What I've written here illuminates a major developing global economic reality, unheralded by almost all "mainstream" economists, media pundits and corporate leaders. The story thread is simple, logical and brutally compelling. But not comforting. So,"trigger warning" for the faint hearted: proceed at your own risk and remember: if everybody's thinking the same, then nobody's thinking!
_______________
For better or worse, I’m not on the
fringe anymore with respect to my opinions on globalization, sovereign debt and
the Central Banking cartel. That’s a bit frightening, actually. There
is a growing voice of informed thinkers starting to agree with what I’ve
published. It’s not pretty. It never has been. But it IS closer. Much
closer. My readers know that I went out on a limb and predicted the
beginning of the market retrenchment. It’s begun – right on cue this
month. Oil and market valuations sliding in tandem. Difficult bond
auctions. Predicates of things to come.
Perhaps you’re thinking this “big
picture” stuff is rather theoretical and not “actionable” within your own
personal sphere of ambitions, concerns and business activities. There is a
grave danger in such mistaken assumptions. It’s time to tune in. Focus. Because
everything I’ve been writing about is coming into that focus. Right now. Right
as predicted. There’s nothing you can do about it. But being caught
sideways by an unexpected blow is never an optimal choice.
Some of you know who John Mauldin
is. His readership is exponentially larger than mine – and he gets paid
for what he writes (justifiably by comparison, perhaps). Here’s what Mr.
Mauldin wrote on Sept 14 (yesterday):
So too, Larry Summers (here I refer to Mauldin's comments on that topic): “He [Summers] points out that despite all the happy talk from Janet Yellen at Jackson Hole, the Fed doesn’t have any ammo left. His paper and others point out that typically the Fed reduces interest rates by about 550 basis points in a recession. If a recession kicked in tomorrow, that would plunge us to the breathtaking interest rate of -5%. As I wrote last week, a footnote that Janet Yellen cited approvingly in her paper suggested that rates should go to -6% or -9% during the next recession to be effective.” Mauldin then quotes a Washington Post article Summers penned last week:We face a whole different kind of chaos on the geopolitical front. To a considerable degree it overlaps with the economic problems I’ll discuss today. George Friedman has been calling the Eurasian landmass a “cradle of disorder.” It’s home to 5 billion people, and it’s floundering in a sea of accelerating crises. Regular readers know that George doesn’t exaggerate. He may be the most fact-driven person I’ve ever worked with. He looks at good evidence and draws sound conclusions. And right now he sees evidence in Eurasia that looks chillingly similar to what happened in the years leading up to World War II. I know that’s a strong statement. George doesn’t issue it lightly. He is genuinely concerned – and I am, too. Thoughts from the Frontline , Sept 14, 2016
In essence, Mr. Summers is now saying what I’ve been saying all along: the Central Bankers have no ammo left in their gun. Summers just called them out in a no-holds barred chastisement. The FED walked us into a monetary box canyon of debt with nowhere to go. Summers reviles the Central Bankers as ineffective, fiscally-illiterate and without any plan of what to do next…“I suspect that prevailing views at the Fed about the efficacy of quantitative and forward guidance substantially exaggerate their likely impact. I don’t think the Fed has taken on board the lesson of the three-year period since QE ended. If longer-term rates had risen after QE and forward guidance ended, this would surely have been taken as further evidence of their potency. It follows that the fact that term spreads have fallen substantially since the end of unconventional policy, as shown in Figure 3, should lead to more skepticism about their efficacy.”
Are they…? Personally, I’m not so sure such that conclusion is
entirely accurate.
Mr. Summers assumes that the Central
Bankers WANT to stabilize global monetary and economic realities. That is
a rather unsubstantiated assumption, in my opinion. The Central Bankers
are not dumb. They’re very, very smart. Ivy league. They’re bankers –
they’ve learned how to pull currency out of thin air. If we can’t do that,
they’re smarter than you and I are, right?
Where am I going with this thought?
