative interest rates” violate the legal doctrine of consideration, and thus fail the test as a basis for any legal/legitimate commercial transactions. However, this merely scratches the surface when it comes to the degree to which our criminalized interest rates violate the Rule of Law. To fully appreciate the lawlessness of what our puppet governments are inflicting upon us (for the benefit of our Banker Overlords), we need to delve further back into this litany of criminality.

  
  

  The starting point in our descent into fraud and illegality with respect to our interest rate regimen is the so-called “0% interest rate”. There is no such thing as a “0% interest rate” or 0% loan. By definition; an interest rate is a positive number. It is the price we pay in exchange for the use of capital.

  
  

  As has been explained previously; what our corrupt governments call a “0% interest rate”, our Justice System (the real one) calls a “sham transaction”. We know this, in our two-tier societies, because if Ordinary People attempt to engage in the sham transaction of a “0% loan”, their transactions will be immediately subjected to legal scrutiny (generally by the Tax Man) and deemed to be null-and-void, as sham transactions.
  

  
  

  Some readers will claim that this is not true. They will assert that “0% loans” and 0% financing are now common, legitimate aspects of our world of commerce, with automobile sales being a commonly cited example. Why can car-dealers offer “0% financing”, and not have these transactions nullified as sham transactions?
  

  
  

  It is because these transactions do observe the legal doctrine of consideration. It is simply that these transactions have been disguised to create the illusion that the purchaser is getting “something for nothing” (i.e. free financing). Nothing could be further from the truth. The supposed “free financing” is merely an incentive to purchase, provided in lieu of other sales incentives.
  

  
  

  If the same purchaser sought to purchase the same vehicle, but without the perk of “0% financing”, then instead of that incentive they would be given a choice of other freebies, to entice them to commit to such a major purchase. Alternately (and even more cynically) auto dealers simply – and secretly – raise their sticker-price on the car, so that there is no “free financing”.
  

  
  

  The purchaser pays precisely the same amount for the vehicle by the time that the payments have been completed. All that has changed are the optics of the payments. Instead of paying “interest” over the months/years of car-payments, the purchaser is simply making larger payments of “principle”: the purchase price of the car. There is “no free lunch” in legitimate commercial transactions, nor in societies which observe the Rule of Law.
  

  
  

  A so-called “0% interest rate” is a prima facie fraud. It is free money. The Federal Reserve, corrupt operator of the world’s “reserve currency” has been financing the U.S. monetary system, and the U.S. economy itself, through fraudulent currency. Of course the “0% interest rate” is just one of many Fed frauds. This is why this fraud-factory never allows any legitimate audit of its books.
  

  
  

  Free money is fraudulent money, and thus illegal money. It is nothing more than a variation of counterfeiting, especially when combined with the institutionalized (but legal) fraud of “fractional-reserve banking”. The combination of so-called 0% lending and fractional-reserve banking renders a monetary system fraudulent and illegal, all by itself. It renders the currency of that monetary system worthless.

  
  

  So-called “negative interest rates” are much, much worse. Borrowers stealing from lenders. Banks stealing from their depositors. Just as there is no such thing as a 0% interest rate, there could never be a legitimate concept known as a “negative interest rate”. This term is simply another banker-euphemism for more banker fraud/crime.
  

  
  

  The enormous economic carnage which is caused by our regimen of such criminalized interest rates was the subject of the prequel to this piece. It was/is important to demonstrate this harm, from a legal standpoint. Why has the insanity/fraud/criminality of negative interest rates been inflicted upon us? Because (supposedly) we “need” this fraud for the sake of our economies, and thus our own best interests.
  

  
  

  In legal parlance; such attempts at justification are called “public policy” arguments. Yes, the conduct in question is technically illegal, but because the conduct “serves the Greater Good”, we bend the rules and allow the conduct.
  

  
  

  With the open criminality of negative interest rates, there is no Greater Good, merely greater and greater evils which flow from this monetary fraud, as (primarily) the Big Banks steal from anyone/everyone hapless enough to have some of their capital within the clutches of these financial pirates. A “negative interest rate” fails the test of legality, in several respects. There is no public policy argument of any kind which could mitigate in favor of this fraud, to even the tiniest degree.
  

  
  

  It is particularly important to explicitly acknowledge the open criminality of negative interest rates, because as informed readers are well aware, the banking Crime Syndicate is just getting started. While “negative” rates become more and more common, and more-deeply negative (i.e. illegal), the banking Crime Syndicate is pushing an even more-heinous criminal agenda on our puppet governments.
  

  
  

  Informed readers know this latest campaign of financial crime by the name “the War on Cash”. The “war” is being fought (by the bankers) in order to create a paradigm of ultimate financial fraud/evil: the Cash-Less Society. What is a cash-less society? It is a financial/economic system where all residents are compelled by law to keep all of their (fully) liquid wealth inside a bank – generally a Big Bank.
  

  
  

  And once our wealth is inside the Big Bank? We no longer receive a microscopic (positive) rate of interest on our deposits. We no longer provide the bank with the use of our capital for free (which is already illegal, by lack of consideration). We’re now forced to keep our wealth inside the Big Bank, and then the Big Bank systematically steals that wealth, in ever-growing increments, via the crime of a negative interest rate. And what they don’t steal via negative rates of interest, they will steal via “the bail-in” – an even more-lawless confiscation of financial assets.

  
  

  Crimes piled atop crimes. Lies piled atop lies, to supposedly justify all this systemic criminality.
  

  
  

  However, readers of these commentaries already have their own Answer to the ever-thickening web of criminality and financial fascism being wrapped around us like a choke-chain: precious metals. We will escape the criminality of “negative interest rates” and escape the criminality of “cash-less societies” by funneling our wealth into gold and silver. Honest Money. Stores of value; protection from this organized crime.

  
  

  Yes. The same banking Crime Syndicate which has already imposed the systemic criminality of negative interest rates, and is about to impose the systemic criminality of cash-less societies, will allow prudent people to escape their financial clutches, completely, while everyone else has their wealth forcibly taken from them in this lawless/rapacious manner. Here are two words for any/all people comforted by such a Dangerous Delusion: “bullion confiscation”.

  
  

  We must stop the criminality of negative interest rates today, not after the dwindling remnants of our wealth have been pillaged by the banking Crime Syndicate, with the enthusiastic assistance of our puppet governments. Governments which refuse to outlaw the naked criminality of the so-called “negative interest rate” should not merely be (meekly) voted out of office. They must be impeached.

  
  

  The central banks which are callously and deliberately facilitating this systemic financial/monetary crime demand more than mere punishment. They must be abolished.

  
  

  These corrupt, spineless governments and the Institutions of Financial Crime which rule above them (and us) are doing more than merely betraying us, as they serve their real Masters. They are malevolently conspiring to destroy us financially, completely and utterly.
  

  
  

  The “War on Cash” and all of these other systemic financial crimes are a war against all decent people, waged by the psychopathic oligarchs who lurk in the shadows. We did not declare this war. We do not want this war. But if we don’t start to fight this war, it will soon be over – and we all will have lost.

  
  

  All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.

  –Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher, 1729 – 1797

  Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

   

   

   

   

  Negative Interest Rates Are ILLEGAL

  Written by Jeff Nielson

  
  

  

• America The Illiterate

  Authored by Chris Hedges in Nov 2008, via Strategic-Culture.org,

  We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities. 

  There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.

  The illiterate rarely vote, and when they do vote they do so without the ability to make decisions based on textual information. American political campaigns, which have learned to speak in the comforting epistemology of images, eschew real ideas and policy for cheap and reassuring personal narratives. Political propaganda now masquerades as ideology. Political campaigns have become an experience. They do not require cognitive or self-critical skills. They are designed to ignite pseudo-religious feelings of euphoria, empowerment and collective salvation. Campaigns that succeed are carefully constructed psychological instruments that manipulate fickle public moods, emotions and impulses, many of which are subliminal. They create a public ecstasy that annuls individuality and fosters a state of mindlessness. They thrust us into an eternal present. They cater to a nation that now lives in a state of permanent amnesia. It is style and story, not content or history or reality, which inform our politics and our lives. We prefer happy illusions. And it works because so much of the American electorate, including those who should know better, blindly cast ballots for slogans, smiles, the cheerful family tableaux, narratives and the perceived sincerity and the attractiveness of candidates. We confuse how we feel with knowledge. 

  The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless.  They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.

  Political leaders in our post-literate society no longer need to be competent, sincere or honest. They only need to appear to have these qualities. Most of all they need a story, a narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. The consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount. The most essential skill in political theater and the consumer culture is artifice. Those who are best at artifice succeed. Those who have not mastered the art of artifice fail. In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek or want honesty. We ask to be indulged and entertained by clichés, stereotypes and mythic narratives that tell us we can be whomever we want to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities and that our glorious future is preordained, either because of our attributes as Americans or because we are blessed by God or both. 

  The ability to magnify these simple and childish lies, to repeat them and have surrogates repeat them in endless loops of news cycles, gives these lies the aura of an uncontested truth. We are repeatedly fed words or phrases like yes we can, maverick, change, pro-life, hope  or war on terror. It feels good not to think. All we have to do is visualize what we want, believe in ourselves and summon those hidden inner resources, whether divine or national, that make the world conform to our desires. Reality is never an impediment to our advancement.

  The Princeton Review analyzed the transcripts of the Gore-Bush debates, the Clinton-Bush-Perot debates of 1992, the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. It reviewed these transcripts using a standard vocabulary test that indicates the minimum educational standard needed for a reader to grasp the text. During the 2000 debates, George W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.7) and Al Gore at a seventh-grade level (7.6). In the 1992 debates, Bill Clinton spoke at a seventh-grade level (7.6), while George H.W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.8), as did H. Ross Perot (6.3). In the debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the candidates spoke in language used by 10th-graders. In the debates of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas the scores were respectively 11.2 and 12.0. In short, today’s political rhetoric is designed to be comprehensible to a 10-year-old child or an adult with a sixth-grade reading level. It is fitted to this level of comprehension because most Americans speak, think and are entertained at this level. This is why serious film and theater and other serious artistic expression, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of American society. Voltaire was the most famous man of the 18th century. Today the most famous “person” is Mickey Mouse.

  In our post-literate world, because ideas are inaccessible, there is a need for constant stimulus. News, political debate, theater, art and books are judged not on the power of their ideas but on their ability to entertain. Cultural products that force us to examine ourselves and our society are condemned as elitist and impenetrable. Hannah Arendt warned that the marketization of culture leads to its degradation, that this marketization creates a new celebrity class of intellectuals who, although well read and informed themselves, see their role in society as persuading the masses that “Hamlet” can be as entertaining as “The Lion King” and perhaps as educational. “Culture,” she wrote, “is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment.”

  “There are many great authors of the past who have survived centuries of oblivion and neglect,” Arendt wrote, “but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version of what they have to say.”