First I want everybody to read this
article published September 14, 2016 by Brandon Smith in Alt-Market.com: http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3012-the-world-is-turning-ugly-as-2016-winds-down.
Mr. Smith is not a “fringe
wonk”. He is an astute observer, albeit of an increasingly absurd
scenario. Don’t let words like “elites” or “globalists” throw you
off. If you still believe that such references betray “tell-tale”
reflexives of conspiracy-theory bias and that sovereign governments (including
our United States) are still calling the shots, then you’re a bit behind the
times in your factual processing. It's known as “wishful thinking”.
To that point, some of you will
recall what I published on LinkedIn early this year in an article entitled:
NIRP: The Capitulation of Common Sense. Tellingly, every one of the three major
prognostications I set forth in that article is already in evidence today. There
I quoted Central Banker Mario Draghi – who in a rather unguarded moment -
revealed an extremely chilling truth about the card Central Banks hold at the
global poker table:
That was a remarkably coherent utterance from a Central Banker, wasn’t it? Chillingly so. Janet’s interminable and insufferable “FED-speak” could take a few pointers from Mario… But I’m sure the Central Banker fraternity immediately escorted him into a paneled board room to bitch-slap Draghi into silence after that unplanned and awkward indiscretion. That Central Bank physical (not fiscal) intervention was presumptively effective – Mario’s never said anything like that since!"I firmly believe that, in order to restore confidence in the euro area, countries need to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level.A lot of governments have yet to realize that they lost their national sovereignty a long time ago. Because, in the past, they have allowed their debt to pile up... " [Emphasis added] An interview quote from Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank published in Der Speigel on October 29, 2012
I disagree with Brandon Smith on
only one point. But that point is THE essential construct that I want all
my readers to CAREFULLY consider. Brandon thinks we’re approaching
crisis. I do too. But I propose something more than crisis as our
focus.
I believe that the Central Bank
strategy is on course toward creating crisis as an intentional
strategy. The Central Bankers aren’t stupid or ineffective. They
are doing exactly what they intend to do – and they will not relent in their
course of action until their mission is accomplished. That is the only
logical explanation of their actions to-date - if you really think about
it carefully. It’s brutal logic. But persuasive, as such.
Need a “for instance” on that
one? Let’s go to the recent statement of Federal Reserve Vice Chair Dr.
Stanley Fischer in an interview with Bloomberg’s Tom Keene last week in which
Fischer (unfathomably!) goes on record about negative interest rates saying: “We’re
in a world where they seem to work.” Really? I’d like see just
ONE confirmation of that statement ANYWHERE in the global
economy. Anywhere.
It must be nice to be "the
King" – the ultimate arbiter of who will thrive and who will suffer for the
sake of bringing forth a hauntingly “Aryan-esque” vision of academic financial
utopia! Dr. Fischer – you are indeed one of the most dangerous and evil
men to walk the face of the earth since WWII. I hope that’s not a
prognosticator of global realities to come… But consider what Dr. Fischer
said and then decide for yourself:
Note that by Dr. Fischer’s direct admission the FED will willingly and affirmatively throw wage-slave “savers” under the monetary bus to benefit “investors”. Still got any questions about the “elite” preferences of the Bankers or their focus on the stock market rather than wage or manufacturing growth measurements (the REAL indicators of economic growth and sustainability)?“Well, clearly there are different responses to negative rates. If you’re a saver, they’re very difficult to deal with and to accept, although typically they go along with quite decent equity prices. But we consider all that, and we have to make trade-offs in economics all the time, and the idea is, the lower the interest rate the better it is for investors." http://investingchannel.com/article/400128/Fed-Vice-Chairman-Admits-Fed-Sponsors-Wealth-Inequality - .V9rY6ZMrJTY [emphasis added]
The Central Bankers have a distinctly
opposing orientation: a preferential option for the rich. Draw your
own conclusions on what opposing spiritual orientations this may suggest if
straying into those realms informs your reflections…
More objectively, consider why -
after 8 years - would a group of people continue hard-pressed on a course of
relentless monetary theory that hasn’t yielded one shred of tangible objective
validation since they began? That same monetary theory was implemented in
Japan 20 years ago with the EXACT same results we see now in a global
context: low interest rates and stagnating economic growth. Coincidence?