  The change from a print-based to an image-based society has transformed our nation. Huge segments of our population, especially those who live in the embrace of the Christian right and the consumer culture, are completely unmoored from reality. They lack the capacity to search for truth and cope rationally with our mounting social and economic ills. They seek clarity, entertainment and order. They are willing to use force to impose this clarity on others, especially those who do not speak as they speak and think as they think. All the traditional tools of democracies, including dispassionate scientific and historical truth, facts, news and rational debate, are useless instruments in a world that lacks the capacity to use them.

  As we descend into a devastating economic crisis, one that Barack Obama cannot halt, there will be tens of millions of Americans who will be ruthlessly thrust aside. As their houses are foreclosed, as their jobs are lost, as they are forced to declare bankruptcy and watch their communities collapse, they will retreat even further into irrational fantasy. They will be led toward glittering and self-destructive illusions by our modern Pied Pipers—our corporate advertisers, our charlatan preachers, our television news celebrities, our self-help gurus, our entertainment industry and our political demagogues—who will offer increasingly absurd forms of escapism.

  The core values of our open society, the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense indicate something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to understand historical facts, to separate truth from lies, to advocate for change and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable, are dying. Obama used hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds to appeal to and manipulate this illiteracy and irrationalism to his advantage, but these forces will prove to be his most deadly nemesis once they collide with the awful reality that awaits us.

  

  

• Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  Most of my readers are well aware of my position on U.S. elections in general – they are an eternal farce meant to give false hope to the masses. They are designed to make the public feel as if we are participating in our own governance, when in reality, we are only ever allowed to choose from a list of candidates that the elites pre-select. This does not mean that all politicians are corrupted or controlled, but according to the evidence I have seen, the majority of government represents the desires of a select few, and not the majority of the citizenry.

  There is absolutely no chance of retaking our current government by working within the system. To be blunt, the system is now structured to protect itself and nothing else. To think that it can be influenced through “elections” is an absurd notion.

  For the past decade, though, I have seen a powerful shift in the public psyche towards a realization that our government is built upon a fraudulent paradigm; the false left versus the false right. I also understand that if I can see this shift, so can the numerous think tanks funded by the elites. The elites do not always try to obstruct changes in public awareness; this would be an unrealistic and fruitless effort. Instead, they often work to co-opt these changes and exploit them to the benefit of the establishment.

  Consider, for instance, the aggressive takeover of the Tea Party movement by the neoconservative guard. I joined activist efforts in 2007 when the Tea Party was small but growing and organized primarily around the goal of auditing and/or shutting down the Federal Reserve. Many people are not even aware that the Tea Party was launched by Ron Paul among other libertarian voices.

  As the movement began to grow exponentially, there were some attempts to stifle it. Accusations of “homegrown terrorism” were thrown around, not necessarily by Democrats, but by the Republican Party. When the strategy of demonization failed, the same Fox News supported neocons that called for our heads suddenly began hijacking our bandwagon. I’ll never forget the day I saw a supposed Tea Party event featuring main speakers like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee; it was then that I knew there was no more Tea Party.

  Of course, the elites were able to pirate the name (or the “brand”) and pirate some of the events, but they were never able to steal away the idea and the principles behind the movement. This seemed to confound the establishment. No matter what tactics they used, the movement, which I and many others have always called the “Liberty Movement,” just simply would not go away.

  What the elites did not seem to grasp at that time was that the movement was not rooted in a single organization, or a single candidate, or even a group of “leaders.” Instead, the liberty movement was and still is rooted in a set of principles. Normal co-option tactics could not possibly work. They could take over the Tea Party, but true liberty activists could simply walk away and start another group or groups. We are adaptable, and because we do not have a traditional centralized leadership, we are difficult to pin down and control.

  No matter what the elites have tried, they have not been able to lure liberty activists back to the neocon reservation. However, the establishment is not averse to trying new methods and new avenues of attack.

  The first and most common strategy of co-option is to fool the target movement into adopting a leader or leaders that they think are friendly but who are actually working against them. As mentioned earlier, this was attempted with the Tea Party, but it failed. Liberty activists left the Tea Party and continued their efforts elsewhere. When simpler methods elude the establishment, they tend to add complexities.

  For example, I have written extensively on a concerted effort by the Russian government controlled RT network and others to paint Eastern governments as “victims” of globalist aggression. As I have outlined and thoroughly evidenced, nations like Russia and China work hand-in-hand with globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements and the United Nations. It is undeniable that the East is a part of the so-called “New World Order.” They are not opposed to it.

  Despite the considerable evidence to the contrary, there is still a percentage of the liberty movement that clings to the notion that globalism is a construct of the West alone, and that the East is “fighting against it.” One purpose of this propaganda is, I believe, to continue the effort to co-opt the liberty movement. If the movement can be convinced to develop adoration for globalist puppets like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, then we can eventually be lured into negative actions under false pretenses. Fortunately, the false East/West paradigm is losing its edge and liberty activists mesmerized by it are coming to their senses once again.  The only REAL paradigm worth our concern is the globalists versus the rest of us.

  Many people will not understand why such measures on the part of the establishment would be necessary. The fact is, the liberty movement is the single-most vital activist movement in modern history. It is the core of a great awakening that is accelerating but still fragile.

  This awakening, if left to grow, will result in the erasure of all false paradigms and the elites behind them.  A problem that has plagued humanity for centuries, the problem of centralization and collectivism (community by force rather than by consent), could finally be dismantled.

  Some will claim such statements amount to “delusions of grandeur,” but if that were true, the elites would not need to spend vast amounts of energy and capital trying to co-opt or demonize us. If we were not a threat, or if our claims were nonsensical “conspiracies” with no validity, then they would let us clamor about until we inevitably self destruct. Instead, they have well-funded organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center dedicated to endlessly misrepresenting who we are and what we believe in.

  With the false East/West paradigm not achieving the desired effect, and the hack and slash tactics of the SPLC and the mainstream media doing little to deter the expansion of the movement, the elites have become more sophisticated.

  Whenever you have a rebellion focused on the inherent ideals of freedom, totalitarian institutions struggle to intervene. The issue is, freedom is not only moral, but practical. Wherever true freedom exists, people are not only happier, but more productive and prosperous. It’s hard for a tyrant to fight a rebellion based on freedom because the idea is more powerful than any weapon or any form of treachery. No matter how advanced the tyranny is, and no matter how many rebels they imprison or kill, the idea of freedom endures.

  The only way to destroy a rebellion like this, a rebellion like the liberty movement, is to make it about something other than freedom. The powers that be have to convince that movement to support policies that are destructive to their own ideals. If this can be done, then that rebellion has lost the advantage of principle – the only advantage that really matters.

  So what does any of this have to do with the 2016 election?

  As I have pointed out for many months, the election of 2016 is an obvious dividing point for our nation. This is how I was able to predict back in March that the final election would be Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton – the match-up made too much sense.

  Clinton was always a given. No other Democratic candidate could possibly encompass the pure evil of the establishment guard more than her. And, the only candidate conservatives could revile more than Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton. Clinton is even despised by many on the political Left. This is a perfect scenario for the elites.

  I have been trying to recall any election in the past century in which more negative and potentially damning information was released about a candidate. Clinton’s numerous lies on the Benghazi attacks are still fresh in the public consciousness. No one can deny, at the very least, that she had real-time confirmation as head of the State Department that the diplomatic station in Benghazi was under direct attack, and that under her watch no aid was ever sent though it was readily available. Despite her dismissals in congressional hearings, her own emails confirm that she was aware of the terrorist event, but told the American people a fabricated story about “protests” rather than a violent assault.

  The motives behind Clinton allowing Ambassador Chris Stevens among others to be murdered in Benghazi have yet to be revealed. I suspect that the then-secret arms flow from Libya into Syria and the covert U.S. support of ISIS may have had something to do with it.

  Through constant email hacks and leaks, Clinton has been proven over and over again to be either a liar or completely incompetent. Her misappropriation of taxpayer funds for her husband’s foundation, her mishandling of classified materials and the misuse of her position within government to dole out favors to her financial patrons is so egregious that if government actually followed the rule of law she would be imprisoned for the rest of her life.

  In fact, Clinton’s only defense so far for her misdeeds has been to argue essentially that because of her health condition she is too incompetent to be blamed for her behavior.

  Add to this her open pandering to insane cultural Marxist groups like third-wave feminists and Black Lives Matter and it would be hard to find a more cartoonish or cinematic monster. So, people will have to forgive me when I say that anyone who thinks the establishment is stupid enough to place all their eggs in the basket of the Clinton campaign is living in a fantasy world. Clearly, a Clinton presidency is not the end game for the elites.

  Trump’s public persona is the exact antithesis to Clinton’s. Readers know that for months I have been predicting a Trump presidency. Those not familiar with my position can read my article “2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency.”

  To summarize, the elites need a patsy for the breakdown of the financial system they have engineered. That patsy will not be Trump per se, but conservatives in general. Whether Donald Trump is aware of this program or not, I do not know. I have no hard evidence indicating that Trump is anti-constitution; then again, I don’t have much evidence indicating he is pro-constitution. All I have at present to go by is his rhetoric, and rhetoric counts for nothing.

  What I do know is that triggering a fiscal crisis under the watch of Trump and blaming conservatives is far more useful to the elites than triggering a crisis under Clinton and risk blame falling on international banking syndicates.

  I can say with a high level of certainty that millions of conservatives in the U.S. will not tolerate a Clinton presidency. It’s just not going to happen. I give it a year or less before she begins implementing draconian measures above and beyond Obama’s efforts and Americans respond with physical rebellion. In this event, the U.S. will be torn apart by outright civil war.

  Those who think this is an exaggeration should consider the fact that we have already been on the edge of widespread conflict with the federal government during the Bundy Ranch incident, and that was over property rights and government abuse of protesters.  The average American is completely oblivious to how close we came to an open shooting war, not just in Nevada but across the country.  Imagine how oblivious they will be to the reaction over a Clinton gun grab.

  I do not think this is the plan, though.

  Rather, the plan may be in part to lure the liberty movement, which is now more influential than ever before, back under the purview of the Republican umbrella. With Trump at the helm, there is an assumption among many liberty activists that the establishment has “stumbled” and lost control. Keep in mind that without Clinton as the opposing super-villain, this narrative does not work.

  Only Clinton could frighten liberty activists enough to forgo their understanding of the false left/right paradigm and rejoin the Republican Party. Only Trump, with his brand of rhetoric, could convince them that perhaps the party has been shaken up and the neocon rats scattered. I’m just not buying it.

  I believe Clinton is meant to lose. If this is the case and Trump is inaugurated in January of next year, the liberty movement needs to ask itself if Trump is truly an obstacle for the elites, or if he is an ally to the elites.

  The Left is already salivating over the possibility that the Trump campaign will devour the liberty movement and turn it into something unrecognizable.  Just take a gander at this editorial from Bloomberg called 'The Tea Party Meets Its Maker', which announces the death of the "Tea Party" at the hands of Trump (and yes, they are lumping all patriot groups under the label of the Tea Party "racists").