It is exactly eight years TODAY
since Lehman filed for bankruptcy and there have been 672 rate cuts by the
Central Bankers globally since that event. 672?? Simple
question: if you try something again and again and again and again - and
you are STILL doing it eight years later, doesn’t that suggest by very fact
of such repetition that MAYBE what you are doing isn’t working?
But let's continue beyond that
thought – because that is not the focal point here.
My premise: it IS working
– but nobody comprehends exactly what the Central Bankers are working toward.
What if what we all believed about what Central Banks are doing – and what
they are actually bent on accomplishing - were two entirely different and opposing
realities?
Unthinkable? Not so much. Let's
consider the logic and the evidence supporting that premise.
In effect a global economic collapse
would permit a new financial structure to be implemented. It would consolidate
the power of the bankers over what remains of ALL sovereign governments. It
would be imposed upon the glowing ashes of massive sovereign bond defaults
caused by a predicate global economic debacle also precipitated by
Central Bank policies. Crisis situations result in ill-advised responses
that are born of an undue urgency and purposefully orchestrated fears. The
Patriot Act was a case in point: a frightful infringement on Constitutional
rights rationalized within a crisis mentality and circumstance. Our sense of
vulnerability and urgency justified an otherwise inconceivable revocation of
individual rights. And we were grateful to endorse it... at that time.
Remember all the fear mongering that
the media engaged just prior to the Brexit vote? I covered that in detail for
my readers. That predicted parade of immediate and draconian
"terribles" never happened, did it? Why the scare tactics? Because
Brexit was a very unpleasant reversal of fortune for the Central Bankers. They
didn't take that threat seriously - until it was too late. Now they've got to
repair that damage with any rationale or plausible threat that can "pull
the EU back together". Russia? Immigration? Just coincidence... but
neither warranted urgent headlines just a few short months ago.
Crisis is a necessary predicate.
Fear and anxiety embrace what calmer deliberations would never accept. Beware
of white knights riding black horses. In a crisis situation, people embrace
desperate solutions. Bitter remedies become more palatable in desperate
situations, and a crisis is desperate by definition.
When you default on a mortgage, who
ends up owning your house? That’s a simplified version of the reality –
but an effective illustration. If the Banker plays his cards to assure
that (1) he loans you a LOT of money again and again and (2) he starts to
impede the economic growth of the company you work for so that your personal
wages stagnate or decrease and (3) your ability to stay current on your
ballooning mortgage debt becomes ultimately dependent upon the Banker
continually lowering the rates on that increasing debt, then ultimately who
gets control of your house if the interest rates on that debt suddenly goes
up? Surprise! Think sovereign nations, debt and GDP growth (or lack). Is
it clearer now?
Hard assets have intrinsic
value: fiat currencies do not. Consider: what is the value of a
defaulted financial instrument (your delinquent mortgage) versus the value of
the house itself? Does it lose value when the mortgage on it
defaults? No? Simple question: who prefers to end up owning that house
instead of the paper? Who seeks control over that truly valuable asset in
preference to a worthless promissory note when the game is over? A smiling
banker.
All fiat currency is just a promissory note. Nothing more. An
event of sovereign bond default and consequent higher yields will make it
impossible for over-leveraged nations (name one G-20 economy other than Russia
that isn’t up to its eyeballs in debt!) to sustain their crushing debt
loads at anything higher than the artificially low yields currently enforced
by the Central Bankers. Fact: the sovereign nations are NOT dictating the rates
paid on their sovereign debts, are they? Who is calling that shot?
Whoever is buying that debt? Think "quantitative easing". That's
quite a startling revelation, isn't it...? Japan's central bank is buying the
majority of Japan's debt.