  This article is an interesting window into the twisted mind of the collectivist Left.  Set aside Bloomberg's acrid vitriol and biased ignorance of what we stand for; they already have a childish image in their minds of who we are and that's never going to change.  Instead, look at how they can barely contain their poisonous glee over the idea that independent and decentralized liberty activists could be absorbed and assimilated through the rise of Trump.  Clearly, they have always hated the fact that we have been impossible to co-opt to this point.

  And hey, if they can't beat Trump in the election, then at least Trump's success will mean the destruction of those bastard constitutionalists with their practical world views and highly evidenced arguments.  Screw those white guys.

  This is not to say that a media rag like Bloomberg is privy to any plans to co-opt the liberty movement.  They are knowingly dishonest, and they are globalist tools, but I think they mostly believe they are being dishonest in the name of elevating the Democratic party.  They think Hillary is their hero, and that Trump is a villain, and the corporate oligarchs they work for are not even part of the election equation.

  That said, their argument that Trump could bring down liberty activist groups is not without merit.  People say that sometimes life imitates art.  I say, sometimes mainstream journalism accidentally imitates life.

  The greatest threat to our movement will be if we centralize and fall in line behind one man or one mainstream organization. In our fervor to defeat Hillary Clinton, who is admittedly a despicable person, will we find ourselves willingly blind to any trespasses by Trump? Imagine for a moment that the elites do indeed crash our financial system with Trump in office; will we still hold Trump accountable to the same constitutional standards as we would a president under non-crisis conditions?

  Vote for whoever you wish, but realize that our responsibilities do not end once the election is over.  If Trump as president responds to a crisis with martial law or other unconstitutional abuses, will we make excuses for him because we WANT to believe he is anti-establishment, or will we stand against him as we would Hillary Clinton?

  Maybe these are presumptuous questions. Perhaps there will be no Trump presidency. Perhaps he does take office but there is no financial crash (though simple mathematics dictate otherwise). Perhaps Trump will magically invigorate our economic structure, the elites will walk away in solemn defeat and America will return to a golden age of prosperity. Yeah, we can all dream.

  The bottom line is, far more important than the U.S. elections, far more important than a Clinton defeat or a Trump win, far more important even than economic crisis is the continued independence and vitality of the liberty movement. The temptation to sacrifice that independence for some activists will be overwhelming. It will seem far easier to hand over responsibility for the future of this nation to a more “official” entity. But in this sacrifice of responsibility lies the death of freedom. Again, the liberty movement is the most important movement in modern human history, and the only way it can be killed is if we help kill it. The only way it can be co-opted is if we allow it. The risk at this moment is greater than it has ever been.

  Even if you disagree with the potential for every scenario I present here, all I ask is that you increase your vigilance at this time and whatever happens, don’t forgo your principles for the sake of what you think is a lesser evil.

  

  

• Air China "Safety" Tip For London Tourists: Be Careful In Areas "Populated By Indians, Pakistanis And Black People"

  Air China is taking some heat today after posting some unusual “safety” tips for their travelers looking to visit London.  The controversial advice was posted in Air China’s in-flight magazine, Wings of China, and read as follows:

  “London is generally a safe place to travel, however precautions are needed when entering areas mainly populated by Indians, Pakistanis and black people.  We advise tourists not to go out alone at night, and females always to be accompanied by another person when traveling.”

  The excerpt from the magazine was first revealed by Beijing-based CNBC producer, Haze Fan, who posted the following tweet:

  My story on my own experience reading Air China tips on safety in #London @MayorofLondon @markboleat https://t.co/CeXcROfabc

  — Haze Fan (@journohaze) September 7, 2016

   

  As noted in the Evening Standard, Londoners were naturally a little upset with the safety warning and have called on Air China to retract the excerpt. 

  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Labour MP for Tooting, which has one of the largest Indian and Pakistani populations in London, said: “My initial thoughts were that the comments were outrageous.”

   

  “I think that it is offensive to Londoners and I would like to see it removed. I would also like to ask the airline why they thought these precautions needed to be taken.

   

  “Why they feel they needed to warn people of something that is not reflective of London at all?

   

  “I am going to be writing to the Chinese Ambassador to invite him to visit Tooting in London, where all races live side by side. Then they can see how we live and our wonderfully diverse community.”

  As Fan pointed out in an article on CNBC, this is not the first time a Chinese company has drawn criticism for racism.  Back in May, Shanghai Leishang Cosmetics, the maker of Qiaobi laundry detergent, published the following commercial that also took some heat for being “slightly” racist.  The commercial shows a black man entering a room and attempting to flirt with an Asian woman.  She feeds him a detergent drop and stuffs his body into a top-loading washer. When the cycle completes, a fair-skinned Asian man emerges to the woman’s delight.

  The company offered an official apology for the ad but one executive of the company told The Global Times that people were “too sensitive.”

   

  Can you imagine if these blatant acts of “microaggression” were shared with millennials attending our various elite universities?  Mom and dad would have to spend $1,000s on doctors to undo the psychological damage caused by this level of offensive material. 

  

  

• Democrats Release Powell's Instructions To Clinton How To Bypass State Servers, While Warning Of Dangers

  Thanks to Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings thoughtful decision to release an email exchange between former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton, we can now confirm that Hillary was well aware of the lack of security and the "real danger" before she made the decision to use a private email server.

  

  In what we are sure was a selfless act of honesty by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform publicly released an email exchange in which former Secretary of State Colin Powell advised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the use of personal email two days after she was sworn in as Secretary…

  From: Colin Powell
  To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att. blackberry. net
  Subject: Re: Question

   

  I didn’t have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels. Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way.

   

  When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals and could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn’t back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking.

   

  I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly. However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Reading about the President’s BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won’t be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.

   

  You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sigh a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was my security. They wanted to have two to three guys follow me around the building all the time. I said if they were doing their job guarding the place, they didn’t need to follow me.

   

  I relented and let one guy follow me one full corridor behind just so they knew where I was if I was needed immediately. Their job is to keep you hermetically sealed up. Love, Colin

   

  *  *  *

   

  On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:37AM, > wrote:

  Dear Colin, I hope to catch up soon w you, but I have one pressing question which only you can answer! What were the restrictions on your use of your blackberry? Did you use it in your personal office? I’ve been told that the DSS personnel knew you had one and used it but no one fesses up to knowing how you used it! President Obama has struck a blow for berry addicts like us. I just have to figure out how to bring along the State Dept. Any and all advice is welcome. All the best to you and Alma, Hillary

   

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. 0-2016-11097 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/06/2016

   

  To: Colin Powell
  Subject: Re: Question

   

  Colin, I am finally out of the SCIF and want to thank you for all of the advice about berries, security and life on the 7th floor! I hope we’ll have a chance to visit in person sometime soon. All the best, H

  From the release of this exchange we know two things:

  1) The Democratic establishment has no qualms throwing Colin Powell under any bus at all if it helps Hillary get out of this corner, and

   

  2) we know Hillary was well aware of the "real danger" of her actions and specifically told to "be very careful" not to say anything about it.

  Still what difference does it make?

  

   

  As we previously noted, Colin Powell was greatly displeased by Hillary's attempts "to pin" the email scandal on him…

  Powell told People Magazine that Clinton was using her private email long before their meeting.  “The truth is she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did [during my term as Secretary of State],” he said.

  

  

• What Wall Street Expects From The ECB Tomorrow, And How Will The Market React

  While there have been various trial balloons in recent days, hinting that the ECB could start purchasing equities, most notably by the Peterson Insitute, it is unlikely that Mario Draghi will commence outright monetization of ETFs at the ECB’s meeting tomorrow. Still, that does not change the fact that the ECB is rapidly running out of bond to government monetize, which has pushed government yields to all time negative lows, and has so distorted the corporate market that non-backstopped corporations have issued negative yielding bonds: an unheard of event. On the other hand, if the ECB relents, and does nothing, it may be perceived as a sign of tightening, spiking bond yields and sending equities tumbling.

  Adding to the pressure, the existing version of the ECB’s €1.7 trillion QE asset-purchase program is scheduled to end in just six months, however so far Draghi has failed miserably at spurring euro-area inflation while the full impact of Brexit has yet to be realized. If the ECB extends quantitative easing – as most economists surveyed by Bloomberg predict – policy makers may have to reconsider what they can buy.

  UBS best summarizes the dilemma Draghi finds himself in: “Generally, we observe a dilemma on the side of the ECB: The stronger the credibility of the QE programme, the lower the yields and hence the smaller the availability of bonds trading above the minimum of -0.4% (depo rate). Conversely, the lower the credibility of QE, the higher the yields (at least for shorter maturities), and hence the larger the pool of bonds trading above the minimum rate of -0.4%.”

  As a result, not much is expected out of Draghi tomorrow, however as UBS further points out, the ECB may as soon as tomorrow have to adjust the technical rules of its QE programme if it wants to continue buying €80bn of assets until March 2017, or longer. UBS thinks increasing the issue limit on bonds not containing a collective action clause (CAC) and expanding the maturity range of purchases could be easily achieved. Scrapping the deposit rate floor and amending the rules on substitute purchases is also a possibility. However, the Swiss bank regards a deviation from the capital key allocation on purchases as unlikely. In the near term, there is also a low chance that the ECB would expand the range of assets to include bank bonds or cut the deposit rate unless – but this seems very unlikely, too – it is part of a more fundamental monetary policy decision.

  What about the ECB’s calendar:

  Although 8 December is now our base-case scenario, we acknowledge that moving already on 8 September would have advantages as well. It would give markets and economic agents early clarity about the path of monetary policy after March 2017, and thus stabilise expectations and help to reduce downside risks. Perhaps more importantly, it might be easier for the ECB to decide on an extension of QE in September rather than in December, when Eurozone inflation is likely to be higher (approaching 1% y/y, compared with the current/July rate of 0.2% y/y), which might increase the resistance against a QE extension from ECB hawks. In extremis, a delay until 8 December could even mean that – contrary to our base case – the ECB might not extend QE at all, for example, if a sharp rise in oil prices were to markedly alter the inflation outlook in the meantime.

  UBS summarizes the ECB’s policy menu as follows:

  

  So, at least according to UBS analysts, it is likely that the ECB will do nothing tomorrow. Others are more impatient, and as Bloomberg points out, the ECB’s self-imposed purchase restrictions are likely to be a focal point ahead of tomorrow’s announcement, even if no final decision is taken. Draghi said at the last gathering in July that officials have shown they can adjust QE when required, and that there should be no doubt they can stick to their pledge to keep spending 80 billion euros a month until March 2017 “and beyond if needed.” Here are the key options:

  Option 1: Changing the Issue and Issuer Limits

  • Rule: The maximum share of any single public-sector security that euro-area central banks can hold — known as the issue limit — has already been raised to 33 percent from 25 percent for bonds without collective-action clauses. The cutoffs are to prevent the ECB from gaining the power to block any restructuring plans and to avoid it becoming a dominant investor. The 33 percent threshold also applies to the exposure to any one bond issuer.
  • Solution: Raising the issue limit on bonds without collective-action clauses should be “fairly uncontentious,” according to a note by HSBC Holdings Plc. Increasing the limits is the “most likely” choice and could come as early as Thursday, according to Bloomberg Intelligence economists. The issuer limit might also be increased.
  • Cons: The ECB could distort markets. It could also be viewed as financing government deficits — which is illegal under European Union law.