Let me speak clearly: The
“crisis” will unfold when the Central Banks are suddenly (surprise!) “unable”
to contain massive global chaos in the financial markets within the constraints
of their “monetary policy”. As global economies slip further into
“Japanese stagnation” (and folks, you’re blind if you haven’t noticed a steady
global GDP diminishment trend over the past 3 years), the revenues available to
service the massive debts accumulated in sovereign bonds over these past 8
years (read my article above) will begin to stagnate, if not actually decrease.
But the ever-increasing debt
payments of those same nations will remain. Those debt payments will increasingly
compete within a limited constraint of stagnating revenues against massive
entitlement programs paid for by the same deficit financing mechanisms that
generate ever-increasing sovereign bond issuances. Deficit financing is the
ONLY way that politicians can fund massive electorate-pleasing social welfare
programs and lucrative (often outrageously profligate) defense contracts that
assure their re-election. Politicians know that government largesse buys
votes. Truly, this has created a Faustian bargain between Central Bankers
and politicians worldwide. That’s why Congress will NEVER vote to audit the
FED. Amazing how few folks have considered that simple and evident
symbiotic connection… it explains a lot, doesn't it?
The first bond default (and Deutsche
Bank and/or Japan are a logical nexus for that inaugural event) will suddenly
inform the markets that “reality” does in fact exist: that the normative yields
of the Central Bank structures in no way reflect the actual risks inherent in
the global financial system. Rates will rise commensurate to that growing
awareness of inherent risks and the fear it increasingly engenders.
The rest will take care of itself…
the currency markets will see volatility never before seen in global history as
common sense returns to value fiat currencies in relation to sobering financial
facts: revenue vs debt: assets vs. liabilities. The chimera
illusion of central bank beneficence will be brutally stripped away – and the
most erudite of credentialed financial pundits, counselors and corporate
economists who did NOT see this coming will be revealed as myopic fools whose
academic credentials papered-over a jaw-dropping deficit of common
sense. Suckers.
Doggedly repeating any behavior or
action that doesn’t seem to be working is not logical. Insisting in
the absence of any credible evidence or confirmation that it WILL work –
after 8 continuous years – is not logical. Proposing that negative
interest rates "appear to be working" without any credible, empirical
support for that presumptive statement - is not logical.
None of this makes sense, does
it?
No, it doesn’t. Until you
insert just one small piece of missing logic into an otherwise incongruous
factual matrix. That piece is: it IS working. We’re just not
understanding the game going on before our very eyes. We’re blinded to an unthinkable
premise: which side of the field are the Central Banks progressing
toward?
We've see all the plays. All 672 of
them. We see where the end zone is. But we still can’t understand
something that is now as plain as day: WHY not even a "first down"
marking measurable progress toward the desired end zone after 672
plays!
In fact, the Central Banks are losing
global yardage, play-by-play, in over 600 plays so far.
- Wage growth and Consumer purchasing power = loss of yardage.
- Home ownership = loss of yardage
- Global GDP growth = loss of yardage.
- Manufacturing growth = loss of yardage.
- Shipping rates = loss of yardage.
- Rising consumer debt = loss of yardage.
What?! We were all thinking
they were on our team. They were heading for our end zone,
right? No. Not really… their peculiar football movement confirmed
over multiple plays betrays a very different reality - and begs a very
important question!
Follow the ball, folks. Please. This
is not rocket science. Just LOOK.
A chilling insight, indeed. How
appropriate for Halloween. Fear is fun. Halloween satisfies our
weirdest desire: we really do enjoy getting the bejeezes scared out of
us. You won’t have to wait too much longer… Just thrown out a penalty
flag. Loss of yardage will result. A massive walk-back toward the opposing
end zone. Who will greet us when the global game ends in their end-zone?
The league owners themselves.
Smiling bankers.
Perhaps, this was your first glimpse of Dr. Fischer's world of Aryan finance? Yup.
No comments:
Post a Comment