  Option 2: Changing the Deposit-Rate Floor

  • Rule: The ECB must only buy debt with a yield higher than the deposit rate, currently minus 0.4 percent. The rule ensures that losses booked by the central bank when it buys negative-yielding debt are offset by the income gained from its deposit account.
  • Solution: Lowering or scrapping the minimum-yield requirement would be one of the easiest options to implement, according to Barclays Plc. In particular, it would increase the available pool of German bonds — two-thirds of those assets are now ineligible after concerns of a Brexit-led slowdown prompted investors to seek a haven for their cash.
  • Cons: National central banks — especially in Germany — would be knowingly making a loss on some of the bonds they buy. Still, that doesn’t necessarily imply losses at an aggregate level for either individual central banks or the Eurosystem.

  Option 3: Changing the Capital Key

  • Rule: QE purchases are shared between the national central banks in line with the capital key, which is roughly equivalent to the relative size of each economy. It means that more than a quarter of the debt bought is German, 20 percent is French, and 17 percent is Italian.
  • Solution: The ECB could deviate from the capital key and link buying to the amount of outstanding debt. That would put off scarcity concerns in countries such as Germany. Accelerating purchases in the euro-area periphery could expand fiscal space and benefit the real economy, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in a note in August. The central bank has already made small moves in this direction, citing the program’s flexibility.
  • Cons: The move would favor securities issued by countries with the biggest debt pile — notably Italy, the third-largest debtor among developed economies after the U.S. and Japan — and so raise concerns over monetary financing. Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann said last month that moving away from the capital key risks blurring the line between monetary and fiscal policy.

  Option 4: Expand Into New Asset Classes

  • Rule: The ECB’s asset-purchase program started with covered bonds and asset-backed securities, before expanding into fully fledged QE with the addition of sovereign debt and agency bonds. It has since expanded into regional debt and corporate bonds, and its list of eligible agency bonds has been expanded.
  • Solution: A bigger step would be to identify new asset classes — Karsten Junius at J Safra Sarasin suggests equities. Exchange Traded Funds might be one route.
  • Cons: Some asset classes could prove controversial. For example, buying bank bonds could conflict with the ECB’s role as supervisor. While equity investors might be thrilled at the idea of the institution following its Swiss or Japanese counterparts in buying stocks, a series of less substantial changes would probably prove easier to implement.

  Verbal Warning

  There are other technical changes that could enlarge the universe of eligible securities. The ECB could alter the rules on substitute purchases or buy longer and shorter-dated debt than the 2-year to 30-year maturities currently allowed. It might also come up with something completely new.

  * * *

  Operating within the parameters of UBS’ dilemma, “Draghi risks disappointing the market if he doesn’t verbally indicate that something is going to come,” according Holger Sandte, chief European analyst at Nordea Markets in Copenhagen. “If we’re going into an easing package in December then he should prepare for that.” On the other hand, tighten, and watch risk assets selloff.

  * * *

  What do others expect? More than 80 percent of economists surveyed by Bloomberg say the ECB will extend QE, and a similar share predict it will tweak its purchasing rules. Almost half of respondents foresee action on Thursday, with almost all the rest predicting an announcement at the October or December meetings.

  Here is a recap what various individual banks think Mario will do:

  WHEN WILL ECB EXTEND QE?

  • CITIGROUP (Guillaume Menuet): extension of asset purchases for at least 6 months to be announced this week
  • JPMORGAN (Greg Fuzesi): QE to be extended beyond March 2017; formal announcement more likely in December than this week; don’t expect central bank to address scarcity either
  • BOFAML (Gilles Moec): ECB can’t keep options open until December; at least a commitment to continuing QE after March 2017 would be needed; “At the very least,” ECB to provide clear deadline this week for final decision to continue QE and signal, in no ambiguous terms, that a “reflection has started”
  • CREDIT SUISSE (Peter Foley): expect an extension before the end of the year, alongside technical tweaks to address bond scarcity
  • UNICREDIT (Marco Valli): another dose of stimulus is just a matter of time; regardless of the exact time, next move likely to be a 6-month extension of QE until at least September 2017
  • HSBC (Karen Ward, Fabio Balboni): ECB needs to extend QE horizon by 6 months to September 2017 from March at the very least
  • DEUTSCHE BANK (Mark Wall): no longer expect further easing this week; ECB will wait until December to extend QE
  • UBS (Reinhard Cluse): will likely only extend QE at December meeting
  • BARCLAYS (Fabio Fois): continue to expect ECB to extend QE beyond March 2017 by 6-9 months with a change to some technical elements, but without expanding monthly limits; that’s more likely in October/December than this week
  • GOLDMAN SACHS (Dirk Schumacher): ECB to announce extension of QE program to end of 2017 at Sept. meeting
  • BNP PARIBAS (Luigi Speranza): ECB will prolong asset purchases to September 2017 this week
  • MORGAN STANLEY (Elga Bartsch): ECB to ease only in December instead of September, with risk that it may not ease at all
  • CREDIT AGRICOLE (Valentin Marinov): small chance ECB will extend QE duration beyond March 2017

  WHAT ELSE WILL THEY DO?

  • CITIGROUP: ECB to adjust modalities of PSPP this week, probably focusing first on increasing the issuer and issue limit from 33% to 50% for bonds that don’t contain collective action clauses (CACs); Bank may also lower the main refinancing rate by 10bp to -0.1% to incentivize banks to take-up ECB liquidity at the three remaining 4-year TLTRO II operations
  • CREDIT SUISSE: most likely route is for ECB to retain gradual and flexible approach, loosening restrictions progressively on various parameters
  • HSBC: ECB may run out of German assets to buy in 1st half of 2017 on current parameters; Could extend QE horizon by another 6 months just by increasing issuance limit to 50% for non-CAC bonds; another change could be to include bonds with maturities beyond 30 years; option of deeper negative rates will probably be parked for now
  • DEUTSCHE BANK: any QE extension would need to be accompanied by other measures such as an increase in the issue limit on non-CAC bonds; further deposit rate cut unlikely
  • UBS: may adjust technical rules as soon as this week or in October; increasing issue limit on non-CAC bonds and expanding maturity range of purchases could be easily achieved; Scrapping deposit-rate floor and amending rules on substitute purchases also possible; deviation from the capital key allocation, cutting rates or including new assets is unlikely
  • BNP PARIBAS: ECB also likely to modify some of program’s parameters to accommodate buying for longer; raising the issue limit for non-CAC bonds would be easiest option

  WHAT WILL THE MARKET RESPONSE BE?

  • JPMORGAN (Mika Inkinen, Antoine Gaveau): if central scenario proves right, bear steepening of euro-area curves and some widening in intra-EMU spreads likely, with magnitude of moves depending on Draghi’s tone; Any increase in the issue limit may drive mild bull flattening, while a removal of deposit rate floor would see pivot steepening; a significant move away from capital key would spur bear steepening, intra-EMU spread tightening
  • BOFAML (Athanasios Vamvakidis, Ralf Preusser): FX impact limited; risks to EUR may be to upside if ECB doesn’t announce QE extension this week as markets could take it as a sign of strong disagreements within GC on how to extend QE; If ECB commits to extending QE but doesn’t address bond scarcity, expect curves to flatten; front end may cheapen as market trims the implied probability of rate cuts and may see profit-taking in periphery
  • CITIGROUP (Harvinder Sian): baseline of 6-mo. QE extension is priced in OIS curve; if we are wrong, market will have to price higher probability of QE taper in 2017; Baseline of pushing the non-CAC bond limit higher infers an aggressive flattening rally that should be used to set up steepeners as other options on the capital key/depo floor will have to be considered
  • CREDIT SUISSE: any relaxation in capital key allocations would move markets the most, leading to a narrowing in bond spreads and some EUR depreciation
  • CREDIT AGRICOLE: EUR unlikely to come under sustained selling pressure without a strong signal the bank’s asset purchases will be expanded as well
  • BNP PARIBAS (Steven Saywell): See risks of a rise in long- end core yields in decision aftermath even if ECB delivers; no meaningful impact on EUR
  • DEUTSCHE BANK (Abhishek Singhania): market pricing for further cuts should be lower; any signs of ECB concern over impact of more negative rates may drive sell-off in belly; Recommends short EUR vs JPY in 1Y1Y OIS; impact on EUR curve may be limited even if ECB doesn’t extend QE this month, given flatness of the 5/10 and 10/30 curve doesn’t show when market is pricing an extension
  • UBS (Themos Fiotakis): Sooner or later, perhaps even in the upcoming meeting, ECB may need to start addressing certain modalities of its program, ultimately leading to a steeper curve; impact on longer-dated bonds harder to predict; easier to see a steeper curve than higher yields
  • BARCLAYS (Giuseppe Maraffino): could see further volatility should ECB opt to wait before acting, hence outright duration and peripheral spread positions don’t offer good risk/reward; Stay short 10Y bunds vs Treasuries, receive 15Y fwd point on EUR swap curve vs wings, long PGB 4/30 steepeners, and long 7Y French ASWs
  • MORGAN STANLEY (Hans Redeker): ECB can’t weaken EUR; even if it extends its QE program or cuts rates further, it won’t be able to push down long-term bond euro-area yields substantially to weaken currency given yields are already low or negative

  * * *

  Finally, here are some charts courtesy of UBS summarizing the state of the ECB’s balance sheet and monetary policy:

  

  Source: Bloomberg, UBS

  

  

• Latest Trading Rig Setup (Video)

  By EconMatters

  
  

  

  This is our latest Trading Rig Setup, and instrument configuration that we are currently utilizing. I will show our new $2,500 Trading Chair when it arrives from Chicago.

  © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  

• Ferguson Protest Leader Found Dead Inside Burning Car With Gun Shot Wound

  The body of activist Darren Seals was found inside a burning car outside of St. Louis on Tuesday morning with a gunshot wound.  The burning vehicle was discovered in the village of Riverview about five miles east of Ferguson.

  Seals helped lead protests in Ferguson, MO back in August 2014 after the unarmed teenager, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a white police officer, Darren Wilson.  The shooting resulted in weeks of protests in Ferguson which often turned violent.  A subsequent wave of protests occurred in November 2014 after St. Louis County prosecutor announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson.   

  

   

  A motive has not yet been announced but the St. Louis Police Department confirmed the case was being investigated as a homicide. 

  Meanwhile twitter users are calling attention to a tweet sent by Seals a few months ago alleging that "10 detectives pulled me and my 14 year old brother over, pointed guns on us, and told me "choose your enemies wisely."

  Months ago #DarrenSeals tweeted this. Yesterday the police didn't even tape off his crime scene. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/We2KznDTqa

  — Lizz Brown (@lizzzbrown) September 7, 2016

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest