Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History
US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!
Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April
U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers
JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014′
Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014
Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis
Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets
Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!
Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013
Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013
Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards
Jim Rickards Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)
James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar
Currency Wars: Jim Rickards
Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser
CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber
Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2
Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!
Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything
Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview
Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists
Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”
ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING
Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013
Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014
Background Articles and Videos
Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010
Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)
The Fall of Lehman Brothers
Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2
The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse
LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.
It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.
One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.
Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.
In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.
A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”
The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”
And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”
In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.
Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.
It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.
“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”
James Turk on the Central Bank Gold Heist and Bundesbank Accounting Shenaniga
Bringing in the bullion Germany to repatriate gold from US and France
Germany Moves To Relocate Gold From New York Fed to Bundesbank
Germany Wants Its Gold Back From the Fed
Keiser Report: Welcome Home German Gold (E395)
Is Germany About to Start a Run on Gold Held at the New York Fed?
German lawmakers are to review Bundesbank controls of and management of Germany’s gold reserves. Parliament’s Budget Committee will assess how the central bank manages its inventory of Germany’s gold bullion bars that are believed to be stored not only in Frankfurt, but at locations outside Germany, according to German newspaper Bild.
What’s most interesting about all this is that Germany may follow in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps and repatriate their gold to Germany so as to have direct possession of and ownership of their gold reserves. It’s really the only way to protect a central bank’s gold ownership, since by simply going in and asking the New York Fed to show Germany “their” gold, the Fed can walk them in and show them a pile of gold and tell them that it is theirs. The next day they can walk Chinese officials in and show the Chinese the exact same pile of gold and tell them that the gold is theirs.
Possession is the only sure protection.
Germany’s huge gold reserves – 3,396.3 tonnes of gold are some 73.7% of Germany’s national foreign exchange reserves, and are held not only in Germany but at the New York Fed, in London and in Paris. Dumb.
What kind of pressure will the U.S. put on Germany to prevent them from repatriating their gold? The banksters clearly have German Chancellor Merkel in their pocket, but this is unlikely to be influence that is deep into German political leaders. Thus, a run on gold, started by Germany, is not an impossibility.
In this scenario, the noise you would hear is the spike in gold as Bernanke prints more dollars for open market purchases of gold to fill demand for delivery by various central banks. Yikes.
The financial world was shocked this month by a demand from Germany’s Bundesbank to repatriate a large portion of its gold reserves held abroad. By 2020, Germany wants 50% of its total gold reserves back in Frankfurt – including 300 tons from the Federal Reserve. The Bundesbank’s announcement comes just three months after the Fed refused to submit to an audit of its holdings on Germany’s behalf. One cannot help but wonder if the refusal triggered the demand.
Either way, Germany appears to be waking up to a reality for which central banks around the world have been preparing: the dollar is no longer the world’s safe-haven asset and the US government is no longer a trustworthy banker for foreign nations. It looks like their fears are well-grounded, given the Fed’s seeming inability to return what is legally Germany’s gold in a timely manner. Germany is a developed and powerful nation with the second largest gold reserves in the world. If they can’t rely on Washington to keep its promises, who can?
Where is Germany’s Gold?
The impact of Germany’s repatriation on the dollar revolves around an unanswered question: why will it take seven years to complete the transfer?
The popular explanation is that the Fed has already rehypothecated all of its gold holdings in the name of other countries. That is, the same mound of bullion is earmarked as collateral for a host of different lenders. Since the Fed depends on a fractional-reserve banking system for its very existence, it would not come as a surprise that it has become a fractional-reserve bank itself. If so, then perhaps Germany politely asked for a seven-year timeline in order to allow the Fed to save face, and to prevent other depositors from clamoring for their own gold back – a ‘run’ on the Fed.
Now, the Fed can always print more dollars and buy gold on the open market to make up for any shortfall, but such a move could substantially increase the price of gold. The last thing the Fed needs is another gold price spike reminding the world of the dollar’s decline.
Speculation Aside
None of these theories are substantiated, but no matter how you slice it, Germany’s request for its gold does not bode well for the future of the dollar. In fact, the Bundesbank’s official statements are all you need to confirm the Germans’ waning faith in the US.
Last October, after the Bundesbank had requested an audit of its Fed holdings, Executive Board Member Carl-Ludwig Thiele was asked in an interview why the bank kept so much of Germany’s gold overseas. His response emphasized the importance of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency:
Thiele’s statement can lead us to only one conclusion: by keeping fewer reserves in the US, Germany foresees less future need for “US dollar-denominated liquidity.””Gold stored in your home safe is not immediately available as collateral in case you need foreign currency. Take, for instance, the key role that the US dollar plays as a reserve currency in the global financial system. The gold held with the New York Fed can, in a crisis, be pledged with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral against US dollar-denominated liquidity.”
History Repeats
The whole situation mirrors the late 1960s, during a period that led up to the “Nixon Shock.” Back then, the world was on the Bretton Woods System – an attempt on the part of Western central bankers to pin the dollar to gold at a fixed rate, while still allowing the metal to trade privately as a commodity. This led to a gap between the market price of gold as a commodity and the official price available from the Treasury.
As the true value of gold separated further and further from its official rate, the world began to realize the system was unsustainable, and many suspected the US was not serious about maintaining a strong dollar. West Germany moved first on these fears by redeeming its dollar reserves for gold, followed by France, Switzerland, and others. This eventually culminated in Nixon “closing the gold window” in 1971 by ending any link between the dollar and gold. This “Nixon Shock” spurred chronic inflation throughout the ’70s and a concurrent rally in gold.
Perhaps the entire international community is thinking back to the ’60s, because Germany isn’t the only country maneuvering away from the dollar today. The Netherlands and Azerbaijan are also discussing repatriating their foreign gold holdings. And every month, we hear about central banks increasing gold reserves. The latest are Russia and Kazakhstan, but in the last year, countries from Brazil to Turkey have been adding to their gold holdings in order to diversify away from fiat currency reserves.
And don’t forget China. Once the biggest purchaser of US bonds, it is now a net seller of Treasuries, while simultaneously gobbling up gold. Some sources even claim that China has unofficially surpassed Germany as the second largest holder of gold in the world.
Unlike the ’60s, today there is no official gold window to close. There will be no reported “shock” indicator of a dollar flight. This demand by Germany may be the closest indicator we’re going to get. Placing blame where it’s due, let’s call it the “Bernanke Shock.”
It Takes One to Know One
In last month’s Gold Letter, I wrote about the three pillars supporting the US Treasury’s persistently low interest rates: the Fed, domestic investors, and foreign central banks – led by Japan. I examined how Japan’s plans to radically devalue the yen may undermine that country’s ability to continue buying Treasuries, which could cause the other pillars to become unstable as well.
While private investors and even the Fed might be deluding themselves into believing US bonds are still a viable investment, Germany’s repatriation news makes it clear that foreign governments are no longer buying the propaganda. And why should they? If anyone should appreciate the real constraints the US government is facing, it is other governments.
Our sovereign creditors know that Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama are just regular men in fancy suits. They know the Fed isn’t harboring some ingenious plan for raising interest rates while successfully selling back its worthless mortgage and government securities. Instead, the Fed is like a drug addict making any excuse to get its next fix. [See Bernanke's tell-all interview with Oprah where he confesses to economic doping!]
US investors should be as shocked as the Bundesbank about the Fed’s deception. While we cannot redeem our dollars for gold with the Fed, we can still buy gold with them in the open market. As more investors and governments choose to save in precious metals, the dollar’s value will go into steeper and steeper decline – thereby driving more investors into metals. That’s when the virtuous circle upon which the dollar has coasted for a generation will quickly turn vicious.
Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets and Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. His latest book is The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy, How to Save Yourself and Your Country.
The Wizard of Oz and the 1896 Presidential Election
Excerpt from NPR program on the hypothesis that the book, The Wizard of Oz, was based on the 1896 presidential election and the controversy over gold vs. silver as a monetary standard. It might be noted that the hypothesis is still a matter of controversy.
Murray Rothbard vs Nationalization pt2
Anarchism and Terrorism in the 1890s | by Jeff Riggenbach
Ron Paul: The Worst Thing You Can Do For A People Is Purposely Devalue The Dollar
Obama’s Got America Singin’ the Blues
As Gas Prices Rise, White House Goes on Offensive, Defensive
Ron Paul tells the real reason for the oil prices in 2007 and today
END FED: Bernanke Explains How To Devalue the Dollar, Quantitative Easing AKA Asset Purchase
Glenn Beck – Devaluing The Dollar
Beck: Devaluing the Dollar
Iran Sanctions, War, Israel & Gas Prices
Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
Why Gas Prices Are Rising
Playing the oil prices money game
Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets
Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing
The Price Of Oil
Bill Black: What I’d Demand of the Fed
Bill Black’s eye-popping opening statement at House FinServ hearing on Lehman Bros.
END FED: Goldman Sachs To Blame For Global Food-Oil Price Crisis; Speculators Outnumber Hedgers
CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity”
Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?
Oil Supply and Demand and the Next Oil Price Spike
Bio-fuels, Speculation, Land Grabs = Food Crisis
Speculation And The Frenzy In Food Markets
Food, Speculation and Parasitical Trading
Speculation Drives Up Coffee Prices
Food Speculation
Oil Speculators
Oil speculation and oil prices
The Real TRUTH Behind The OIL PRICES
Banks Behind High Gas Prices?
Rising Gas Prices Slowing Economy
Gas Prices Soaring
Ripple Effect Of Rising Gas Prices Hits Consumers
Krauthammer: Obama’s “war on fossil fuels” causes rising gas prices
Obama Wanted High Gas Prices…Gradually (2008 Election Campaign)
Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2008
Can We Stop A War With Iran?
Obama admits his intentions are to skyrocket oil prices
Ford O’Connell On Fox News – February 24, 2012
Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2007
Obama gas prices
A Coincidence Over High Gasoline Prices- MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon
Obama Admits the Truth: He Can’t Do Much about Gas Prices
James Grant
Jim Grant – Bloomberg Interview (30/6/11)
Government Theft 2012
Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke
Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke
Seven Bucks A Gallon For Gas!
2012 Energy Prices
Ed Wallace
“…That’s right, we not only reduced our overall gasoline use in America, reversing a century-long trend, but in 2011 we dropped our demand for gasoline once again. This likely explains why in December WTI oil jumped by close to $7 a barrel, but the futures market for gasoline barely budged, moving just a few cents in either direction.
Another way to look at it is in the percentage of utilization of our refineries for this time of year. According to the government’s data, the last week of December our refineries ran at 84.2 percent of capacity. But if one compares that week to the same week in the boom years, 2003 to 2007, our refineries were running at 91.7 percent, 94.2 percent, 88.9 percent, 90.9 percent and 89.4 percent. For those who have forgotten, that last figure in that chain, marking the last week of December 2007, also denotes the month we officially slipped into a recession. Interestingly, data released by the International Energy Agency in September of 2008 showed oil and fuel demand falling worldwide starting in August of 2007.
And yet with our refinery utilization running at far below normal, we managed to have the all-time-record year for the exportation of refined fuels. While the media speculation on where oil’s price is going is almost solely based on “Asian Demand” or the prospect of a total embargo on Iranian oil, the real problem is something completely different.
What is it? It’s refiners trying to find ways to get the price of gasoline on the futures market more in line with the high price of oil. To this end it appears that three refineries in the Northeast, including Sunoco’s Marcus Hook and Philadelphia refinery, along with Conoco’s Trainer unit, will be closed. To be sure, both Conoco and Sunoco claim their first choice is to sell those refineries, but failing that they will be closed.
What does that mean to you and me?
Dow Jones Newswire quoted Gene McGillian, an energy analyst with Tradition Energy, as saying, “Gasoline futures prices are based on New York Harbor prices. When you start to see disruptions in that Northeast market, it’s definitely reflected in gasoline futures.”
Translation: Close refineries and you can bump the futures price of gasoline – and by extension the retail price – regardless of where the price of oil is.
“…An oil futureis simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case oil — at a fixed price
. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered.
As in all cases, Wall Street heard the word "bet" and flocked to futures, taking the market to strange new places on the fringe of legality. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it bet on grain. In the 21st century it was oil. Despite U.S. petroleum reserves being at an eight-year high, the price of oil rose dramatically beginning in 2006. While demand rose, supply kept pace. Yet, prices still skyrocketed. This means that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied in the oil markets. Instead, an artificial market developed.
Artificial markets are volatile; they’re difficult to predict and can turn on a dime. As a result of the artificial oil market, the average price per barrel of crude oil increased from $31.61 in July 2004 to $137.11 in July 2008 1. The average cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in the United States grew from $1.93 to $4.09 over the same period 1.
So what happened? …"
"…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called <strong>derivatives</strong>. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.
By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, "[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact" 1. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.
Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone 1.
As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40 1. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …"
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h4></h4>
<h4>It’s no secret that speculators are driving up fuel prices. The surprise? It’s the Fed’s fault, writes Ed Wallace</h4>
<h4>"…The Fed’s Cheap Liquidity Flood</h4>
The problem starts with Ben Bernanke, no matter how many of his Fed presidents claim they are not to blame for the high price of oil. The fact is that when you flood the market with far too much liquidity at virtually no interest, funny things happen in commodities and equities. It was true in the 1920s, it was true in the last decade, and it’s still true today.
When Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, spoke in Germany late in March, Reuters quoted him as saying: "We are seeing speculative activity that may be exacerbating price rises in commodities such as oil." Fisher added that he was seeing the signs of the same speculative trading that had fueled the first financial meltdown.
Here Fisher is in good company. Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig, who has been a vocal critic of the current Fed policy of zero interest and high liquidity, has suggested that markets don’t function correctly under those circumstances. And David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, recently wrote a scathing article for MarketWatch, "Federal Reserve’s Path of Destruction," in which he criticizes current Fed policy even more pointedly. Stockman wrote: "This destruction is namely the exploitation of middle-class savers; the current severe food and energy squeeze on lower income households … and the next round of bursting bubbles building up among the risk asset classes."
Let’s not kid ourselves. Oil in today’s world is worth far more than the $25 a barrel it sold for over a decade ago. But the ability of markets to function properly, based on real supply and demand equations, has been destroyed by allowing ridiculous leverage and the unlimited ability to borrow the leverage at historically low interest rates.
Fortunately for our elected officials, they’ve got the public convinced that the biggest threat from government is taxation and deficits. In reality the public should be infuriated with the rising costs of nondiscretionary items such as food and gasoline, which current Fed policy actively enables. …"
The price of a barrel of oil is highly dependent on both its grade, determined by factors such as its specific gravity or API and its sulphur content, and its location. Other important benchmarks include Dubai, Tapis, and the OPEC basket. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses the imported refiner acquisition cost, the weighted average cost of all oil imported into the US, as its "world oil price".
The demand for oil is highly dependent on global macroeconomic conditions. According to the International Energy Agency, high oil prices generally have a large negative impact on the global economic growth.<sup>[1]</sup>
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed in 1960<sup>[2]</sup> to try and counter the oil companies cartel, which had been controlling posted prices since the so-called 1927 Red Line Agreement and 1928 Achnacarry Agreement, and had achieved a high level of price stability until 1972.
The price of oil underwent a significant decrease after the record peak of US$145 it reached in July 2008. On December 23, 2008, WTI crude oil spot price fell to US$30.28 a barrel, the lowest since the financial crisis of 2007–2010 began, and traded at between US$35 a barrel and US$82 a barrel in 2009.<sup>[3]</sup> On 31 January 2011, the Brent price hit $100 a barrel for the first time since October 2008, on concerns about the political unrest in Egypt.<sup>[4]</sup>
Price history before 2003
A low point was reached in January 1999 of 17 USD per barrel, after increased oil production from Iraq coincided with the Asian Financial Crisis, which reduced demand. Prices then increased rapidly, more than doubling by September 2000 to $35, then fell until the end of 2001 before steadily increasing, reaching $40–50 by September 2004.<sup>[5]</sup>
<h3>Price history from 2003 onwards</h3>
<div>Main article: 2003 to 2011 world oil market chronology</div>
<div>Further information: 2000s energy crisis</div>
<h4>Benchmark pricing</h4>
<div>Main article: Benchmark (crude oil)</div>
After the collapse of the OPEC-administered pricing system in 1985, and a short lived experiment with netback pricing, oil-exporting countries adopted a market-linked pricing mechanism.<sup>[6]</sup> First adopted by PEMEX in 1986, market-linked pricing received wide acceptance and by 1988 became and still is the main method for pricing crude oil in international trade.<sup>[6]</sup> The current reference, or pricing markers, are Brent, WTI, and Dubai/Oman.<sup>[6]</sup>
<h4> Market listings</h4>
<div>Main article: Commodities markets</div>
Oil is marketed among other products in commodities markets. See above for details. Widely traded oil futures, and related natural gas futures, include:<sup>[7]</sup>
<ul>
<li>Petroleum
<ul>
<li>Nymex Crude Future</li>
<li>Dated Brent Spot</li>
<li>WTI Cushing Spot</li>
<li>Nymex Heating Oil Future</li>
<li>Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Natural gas
<ul>
<li>Nymex Henry Hub Future</li>
<li>Henry Hub Spot</li>
<li>New York City Gate Spot</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Most of the above oil futures have delivery dates in all 12 months of the year.<sup>[8]</sup>
<h4>Speculation</h4>
The surge in oil prices in the past several years has led some commentators to argue that at least some of the rise is due to speculation in the futures markets.<sup>[9]</sup>
<h4> Future price changes</h4>
In 2009, Seismic Micro-Technology conducted a survey of geophysicists and geologists about the future of crude oil. Of the survey participants 80 percent predicted the price for a barrel of oil will rise to be somewhere between $50 and $100 per barrel by June 2010.<sup>[10]</sup> Another 50 percent saying it will rise even further to $100 to $150 a barrel in the next five years.<sup>[10]</sup>
Oil prices could go to $200- $300 a barrel if the world’s top crude exporter Saudi Arabia is hit by serious political unrest, according to former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani. Yamani has said that underlying discontent remained unresolved in Saudi Arabia. "If something happens in Saudi Arabia it will go to $200 to $300. I don’t expect this for the time being, but who would have expected Tunisia?" Yamani told Reuters on the sidelines of a conference of the Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES) which he chaired on April 5th 2011.<sup>[11]</sup>
<h4>CFTC investigation</h4>
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced "Multiple Energy Market Initiatives" on May 29, 2008. Part 1 is "Expanded International Surveillance Information for Crude Oil Trading." The CFTC announcement stated it has joined with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and ICE Futures Europe in order to expand surveillance and information sharing of various futures contracts.<sup>[12]</sup> This announcement has received wide coverage in the financial press, with speculation about oil futures price manipulation.<sup>[13]</sup><sup>[14]</sup><sup>[15]</sup>
The interim report by the Interagency Task Force, released in July, found that speculation had not caused significant changes in oil prices and that fundamental supply and demand factors provide the best explanation for the crude oil price increases. The report found that the primary reason for the price increases was that the world economy had expanded at its fastest pace in decades, resulting in substantial increases in the demand for oil, while the oil production grew sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls in oil-exporting countries.
The report stated that as a result of the imbalance and low price elasticity, very large price increases occurred as the market attempted to balance scarce supply against growing demand, particularly in the last three years. The report forecast that this imbalance would persist in the future, leading to continued upward pressure on oil prices, and that large or rapid movements in oil prices are likely to occur even in the absence of activity by speculators. The task force continues to analyze commodity markets and intends to issue further findings later in the year.
<h4>Future projections</h4>
<div>Main article: Oil depletion</div>
<div>Main article: Peak oil</div>
Peak oil is the period when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. It relates to a long term decline in the available supply of petroleum. This, combined with increasing demand, will significantly increase the worldwide prices of petroleum derived products. Most significant will be the availability and price of liquid fuel for transportation.
The US Department of Energy in the Hirsch report indicates that “The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide relatively little guidance.”<sup>[16] …"</sup>
"…One of the biggest misnomers in finance and economics today is that prices work according to supply and demand. This was true when America performed in actual capitalist system, but since we moved to both fascism and crony capitalism, where corporations, banks, and government all work together at the betterment of themselves and not society, prices are fixed due to other factors such as dollar devaluation.
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>U.S. drivers used 2.8 percent less motor gasoline last year and consumed the smallest amount since 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy said Wednesday. Officials credited the decrease to more fuel-efficient cars and an aging population taking few trips.</em></strong></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>Meanwhile, U.S. domestic oil production increased by more than 2 percent last year to 5.6 million barrels per day. – </em></strong><a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120209/BUSINESS/302090065/-1/TERMSOFSERVICE/Gas-consumption-lowest-since-1999"><strong><em>Des Moines Register</em></strong></a></div>
So… if consumption is way down, and production is actually up, should not gasoline prices be falling? They should, except if you take into consideration the amount of money printing and currency devaluation being done by the Federal Reserve over the past four years, the amount of inflation is being created by our own banking system, and not by a lack of products, or by higher demand.
In the end, Americans are being deceived by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. …"
"…Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the House <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/john-boehner/">John Boehner</a> are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social <a href="http://www.forbes.com/security/">Security</a> tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs.
Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more.
What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.
As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.
In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.
During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.
At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon.
At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices. …"
<strong>Why Gas Prices Are Actually Falling </strong>
<div><strong>By Gary Gibson</strong></div>
"…It’s not gold and silver prices that are volatile. Those have been incredibly consistent for thousands of years in terms of commodities they could buy. And because of the increasing standard of living being raised by free market economies, in a very real sense these eternal monies actually buy more. It’s the dollar that has been erratic in its overall declining trend ever since it’s been cut loose from gold (and silver).
Again, people looking at the cost of a gallon of gas, or of milk, or the cost of a nice suit, or rent from behind their piles of gold and silver are finding very little to worry about. In fact, to them, prices are lower than normal and declining.
Also the price of oil has tended to track the price of silver awfully closely for about as long as oil has been industrially useful. And so it’s no mistake that you can still get a gallon of gas for about about $0.20…as long as that $0.20 is composed of a pre-1964 90% silver dimes. …"
"…You see, the pre-1965 quarter is worth $6.38 as I type this. The pre-1965 dime is worth $2.55. These coins hail from a time when the dollar was still tied to gold (at the official price of $35 per ounce prior to Nixon nixing the gold standard). The dollar was still as good as gold — even though Americans themselves were forbidden to own gold bullion from 1933 till 1974 — and there was actual silver in the coinage until that content was reduced in 1964 and eliminated in 1965.
Those old silver coins shine the harsh light on the strength of the currency and the abuse that currency suffers from the feds and the Federal Reserve.
If you’d been saving in gold, then from your point of view gas prices have been coming down for the past few years. If you’d been saving in that old “junk” silver (pre-1965 quarters, dimes and half dollars), then gas prices are a downright bargain, too. …"
<a href="http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/">http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/</a>
<h4><strong>Consequences to Expect if the U.S. Invades Iran </strong></h4>
<h4><strong>By Whiskey Contributor<small>Feb 22nd, 2012</small></strong></h4>
<h4><strong>Exploding Oil Prices</strong></h4>
The U.S. has had a ban on Iranian oil imports since 1979, however, Iran still supplies about 5% of the global oil market. This might not seem like much, but Iran also has the means and ability to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is one of two major petroleum choke points in the world. Around 17 million barrels of oil per day are shipped through the Straight of Hormuz, or about 20% of all oil traded worldwide.
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.ezimages.net/WHISKEY/022212_pic2.png" alt="" width="363" height="208" /></p>
"…In 2006, during the last major Iran war scare, experts predicted gasoline price increases in excess of <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/07/news/international/iran_oil/" target="_blank">$10 a gallon if Iran was invaded.</a>
This would devastate the U.S. economy, which is already hanging by a thin thread. Iran has announced this past weekend it will cease all oil shipments to Britain and France in protest of their support of economic sanctions. This alone is causing oil to spike today. A global energy crisis will financially decimate average citizens who will have their savings sapped by extreme price inflation, not just in gasoline, but in all goods that require the use of gasoline in their production and shipping. If you like this idea, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.
<strong>War Domino Effect</strong>
In January of 2010, I wrote an article for Neithercorp Press entitled <a href="http://www.alt-market.com/neithercorp/press/2010/01/will-globalists-trigger-yet-another-world-war/" target="_blank">“Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War</a>“. In that article, I warned about the dangers of an invasion of Iran or Syria being used to foment a global conflict, in order to create a crisis large enough to distract the masses away from the international banker created economic collapse.
In 2006, Iran signed a mutual defense pact with its neighbor, Syria, which is also in the middle of its own turmoil and possible NATO intervention. Syria has strong ties to Russia, and even has a revamped Russian naval base off its coast, a fact rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Both Russia and China have made their opposition clear in the case of any Western intervention in Iran or Syria. An invasion by the U.S. or Israel in these regions could quickly intensify into wider war between major world powers. If you like the idea of a world war which could eventually put you and your family in direct danger, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.
<strong>Dollar Collapse</strong>
Make no mistake, the U.S. dollar is already on the verge of collapse, along with the U.S. economy. Bilateral trade agreements between BRIC and ASEAN nations are sprouting up everywhere the past couple months, and these agreements are specifically designed to end the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. An invasion of Iran will only expedite this process. If global anger over the resulting chaos in oil prices doesn’t set off a dump of the dollar, the eventual debt obligation incurred through the overt costs of war will. Ron Paul has always been right; it doesn’t matter whether you think invasion is a good idea or not. We simply CANNOT afford it. America is bankrupt. Our only source of income is our ability to print money from thin air. Each dollar created to fund new wars brings our currency ever closer to its demise. …"
<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">What is a Future?</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Investopedia Video: How Do Futures Contracts Work?</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<div><strong> Security Futures—Know Your Risks, or Risk Your Future</strong></div>
<div>
<strong>"…Margin & Leverage</strong>
When a brokerage firm lends you part of the funds needed to purchase a security, such as common stock, the term "margin" refers to the amount of cash, or down payment, the customer is required to deposit. By contrast, a security futures contract is an obligation not an asset and has no value as collateral for a loan. When you enter into a security futures contract, you are required to make a payment referred to as a "margin payment" or "performance bond" to cover potential losses.
For a relatively small amount of money (the margin requirement), a futures contract worth several times as much can be bought or sold. The smaller the margin requirement in relation to the underlying value of the futures contract, the greater the leverage. Because of this leverage, small changes in price can result in large gains and losses in a short period of time.
<strong>Example:</strong> Assuming a security futures contract is for 100 shares of stock, if a security futures contract is established at a contract price of $50, the contract has a nominal value of $5,000 (see definition below). The margin requirement may be as low as 20 percent, which would require a margin deposit of $1,000. Assume the contract price rises from $50 to $52 (a $200 increase in the nominal value). This represents a $200 profit to the buyer of the futures contract, and a 20 percent return on the $1,000 deposited as margin.
The reverse would be true if the contract price decreased from $50 to $48. This represents a $200 loss to the buyer, or 20 percent of the $1,000 deposited as margin. Thus, leverage can either benefit or harm an investor.
Note that a 4 percent decrease in the value of the contract resulted in a loss of 20 percent of the margin deposited. A 20 percent decrease in the contract price ($50 to $40) would mean a drop in the nominal value of the contract from $5,000 to $4,000, thereby wiping out 100 percent of the margin deposited on the security futures contract. …"
Futures margin requirements are set by the exchanges and are typically only 2 to 10 percent of the full value of the futures contract.
Margins are financial guarantees required of both buyers and sellers of futures contracts to ensure that they fulfill their futures contract obligations.
<h4>Initial Margin</h4>
Before a futures position can be opened, there must be enough available balance in the futures trader’s margin account to meet the initial margin requirement. Upon opening the futures position, an amount equal to the initial margin requirement will be deducted from the trader’s margin account and transferred to the exchange’s clearing firm. This money is held by the exchange clearinghouse as long as the futures position remains open.
<h4>Maintenance Margin</h4>
The maintenance margin is the minimum amount a futures trader is required to maintain in his margin account in order to hold a futures position. The maintenance margin level is usually slightly below the initial margin.
If the balance in the futures trader’s margin account falls below the maintenance margin level, he or she will receive a margin call to top up his margin account so as to meet the initial margin requirement.
<h4>Example</h4>
Let’s assume we have a speculator who has $10000 in his trading account. He decides to buy August Crude Oil at $40 per barrel. Each Crude Oil futures contract represents 1000 barrels and requires an initial margin of $9000 and has a maintenance margin level set at $6500.
Since his account is $10000, which is more than the initial margin requirement, he can therefore open up one August Crude Oil futures position.
One day later, the price of August Crude Oil drops to $38 a barrel. Our speculator has suffered an open position loss of $2000 ($2 x 1000 barrels) and thus his account balance drops to $8000.
Although his balance is now lower than the initial margin requirement, he did not get the margin call as it is still above the maintenance level of $6500.
Unfortunately, on the very next day, the price of August Crude Oil crashed further to $35, leading to an additional $3000 loss on his open Crude Oil position. With only $5000 left in his trading account, which is below the maintenance level of $6500, he received a call from his broker asking him to top up his trading account back to the initial level of $9000 in order to maintain his open Crude Oil position.
This means that if the speculator wishes to stay in the position, he will need to deposit an additional $4000 into his trading account.
. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered. …”
“…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called derivatives. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.
By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, “[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact”
. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.
Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone
.
As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40
. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …”
“…For just current CPI data, see CPI page. The following table provides all the Consumer Price Index data CPI-U from 1913 to the Present.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is based upon a 1982 Base of 100. A Consumer Price Index of 158 indicates 58% inflation since 1982. The commonly quoted inflation rate of say 3% is actually the change in the Consumer Price Index from a year earlier. By looking at the change in the Consumer Price Index we can see that what cost an average of 9.9 cents in 1913 would cost us about $1.82 in 2003 and $2.02 in 2007.
To find Prior Consumer Price Index (CPI) data on this table (back through 1913) click on the date range links below the table.
Note Effective January 2007 the BLS began publishing the CPI index to three decimal places (prior to that it was only one decimal place). But InflationData.com is still the only place to get the Inflation Rate calculated to two decimal places.
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2012
226.665
2011
220.223
221.309
223.467
224.906
225.964
225.722
225.922
226.545
226.889
226.421
226.230
225.672
224.939
2010
216.687
216.741
217.631
218.009
218.178
217.965
218.011
218.312
218.439
218.711
218.803
219.179
218.056
2009
211.143
212.193
212.709
213.240
213.856
215.693
215.351
215.834
215.969
216.177
216.330
215.949
214.537
2008
211.080
211.693
213.528
214.823
216.632
218.815
219.964
219.086
218.783
216.573
212.425
210.228
215.303
2007
202.416
203.499
205.352
206.686
207.949
208.352
208.299
207.917
208.490
208.936
210.177
210.036
207.342
2006
198.300
198.700
199.800
201.500
202.500
202.900
203.500
203.900
202.900
201.800
201.500
201.800
201.600
2005
190.700
191.800
193.300
194.600
194.400
194.500
195.400
196.400
198.800
199.200
197.600
196.800
195.300
2004
185.200
186.200
187.400
188.000
189.100
189.700
189.400
189.500
189.900
190.900
191.000
190.300
188.900
2003
181.700
183.100
184.200
183.800
183.500
183.700
183.900
184.600
185.200
185.000
184.500
184.300
183.960
2002
177.100
177.800
178.800
179.800
179.800
179.900
180.100
180.700
181.000
181.300
181.300
180.900
179.880
2001
175.100
175.800
176.200
176.900
177.700
178.000
177.500
177.500
178.300
177.700
177.400
176.700
177.100
2000
168.800
169.800
171.200
171.300
171.500
172.400
172.800
172.800
173.700
174.000
174.100
174.000
172.200
1999
164.300
164.500
165.000
166.200
166.200
166.200
166.700
167.100
167.900
168.200
168.300
168.300
166.600
1998
161.600
161.900
162.200
162.500
162.800
163.000
163.200
163.400
163.600
164.000
164.000
163.900
163.000
1997
159.100
159.600
160.000
160.200
160.100
160.300
160.500
160.800
161.200
161.600
161.500
161.300
160.500
1996
154.400
154.900
155.700
156.300
156.600
156.700
157.000
157.300
157.800
158.300
158.600
158.600
156.900
1995
150.300
150.900
151.400
151.900
152.200
152.500
152.500
152.900
153.200
153.700
153.600
153.500
152.400
1994
146.200
146.700
147.200
147.400
147.500
148.000
148.400
149.000
149.400
149.500
149.700
149.700
148.200
1993
142.600
143.100
143.600
144.000
144.200
144.400
144.400
144.800
145.100
145.700
145.800
145.800
144.500
1992
138.100
138.600
139.300
139.500
139.700
140.200
140.500
140.900
141.300
141.800
142.000
141.900
140.300
1991
134.600
134.800
135.000
135.200
135.600
136.000
136.200
136.600
137.200
137.400
137.800
137.900
136.200
1990
127.400
128.000
128.700
128.900
129.200
129.900
130.400
131.600
132.700
133.500
133.800
133.800
130.700
1989
121.100
121.600
122.300
123.100
123.800
124.100
124.400
124.600
125.000
125.600
125.900
126.100
124.000
1988
115.700
116.000
116.500
117.100
117.500
118.000
118.500
119.000
119.800
120.200
120.300
120.500
118.300
1987
111.200
111.600
112.100
112.700
113.100
113.500
113.800
114.400
115.000
115.300
115.400
115.400
113.600
1986
109.600
109.300
108.800
108.600
108.900
109.500
109.500
109.700
110.200
110.300
110.400
110.500
109.600
1985
105.500
106.000
106.400
106.900
107.300
107.600
107.800
108.000
108.300
108.700
109.000
109.300
107.600
1984
101.900
102.400
102.600
103.100
103.400
103.700
104.100
104.500
105.000
105.300
105.300
105.300
103.900
1983
97.800
97.900
97.900
98.600
99.200
99.500
99.900
100.200
100.700
101.000
101.200
101.300
99.600
1982
94.300
94.600
94.500
94.900
95.800
97.000
97.500
97.700
97.900
98.200
98.000
97.600
96.500
1981
87.000
87.900
88.500
89.100
89.800
90.600
91.600
92.300
93.200
93.400
93.700
94.000
90.900
1980
77.800
78.900
80.100
81.000
81.800
82.700
82.700
83.300
84.000
84.800
85.500
86.300
82.400
1979
68.300
69.100
69.800
70.600
71.500
72.300
73.100
73.800
74.600
75.200
75.900
76.700
72.600
1978
62.500
62.900
63.400
63.900
64.500
65.200
65.700
66.000
66.500
67.100
67.400
67.700
65.200
1977
58.500
59.100
59.500
60.000
60.300
60.700
61.000
61.200
61.400
61.600
61.900
62.100
60.600
1976
55.600
55.800
55.900
56.100
56.500
56.800
57.100
57.400
57.600
57.900
58.000
58.200
56.900
1975
52.100
52.500
52.700
52.900
53.200
53.600
54.200
54.300
54.600
54.900
55.300
55.500
53.800
1974
46.600
47.200
47.800
48.000
48.600
49.000
49.400
50.000
50.600
51.100
51.500
51.900
49.300
1973
42.600
42.900
43.300
43.600
43.900
44.200
44.300
45.100
45.200
45.600
45.900
46.200
44.400
1972
41.100
41.300
41.400
41.500
41.600
41.700
41.900
42.000
42.100
42.300
42.400
42.500
41.800
1971
39.800
39.900
40.000
40.100
40.300
40.600
40.700
40.800
40.800
40.900
40.900
41.100
40.500
1970
37.800
38.000
38.200
38.500
38.600
38.800
39.000
39.000
39.200
39.400
39.600
39.800
38.800
1969
35.600
35.800
36.100
36.300
36.400
36.600
36.800
37.000
37.100
37.300
37.500
37.700
36.700
1968
34.100
34.200
34.300
34.400
34.500
34.700
34.900
35.000
35.100
35.300
35.400
35.500
34.800
1967
32.900
32.900
33.000
33.100
33.200
33.300
33.400
33.500
33.600
33.700
33.800
33.900
33.400
1966
31.800
32.000
32.100
32.300
32.300
32.400
32.500
32.700
32.700
32.900
32.900
32.900
32.400
1965
31.200
31.200
31.300
31.400
31.400
31.600
31.600
31.600
31.600
31.700
31.700
31.800
31.500
1964
30.900
30.900
30.900
30.900
30.900
31.000
31.100
31.000
31.100
31.100
31.200
31.200
31.000
1963
30.400
30.400
30.500
30.500
30.500
30.600
30.700
30.700
30.700
30.800
30.800
30.900
30.600
1962
30.000
30.100
30.100
30.200
30.200
30.200
30.300
30.300
30.400
30.400
30.400
30.400
30.200
1961
29.800
29.800
29.800
29.800
29.800
29.800
30.000
29.900
30.000
30.000
30.000
30.000
29.900
1960
29.300
29.400
29.400
29.500
29.500
29.600
29.600
29.600
29.600
29.800
29.800
29.800
29.600
1959
29.000
28.900
28.900
29.000
29.000
29.100
29.200
29.200
29.300
29.400
29.400
29.400
29.100
1958
28.600
28.600
28.800
28.900
28.900
28.900
29.000
28.900
28.900
28.900
29.000
28.900
28.900
1957
27.600
27.700
27.800
27.900
28.000
28.100
28.300
28.300
28.300
28.300
28.400
28.400
28.100
1956
26.800
26.800
26.800
26.900
27.000
27.200
27.400
27.300
27.400
27.500
27.500
27.600
27.200
1955
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.800
26.800
26.900
26.900
26.900
26.800
26.800
1954
26.900
26.900
26.900
26.800
26.900
26.900
26.900
26.900
26.800
26.800
26.800
26.700
26.900
1953
26.600
26.500
26.600
26.600
26.700
26.800
26.800
26.900
26.900
27.000
26.900
26.900
26.700
1952
26.500
26.300
26.300
26.400
26.400
26.500
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.500
1951
25.400
25.700
25.800
25.800
25.900
25.900
25.900
25.900
26.100
26.200
26.400
26.500
26.000
1950
23.500
23.500
23.600
23.600
23.700
23.800
24.100
24.300
24.400
24.600
24.700
25.000
24.100
1949
24.000
23.800
23.800
23.900
23.800
23.900
23.700
23.800
23.900
23.700
23.800
23.600
23.800
1948
23.700
23.500
23.400
23.800
23.900
24.100
24.400
24.500
24.500
24.400
24.200
24.100
24.100
1947
21.500
21.500
21.900
21.900
21.900
22.000
22.200
22.500
23.000
23.000
23.100
23.400
22.300
1946
18.200
18.100
18.300
18.400
18.500
18.700
19.800
20.200
20.400
20.800
21.300
21.500
19.500
1945
17.800
17.800
17.800
17.800
17.900
18.100
18.100
18.100
18.100
18.100
18.100
18.200
18.000
1944
17.400
17.400
17.400
17.500
17.500
17.600
17.700
17.700
17.700
17.700
17.700
17.800
17.600
1943
16.900
16.900
17.200
17.400
17.500
17.500
17.400
17.300
17.400
17.400
17.400
17.400
17.300
1942
15.700
15.800
16.000
16.100
16.300
16.300
16.400
16.500
16.500
16.700
16.800
16.900
16.300
1941
14.100
14.100
14.200
14.300
14.400
14.700
14.700
14.900
15.100
15.300
15.400
15.500
14.700
1940
13.900
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.100
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.100
14.000
1939
14.000
13.900
13.900
13.800
13.800
13.800
13.800
13.800
14.100
14.000
14.000
14.000
13.900
1938
14.200
14.100
14.100
14.200
14.100
14.100
14.100
14.100
14.100
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.100
1937
14.100
14.100
14.200
14.300
14.400
14.400
14.500
14.500
14.600
14.600
14.500
14.400
14.400
1936
13.800
13.800
13.700
13.700
13.700
13.800
13.900
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.000
14.000
13.900
1935
13.600
13.700
13.700
13.800
13.800
13.700
13.700
13.700
13.700
13.700
13.800
13.800
13.700
1934
13.200
13.300
13.300
13.300
13.300
13.400
13.400
13.400
13.600
13.500
13.500
13.400
13.400
1933
12.900
12.700
12.600
12.600
12.600
12.700
13.100
13.200
13.200
13.200
13.200
13.200
13.000
1932
14.300
14.100
14.000
13.900
13.700
13.600
13.600
13.500
13.400
13.300
13.200
13.100
13.700
1931
15.900
15.700
15.600
15.500
15.300
15.100
15.100
15.100
15.000
14.900
14.700
14.600
15.200
1930
17.100
17.000
16.900
17.000
16.900
16.800
16.600
16.500
16.600
16.500
16.400
16.100
16.700
1929
17.100
17.100
17.000
16.900
17.000
17.100
17.300
17.300
17.300
17.300
17.300
17.200
17.100
1928
17.300
17.100
17.100
17.100
17.200
17.100
17.100
17.100
17.300
17.200
17.200
17.100
17.100
1927
17.500
17.400
17.300
17.300
17.400
17.600
17.300
17.200
17.300
17.400
17.300
17.300
17.400
1926
17.900
17.900
17.800
17.900
17.800
17.700
17.500
17.400
17.500
17.600
17.700
17.700
17.700
1925
17.300
17.200
17.300
17.200
17.300
17.500
17.700
17.700
17.700
17.700
18.000
17.900
17.500
1924
17.300
17.200
17.100
17.000
17.000
17.000
17.100
17.000
17.100
17.200
17.200
17.300
17.100
1923
16.800
16.800
16.800
16.900
16.900
17.000
17.200
17.100
17.200
17.300
17.300
17.300
17.100
1922
16.900
16.900
16.700
16.700
16.700
16.700
16.800
16.600
16.600
16.700
16.800
16.900
16.800
1921
19.000
18.400
18.300
18.100
17.700
17.600
17.700
17.700
17.500
17.500
17.400
17.300
17.900
1920
19.300
19.500
19.700
20.300
20.600
20.900
20.800
20.300
20.000
19.900
19.800
19.400
20.000
1919
16.500
16.200
16.400
16.700
16.900
16.900
17.400
17.700
17.800
18.100
18.500
18.900
17.300
1918
14.000
14.100
14.000
14.200
14.500
14.700
15.100
15.400
15.700
16.000
16.300
16.500
15.100
1917
11.700
12.000
12.000
12.600
12.800
13.000
12.800
13.000
13.300
13.500
13.500
13.700
12.800
1916
10.400
10.400
10.500
10.600
10.700
10.800
10.800
10.900
11.100
11.300
11.500
11.600
10.900
1915
10.100
10.000
9.900
10.000
10.100
10.100
10.100
10.100
10.100
10.200
10.300
10.300
10.100
1914
10.000
9.900
9.900
9.800
9.900
9.900
10.000
10.200
10.200
10.100
10.200
10.100
10.000
1913
9.800
9.800
9.800
9.800
9.700
9.800
9.900
9.900
10.000
10.000
10.100
10.000
9.900
To calculate inflation from a month and year to a later month and year, try our Inflation calculator
“…Texas Congressman Ron Paul is running within
2 points of Barack Obama in this week’s Gallup poll. In a Rasmussen survey,
he trails by 1 point. He’s rising against his primary rivals and raking in money, netting
$1.8 million in a trademark “money bomb” last weekend to mark his 76th birthday.
And yet, as I write in a story for the Sept. 5 issue of TIME (available to subscribers on tablets and the Web), his
candidacy isn’t earning plaudits from the pundit class, whose virtual coverage
blackout of Paul’s second-place finish in the straw poll in Ames, Iowa, prompted
Jon Stewart to wonder why the media was treating Paul’s campaign like “the 13th
floor of a hotel.”
On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Paul harvests these slights as fuel
for his revolution. “The media coverage on Sunday morning was less than perfect
for us,” he told the crowd last week at the opening of his campaign headquarters
in Concord, griping about how he was stonewalled from speaking slots on morning
news shows after the straw poll. “But you know what? In this day and age, they
just aren’t as relevant as they think they are.” The Rodney Dangerfield routine
is a crowd pleaser; the media makes a reliable target. And in some ways, he has
a valid complaint.
TIME Magazine Pens Five Page Spread To Convince America Ron Paul Can’t Win
Writer states “Paul isn’t really running for President, at least not entirely.”
Steve Watson
“…So Paul’s ideas do not resonate? One commenter puts Altman’s claims into perspective:
Ron Paul can’t win because he appeals to traditional conservatives who believe in small government, to leftists who believe in personal liberty, to ‘blue’ democrats who believe Obama has betrayed the party, to independents who voted for Obama but are disgusted with the Hopey-Changy that never happened, by gays who don’t want government dictating marriage rules, by straights who don’t want to be forced to live by a ‘gay agenda’. Gee…left, right, young, old, conservative, liberal, gay, straight…with all that support, he doesn’t have a chance!
Altman then takes a leap into Orwellian territory by suggesting that “Paul isn’t really running for President, at least not entirely.”
Last time I checked, Paul was placed third in Gallup’s national presidential preference poll, and is running at an almost dead heat with Obama in the popularity stakes.
It has been an average week as far as Ron Paul appearances on the news networks are concerned. He’s been on CNN a couple of times, Fox News a couple of times and appeared on CNBC also. There have also been more print media stories this week, primarily, and rather paradoxically, reporting the fact that the media is not covering Ron Paul.
So the fact is that Ron Paul is no longer being completely ignored by the media. However, as Time has made it all too obvious, he is still being marginalized and ridiculed.
When the time is right for them, the media will simply ignore Paul again – this is the stark reality that the Congressman’s campaign and his followers have to deal with and overcome. …”
Ron Paul Mentioned on Fox: 2nd In GOP Fundraising behind Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol “Impressive”
ONLY REPUBLICAN I WOULD EVER ENDORSE **RON PAUL**
Ron Paul on WHO w/ Jan Mickelson: Iowa Part 1 of 3
Ron Paul on WHO w/ Jan Mickelson: Iowa Part 2 of 3
Ron Paul on WHO w/ Jan Mickelson: Iowa Part 3 of 3
Romney leads race to raise campaign funds
By Richard McGregor in Washington
“…Next year’s US presidential election is expected to be the most expensive yet by a wide margin, with Mr Obama aiming to raise more than $1bn alone, a figure his Republican opponent will have to come close to matching.
Mr Romney will report raising $15m-$20m when the figures are released as required by law later this month, a spokeswoman said, on top of about $10m pulled in for him by an associated independent group.
By contrast, the campaigns of his Republican rivals – Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman – have raised about $4.2m, $4.5m and $4.1m respectively in the quarter ending June 30, their campaigns said.
The figure for Mr Huntsman includes some personal funds. …”
Energy Problems are Obama Delivering on Campaign Promise
EPA Blocks Oil Drilling in Alaska – 4/25/2011
Obama New Task Force Will Examine Gas Prices
Bernard Whitman on Fox News Applauds Obama’s Decision to Investigate Oil Price Gouging, 4.22.11
Playing the oil prices money game
Courtney calls on CFTC to issue rules limiting the role of oil speculators
Michael Greenberger Talks Speculation In Commodity Markets
Mike Masters on Regulating Commodities Speculation
Glenn Beck: The Federal Reserve Is Looting America… Oil Isn’t Rising, The Dollar Is Dropping
END FED Inflation Created By Gov Buying Bonds; QE2 ‘Wealth Effect’; Companies Game System; QE3
Peter Schiff on CNBC Fast Money 4/25/11: Unstoppable Silver
Peter Schiff On Silver and Inflation Lock In Your Food At Today’s Price Try It For Free Below!
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation: “69 percent of Americans favor increased offshore drilling”
WASHINGTON – Earlier today, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was released, further underscoring the fact that an overwhelmingly clear majority of Americans support the responsible development of homegrown oil and natural gas offshore. According to the poll, “69 percent of Americans favor increased offshore drilling.” According to CNN’s polling director, Keating Holland, “Although support for increased drilling in U.S. waters is highest among Republicans, a majority of Democrats also favor it.”
Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), issued this statement regarding these findings:
“America’s independent oil and natural gas producers play a leading role in responsibly producing the homegrown energy resources critical to meet the nation’s growing demands. In fact, according to a recent report, independents drill 95 percent of America’s onshore and offshore wells. Equally clear, as confirmed by this new survey, is the American people’s support for the responsible development of job-creating offshore energy exploration and production.
“Our economy is struggling, and many remain out of work along the Gulf Coast as a result of misguided Washington policies that continue to discourage access to reliable oil and natural gas supplies offshore. And with gas prices on the rise, hampering our economic recovering and stretching family budgets to the brink, the Obama Administration and leaders in Congress must act boldly and swiftly to streamline access to taxpayer-owned oil and natural gas resources offshore. Shirking this critical responsibly will only further weaken our nation’s energy security. The American people have spoken clearly. Inaction is not an option.”
“The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency.”
~Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“Inflation is running at rates that are too low.”
~Ben Bernanke, Chairman of The Federal Reserve System
“The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments.”
“The gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion, policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners, had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard.”
~Ludwig von Mises
Pulp Fiction – You’re The Weak – Extended Version
Jules: Well there’s this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.” I been sayin’ that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. I saw some shit this mornin’ made me think twice. See now I’m thinkin’, maybe it means you’re the evil man. And I’m the righteous man. And Mr. 9 Milimeter here, he’s the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and selfish. Now I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be a shepherd.
Pulp Fiction written by Quentin Tarantino & Roger Avary
The Dollar is now collapsing – Peter Schiff | Part 1
The Dollar is now collapsing – Peter Schiff | Part 2
The Dollar is now collapsing – Peter Schiff | Part 3
Peter Schiff: Deflation vs. Inflation Argument on FSN
Inflation or Deflation?
Irwin Stelzer on Inflation vs Deflation
Inflation or Deflation?
What is Inflation or Deflation?
Deflation Dangers
Highlights of Marc Faber and Deflation
NBR | Japan Deflation | PBS
NBR | Food Prices Could Signal Deflation Ahead | PBS
Inflation Deflation Debate Rages On: 2010 Economic Collapse
Hyperinflation Nation Part 1/3
Hyperinflation Nation Part 2/3
Hyperinflation Nation Part 3/3
The Boom & Bust Years P1
The Boom & Bust Years P2
The Boom & Bust Years P3
The Boom & Bust Years P4
The Boom & Bust Years P5
The Boom & Bust Years P6
Fall of the Republic HQ full length version
Fall Of The Republic 1/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 2/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 3/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 4/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 5/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 6/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 7/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 8/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 9/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 10/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 11/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 12/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 13/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Fall Of The Republic 14/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama
Bailout
“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.”
“There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way.”
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 1)
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 2)
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 3)
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 4)
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 5)
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 6)
Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Part 7)
Richard W. Fisher Speech: Historical Perspectives on the Current Financial Crisis (Part 1)
(Part 2) Richard W. Fisher Speech: Historical Perspectives on the Current Financial Crisis
(Part 3) Richard W. Fisher Speech: Historical Perspectives on the Current Financial Crisis
Peter Schiff
“…Peter David Schiff (pronounced /ˈʃɪf/; born March 23, 1963) is an American businessman, author, financial commentator, and a former 2010 Republican primary candidate for the United States Senate.[12]
Schiff is president and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a broker-dealer based in Westport, Connecticut.[1] Schiff frequently appears as a guest on CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg Television and is often quoted in major financial publications[13] and is a frequent guest on internet radio[14][15][16] as well as the former host of the podcast Wall Street Unspun[17] and the current host of the The Peter Schiff Show.
He is known for his bearish views on the dollar and dollar denominated assets, while bullish on investment in tangible assets, as well as foreign stocks and currencies.
Financial career
Schiff began his career as a financial consultant at a Shearson Lehman Brothers brokerage.[1] In 1996 Schiff and a partner acquired a small brokerage firm that had been founded in 1980, reincorporated it in California and renamed it Euro Pacific Capital.[18] The company today has more than 15,000 clients[citation needed] and six offices nationwide, with its headquarters in Westport, Connecticut.[19][19][20]
According to a 2005 article in The Advocate of Stamford, Connecticut Schiff relocated the firm to Darien, Connecticut to find brokers “who think like him”. The New York Metropolitan Area, Schiff says, has the biggest concentration of brokers in the country, making it easier to recruit employees.[21] The company has offices in Newport Beach, California as well as in Scottsdale, Arizona, Palm Beach, Florida, Los Angeles and New York. Euro Pacific Capital also holds the exclusive rights to broker some Perth Mint gold products in the United States.[22]
Economic forecasting
Schiff attributes his economic forecasts to an understanding of the Austrian School,[23] a school of economic thought generally categorized as heterodox (or non-mainstream).[23][24][25] Schiff voices strong support for the Austrian School, and says it was first introduced to him by his father, Irwin Schiff.[26] Schiff admits his economic views are not mainstream, and like the Austrian School, he makes judgments without a strict adherence to economic statistics.[citation needed]
U.S. bear market
In his 2007 book, Crash Proof, Schiff writes that the current United States economic policies are fundamentally unsound, and predicts that in the future the United States dollar will lose much of its value.[3]
Schiff feels that the imbalance between the amount of goods the U.S. consumes and what it produces will eventually lead to problems for the U.S. economy.[27][28] As a remedy Schiff favors increased personal savings and production which he says will stimulate economic growth.[29] Schiff cites the U.S.’s low personal savings rate as one of the causes of the its transformation from the world’s largest creditor nation in the 1970s to the largest debtor nation in the year 2000.[30] Schiff attributes the low savings rate to higher inflation and the artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve.[31]
In a 2002 interview with Southland Today, Schiff predicted that the economic downturn triggered by the bursting of the stock market bubble would lead to a bear market likely to last “another 5 to 10 years.”[32][33] In November 2002, US stocks began a bull market uptrend which held steady for at least five years,[34] until reversing course in 2008, when the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 began a decline to less than half of their peak 2008 values,[35] followed in 2009 by the Dow climbing 61% from its low point over the following year.[36] After interviewing Schiff in 2009, journalist and finance author Eric Tyson, referenced various Schiff predictions during the 2000s and stated that “On all of these counts, Schiff wasn’t just wrong but ended up being hugely wrong.”[37] Schiff later released a video stating that, “When I gave that interview in 2002, I had no way of knowing how irresponsible the Fed was going to be … But I recognized that early: back in 2003 and 2004 I changed my forecast … if you look at what happened to the Dow in terms of gold [and not U.S. dollars], my forecast was extremely accurate.”[32]
In an August 2006 interview he said: “The United States economy is like the Titanic and I am here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship… I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States.”[38] On December 31, 2006 in debate on Fox News, Schiff forecast that “what’s going to happen in 2007″ is that “real estate prices are going to come crashing back down to Earth”.[38]
As part of these exchanges on Fox News and his repeated appearances on financial news network CNBC, Schiff had mentioned factors such as speculators and “the absence of lending standards” which are now seen by many[39][40] to indeed be contributing factors to the housing crisis of 2007-2009. On December 13, 2007 in a Bloomberg interview on the show Open Exchange, Schiff further added that he felt that the crisis would extend to the credit card lending industry.[41] Following this observation, it was soon reported on December 23, 2007 by the Associated Press that “The value of credit card accounts at least 30 days late jumped 26 percent to $17.3 billion in October from a year earlier at 17 large credit card trusts examined by the AP… At the same time, defaults — when lenders essentially give up hope of ever being repaid and write off the debt — rose 18 percent to almost $961 million in October, according to filings made by the trusts with the Securities and Exchange Commission.”[42]
Since 2007, Schiff has stated many times that if the government doesn’t change course there will be hyperinflation in the US.[3] Schiff is one of a minority of economists credited with accurately predicting the financial crisis of 2007–2010 while “nearly all [macroeconomists] failed to foresee the recession despite plenty of warning signs”.[43][44] In his book Crash Proof, he described several aspects of the U.S. economy that would lead to a recession.[3] …”
Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C.
November 21, 2002Deflation: Making Sure “It” Doesn’t Happen Here
“…Deflation: Its Causes and Effects
Deflation is defined as a general decline in prices, with emphasis on the word “general.” At any given time, especially in a low-inflation economy like that of our recent experience, prices of some goods and services will be falling. Price declines in a specific sector may occur because productivity is rising and costs are falling more quickly in that sector than elsewhere or because the demand for the output of that sector is weak relative to the demand for other goods and services. Sector-specific price declines, uncomfortable as they may be for producers in that sector, are generally not a problem for the economy as a whole and do not constitute deflation. Deflation per se occurs only when price declines are so widespread that broad-based indexes of prices, such as the consumer price index, register ongoing declines.
The sources of deflation are not a mystery. Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand–a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers.1 Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending–namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.
However, a deflationary recession may differ in one respect from “normal” recessions in which the inflation rate is at least modestly positive: Deflation of sufficient magnitude may result in the nominal interest rate declining to zero or very close to zero.2 Once the nominal interest rate is at zero, no further downward adjustment in the rate can occur, since lenders generally will not accept a negative nominal interest rate when it is possible instead to hold cash. At this point, the nominal interest rate is said to have hit the “zero bound.”
Deflation great enough to bring the nominal interest rate close to zero poses special problems for the economy and for policy. First, when the nominal interest rate has been reduced to zero, the real interest rate paid by borrowers equals the expected rate of deflation, however large that may be.3 To take what might seem like an extreme example (though in fact it occurred in the United States in the early 1930s), suppose that deflation is proceeding at a clip of 10 percent per year. Then someone who borrows for a year at a nominal interest rate of zero actually faces a 10 percent real cost of funds, as the loan must be repaid in dollars whose purchasing power is 10 percent greater than that of the dollars borrowed originally. In a period of sufficiently severe deflation, the real cost of borrowing becomes prohibitive. Capital investment, purchases of new homes, and other types of spending decline accordingly, worsening the economic downturn. …”
“….Conclusion
Sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy and should be strongly resisted. Fortunately, for the foreseeable future, the chances of a serious deflation in the United States appear remote indeed, in large part because of our economy’s underlying strengths but also because of the determination of the Federal Reserve and other U.S. policymakers to act preemptively against deflationary pressures. Moreover, as I have discussed today, a variety of policy responses are available should deflation appear to be taking hold. Because some of these alternative policy tools are relatively less familiar, they may raise practical problems of implementation and of calibration of their likely economic effects. For this reason, as I have emphasized, prevention of deflation is preferable to cure. Nevertheless, I hope to have persuaded you that the Federal Reserve and other economic policymakers would be far from helpless in the face of deflation, even should the federal funds rate hit its zero bound.19
“…Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American talk radio host, actor and filmmaker. His syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show, based in Austin, Texas, airs via the Genesis Communication Network over sixty AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States and on the Internet.[1] His websites include Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.[2]
Mainstream news sources have referred to him as right-wing,[3][4][5] conservative,[6][7][8][9] and a conspiracy theorist.[10][11][12]
Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger.[13] He has also called himself a paleoconservative.[14] In a promotional biography he is described as an “aggressive constitutionalist”.[15][16]
Jones was born on February 11, 1974 in Dallas, Texas,[17] and grew up in the suburb of Rockwall. His father is a dentist.[18] He graduated from Anderson High School in northwest Austin, Texas in 1993. After high school he briefly attended Austin Community College.
He began his career in Austin with a live, call-in format cable access television program. In 1996, Jones switched format to KJFK, hosting a show named The Final Edition.[19] In 1998, he released his first film, America Destroyed By Design
In 1998, Jones spearheaded an effort to build a memorial for the members who died at the David Koresh-led Branch Davidian compound/church near Waco, Texas, including the ATF officers who died.[citation needed] He often featured the project on his cable access program and claimed that Koresh and his followers were peaceful people who were murdered by Attorney General Janet Reno and the ATF in the infamous Waco Siege.[19]
In 1999, he tied with Shannon Burke for that year’s “Best Austin Talk Radio Host” poll as voted by The Austin Chronicle readers.[20] Later that year, he was fired from KJFK-FM. According to the station’s operations manager, Jones was fired because his viewpoints made the show hard to sell to advertisers and he refused to broaden his topics.[19] Jones argued: “It was purely political, and it came down from on high,” and, “I was told 11 weeks ago to lay off Clinton, to lay off all these politicians, to not talk about rebuilding the church, to stop bashing the Marines, A to Z.”[19]
In early 2000, Jones was one of seven Republican candidates for state representative in Texas House District 48, an open seat swing district based in Austin, Texas. Jones stated that he was running, “to be a watchdog on the inside.”[21] He aborted his campaign and withdrew before the March primary when polls indicated he had little chance of winning.
In July 2000, a group of Austin Community Access Center (ACAC) programmers claimed that Jones used legal proceedings and ACAC policy to intimidate them or get their shows thrown off the air. The programmers made their views known via radio broadcast and websites.[22] Also in 2000, Jones and assistant Mike Hanson infiltrated Bohemian Grove and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the Cremation of Care, claiming it to be mock child sacrifice in front of a 40-foot-tall (12 m) stone owl of Moloch.
On June 8, 2006, while on his way to cover a meeting of the Bilderberg group in Ottawa, Canada, Jones was stopped and detained at the Ottawa airport by Canadian authorities who confiscated his passport, camera equipment, and most of his belongings. He was later allowed to enter Canada lawfully. Jones said regarding the reason for his immigration hold, “I want to say, on the record, it takes two to tango. I could have handled it better.”[23]
On September 8, 2007, he was arrested while protesting at 6th Avenue and 48th Street in New York City. He was charged with operating a bullhorn without a permit. Two others were also cited for disorderly conduct when his group crashed a live television show featuring Geraldo Rivera. In an article, one of Jones’s fellow protesters said “It was … guerilla information warfare.”[24]
Media
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show syndicated radio program is broadcast nationally by Genesis Communications Network to more than 60 AM and FM radio stations in the United States, and to WWCR Radio shortwave. Live-broadcast times are weekdays 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. CST and Sundays from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. CST. The Sunday broadcast is also broadcast by Emmis Communications’ KLBJ Radio. All broadcasts are also available online at prisonplanet.com and infowars.com for live, streaming, podcast or smartphone listening.[25]
Guests have included congressman Ron Paul, country music icon Willie Nelson, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, author and speaker Jordan Maxwell, actor Charlie Sheen, rapper KRS-One, musician Shooter Jennings, Muse frontman Matthew Bellamy, British politicians Nigel Farage and Christopher Monckton, trends researcher Gerald Celente, musician Dave Mustaine of Megadeth, antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, writer David Icke, the Rev. Ted Pike,[26] the Rev. Lindsey Williams, as well as various other guests.
Websites
Alex Jones is also the operator of several web sites centered on news and information about civil liberties issues, global government, and a wide variety of current events topics. The best known of these sites are http://www.infowars.com and http://www.prisonplanet.com.[citation needed]
“I can see, and that is why I can be happy, in what you call the dark, but which to me is golden. I can see a God-made world, not a manmade world.”
~Helen Keller
Background Articles and Videos
The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard
Milton Friedman on The Gold Standard
Gold Standard
“… The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Three distinct kinds of gold standard can be identified. The gold specie standard is a system in which the monetary unit is associated with circulating gold coins, or with the unit of value defined in terms of one particular circulating gold coin in conjunction with subsidiary coinage made from a lesser valuable metal. The gold exchange standard may involve only the circulation of silver coins, or coins made of other metals, but the authorities will have guaranteed a fixed exchange rate with another country that is on the gold standard, hence creating a de facto gold standard, in that the value of the silver coins has a fixed external value in terms of gold that is independent of the inherent silver value. The gold bullion standard is a system in which gold coins do not actually circulate as such, but in which the authorities have agreed to sell gold bullion on demand at a fixed price in exchange for the circulating currency.
The gold specie standard
A gold specie standard existed in some of the great empires of earlier times, such as in the case of the Byzantine Empire which used a gold coin known as the Byzant. But with the ending of the Byzantine Empire, the civilized world tended to use the silver standard, such as in the case of the silver pennies that became the staple coin of Britain around the time of King Offa in the year 796 AD. The Spanish discovery of the great silver deposits at Potosi in the 16th century, led to an international silver standard in conjunction with the famous pieces of eight, which carried on in earnest until the nineteenth century. In modern times the British West Indies was one of the first regions to adopt a gold specie standard. The gold standard in the British West Indies, that followed from Queen Anne’s proclamation of 1704, was a ‘de facto’ gold standard based on the Spanish gold doubloon coin. In the year 1717, Sir Isaac Newton, who was master of the Royal Mint, established a new mint ratio as between silver and gold that had the effect of driving silver out of circulation and putting Britain on a gold standard. But it wasn’t until the year 1821, following the introduction of the gold sovereign coin by the new Royal Mint at Tower Hill in the year 1816, that the United Kingdom was formally put on a gold specie standard. The United Kingdom was the first of the great industrial powers to switch from the silver standard to a gold specie standard. Soon to follow was Canada in 1853, Newfoundland in 1865, and the USA and Germany ‘de jure’ in 1873. The USA used the American Gold Eagle as their unit, and Germany introduced the new gold mark, while Canada adopted a dual system based on both the American Gold Eagle and the British Gold Sovereign. Australia and New Zealand adopted the British gold standard, as did the British West Indies, while Newfoundland was the only British Empire territory to introduce its own gold coin as a standard. Royal Mint branches were established in Sydney, New South Wales, Melbourne, Victoria, and Perth, Western Australia for the purposes of minting gold sovereigns from Australia’s rich gold deposits.
The gold exchange standard
Towards the end of the nineteenth century some of the remaining silver standard countries began to peg their silver coin units to the gold standards of the United Kingdom or the USA. In 1898, British India pegged the silver rupee to the pound sterling at a fixed rate of 1s 4d, while in 1906, the Straits Settlements adopted a gold exchange standard against the pound sterling with the silver Straits dollar being fixed at 2s 4d. Meanwhile at the turn of the century, the Philippines pegged the silver Peso/dollar to the US dollar at 50 cents. A similar pegging at 50 cents occurred at around the same time with the silver Peso of Mexico and the silver Yen of Japan. When Siam adopted a gold exchange standard in 1908, this left only China and Hong Kong on the silver standard.
The gold bullion standard
The gold specie standard ended in the United Kingdom and the rest of the British Empire at the outbreak of World War I. Treasury notes replaced the circulation of the gold sovereigns and gold half sovereigns. However, legally the gold specie standard was not repealed. The end of the gold standard was successfully effected by appeals to patriotism when somebody would request the Bank of England to redeem their paper money for gold specie. It was only in the year 1925 when Britain returned to the gold standard in conjunction with Australia and South Africa, that the gold specie standard was officially ended. The British act of parliament that introduced the gold bullion standard in 1925 simultaneously repealed the gold specie standard. The new gold bullion standard did not envisage any return to the circulation of gold specie coins. Instead, the law compelled the authorities to sell gold bullion on demand at a fixed price. This gold bullion standard lasted until 1931. In 1931, the United Kingdom was forced to suspend the gold bullion standard due to large outflows of gold across the Atlantic Ocean. Australia and New Zealand had already been forced off the gold standard by the same pressures connected with the Great Depression, and Canada quickly followed suit with the United Kingdom. …”
Ron Paul 1/20/2010 Moves To End The Federal Reserve
Ron Paul Gold and Silver – Free Competition in Currency Act HR 4248
Background Articles and Videos
Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
End the Fed
12/14/09 Ron Paul: The Fed’s Money Monopoly
Ron Paul on Glenn Beck “Powerful Elite will have a World Currency…People really have to Wake Up!”
Ron Paul – Rick’s List CNN 01/20/10
The Bankers’ Cartel
Mises Daily: Monday, August 03, 2009 by David Gordon
[The Case Against the Fed • By Murray N. Rothbard • Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994 • 158 pages
"...Murray Rothbard begins this outstanding book by calling attention to a paradox. The Federal Reserve System enjoys virtual immunity from congressional investigation. The few who propose to subject the Fed to even minimal scrutiny, such as Henry Gonzales of Texas, at once find a consensus arrayed against them (pp. 1ff.). They threaten the stability of the market, since – it is alleged – only the Fed's independence blocks the onset of uncontrollable inflation.
Here lies the paradox. Inflation results from the infusion of new money into the economy, and it is the Fed that is responsible for its creation. "The culprit solely responsible for inflation, the Federal Reserve, is continually engaged in raising a hue-and-cry about 'inflation' for which virtually everyone else in society seems to be responsible" (p. 11). How did this odd situation come about?
As one would expect from a top-flight economist, Rothbard responds by tracing the problem to its roots. He briefly and clearly explains how money originated in a barter economy. Some commodities are much easier to market than others, and "[o]nce any particular commodity starts to be used as a medium, this very process has a spiraling or snowballing effect” (p. 13).
Soon, one or two commodities emerge into general use as a medium of exchange. And this, precisely, is money. Gold and silver have almost always been the commodities that win the competition for marketability. “Accordingly, every modern currency unit originated as a unit of weight of gold or silver” (p. 17).
Why has Rothbard gone to such pains to describe a historical process that seems very remote from the Fed? By beginning with a simple case, he can elucidate the basic mechanism that underlies the Fed’s operation. To explain a complex event by starting with a simple method and gradually complicating it is a basic procedure of modern science. Galileo termed this “resoluto-compositive” method, and Descartes described it at length. Once one grasps how money has emerged, the key to understanding the mysteries of the Fed lies at hand. ..”
”…Now, with Congressman Paul’s bill H.R.1207 calling for a congressional audit of the Federal Reserve gaining traction in the House with more than 284 cosponsors, Ben Bernanke is beginning to feel real political heat. For the first time in the Fed’s nearly century-long history, large numbers of Americans and not a few political leaders, led by Ron Paul, are waking up to the realities of central banking and the Fed’s role in causing the value of the dollar to depreciate and the economy to oscillate between boom and bust.
But why take so drastic a measure as to end the Fed, after so long? Is it not better, as so many of Paul’s detractors have argued, to merely reform the institution? No, declares Paul, since the Fed, with its power to destroy the dollar and fund the operations of government by other means than up-front taxation, is, like all modern central banks, a fundamentally dishonest and immoral institution. The Founding Fathers understood very well the evils of paper money, and while granting Congress the authority in the Constitution to “coin [not print!] money,” forbade the states from making “anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” Entries in the journals of the Continental Congress observed that “paper currency … is multiplied beyond the rules of good policy. No truth being more evident, than that where the quantity of money … exceeds what is useful as a medium of commerce, its comparative value must be proportionately reduced.”
Unfortunately, Congressman Paul notes with rare cynicism, “the two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional.” The immorality of the Fed should be evident to everyone, since “the moral principles that would guarantee sound money, and our not needing a central bank to manage it, are honesty, which would reject fraud, and keeping one’s word. Contracts [meaning monetary contracts, whose integrity depends on a sound dollar] should be protected, not undermined by government.”
Nor does Paul mince words about his congressional colleagues: “Members of Congress, when they knowingly endorse this system of fraud because of the benefits they receive, commit an immoral act. Financing spending in an irresponsible manner, through Fed action or future debt burdens, provides immediate political benefits to politicians.”
But all of this would come to an end if the people themselves held their political leadership to a higher moral standard. Americans have become accustomed to a government that promises them security and benefits instead of merely protecting their freedoms and enforcing their contracts. End the Fed is a plea to Americans to educate themselves about money and free-market economics — and then demand an end to the system that has systematically devalued the dollar and held ordinary Americans in thrall for several generations. If we do not soon abolish the Federal Reserve and return to sound money, we will likely experience national insolvency and an end to our dwindling political liberties. End the Fed is, simply put, a must-read for every American who can spell his name. …”
“Sound money still means today what it meant in the nineteenth century: the gold standard.”
The Theory of Money and Credit, page 490
“The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments.”
Economic Policy, page 65
Monetary Lessons from America’s Past
The Gold Dollar
Milton Friedman on The Gold Standard
Gold and the Good Guys
The Gold Standard Before the Civil War
The Gilded Age and the Gold Standard
The Costs of a Gold Standard
Entrepreneurship Under the Gold Standard
The Gold Standard
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity [Part 1]
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity [Part 2]
The Founding of the Federal Reserve
Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One
Ending the Monetary Fiasco and Returning to Sound Money
Ludwig von Mises
“Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time. Just as the sound money policy of gold standard advocates went hand in hand with liberalism, free trade, capitalism and peace, so is inflationism part and parcel of imperialism, militarism, protectionism, statism and socialism.”
On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, page 48
“Every nation, whether rich or poor, powerful or feeble, can at any hour once again adopt the gold standard.”
Omnipotent Government, page 252
Background Articles and Videos
The Shrinking Value of the Dollar
The CPI inflation calculator uses the average Consumer Price Index for a given calendar year. This data represents changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households. This index value has been calculated every year since 1913. For the current year, the latest monthly index value is used. In 2008, for example, it took $21.57 to buy what $1 bought in 1913. Note that in 1920, it cost $2.02, and declined in 1925 and through the 1930s, illustrating the effect of the Great Depression, when prices slumped. Prices did not pass $2 again until 1950.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Reasons for America’s Success
“…Although many Americans are distrustful of government, wary of the news media and disinterested in politics, they resoundingly endorse the economic and democratic systems on which the nation is grounded. When looking back on the accomplishments of the 20th century, overwhelming majorities agree that the Constitution (85%), free elections (84%), and the free enterprise system (81%) are major reasons for the success that the U.S. has enjoyed during the past 100 years. The public may be frustrated by how the system operates, but they like the design. …”
The political elites should pay attention to what the American people believe is responsible for America’s success.
Politicians and political parties can and will be replaced when they propose plans and programs that undermine the US Constitution, free elections and free enterprise.
The progressive radical socialists will be defeated and eliminated should they attempt to overthrow these institutions and ignore the will of the American people.
“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”
~Ludwig von Mises
Background Articles and Videos
Author Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck 2/20 – Liberal Fascism
Free Enterprise, the Economy and Monetary Policy
“…Free enterprise is the freedom of individuals and businesses to operate and compete with a minimum of government interference or regulation. It enables individuals and businesses to create, produce, transform, develop, innovate and compete in the marketplace. As they are able and willing, enterprising people produce goods and services for profit, offer their labor for wages and own the resources needed to produce and sell goods and services. In this system, no one forces people to be creative, productive or enterprising. Instead, they pursue what they believe to be best for them. By producing the goods and services that society values most highly, a free enterprise system results in the greatest efficiency, or lowest costs, of any economic system. It is the system most compatible with individual freedom and political democracy.
What Is Free Enterprise?
Free enterprise means men and women have the opportunity to own economic resources, such as land, minerals, manufacturing plants and computers, and to use those tools to create goods and services for sale.
What prompts people to take the financial and emotional risk of starting a business? The main motivator is the potential to earn a profit. People also go into business for personal reasons, such as the desire for independence and the drive to be creative.
Others have no intention of starting a business. If they choose, they can offer their labor, another economic resource, for wages and salaries. The key to free enterprise is that all these people, whether they start a business of their own or work for someone else, do so voluntarily. By allowing people to pursue their own interests, a free enterprise system can produce phenomenal results. Running shoes, walking shoes, mint toothpaste, gel toothpaste, skim milk, chocolate milk, cellular phones and BlackBerrys are just a few of the millions of products created as a result of economic freedom. …”
Money Supply Measures The Federal Reserve publishes weekly and monthly data on two money supply measures M1 and M2. The money supply data, which the Fed reports at 4:30 p.m. every Thursday, appear in some Friday newspapers, and they are available online as well. The Fed publishes measures of large time deposits on a quarterly basis in the Flow of Funds Accounts statistical release.
The money supply measures reflect the different degrees of liquidity—or spendability—that different types of money have. The narrowest measure, M1, is restricted to the most liquid forms of money; it consists of currency in the hands of the public; travelers checks; demand deposits, and other deposits against which checks can be written. M2 includes M1, plus savings accounts, time deposits of under $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds.
The chart below shows the relative sizes of the two monetary aggregates. In April 2008, M1 was approximately $1.4 trillion, more than half of which consisted of currency. While as much as two-thirds of U.S. currency in circulation may be held outside the United States, all currency held by the public is included in the money supply because it can be spent on goods and services in the U.S. economy. M2 was approximately $7.7 trillion and largely consisted of savings deposits.
“…In economics, money supply or money stock, is the total amount of money available in an economy at a particular point in time.[1] There are several ways to define “money”, but standard measures usually include currency in circulation and demand deposits.[2][3]
Money supply data are recorded and published, usually by the government or the central bank of the country. Public and private-sector analysts have long monitored changes in money supply because of its possible effects on the price level, inflation and the business cycle.[4]
That relation between money and prices is historically associated with the quantity theory of money. There is strong empirical evidence of a direct relation between long-term price inflation and money-supply growth. These underlie the current reliance on monetary policy as a means of controlling inflation.[5][6] This causal chain is however contentious, with heterodox economists arguing that the money supply is endogenous and that the sources of inflation must be found in the distributional structure of the economy.[7]
Money is used in final settlement of a debt and as a ready store of value. Its different functions are associated with different empirical measures of the money supply. Since most modern economic systems are regulated by governments through monetary policy, the supply of money is broken down into types of money based on how much of an effect monetary policy can have on each. Narrow measures include those more directly affected by monetary policy, whereas broader measures are less closely related to monetary-policy actions.[6] Each measure can be classified by placing it along a spectrum between narrow and broad monetary aggregates. The different types of money are typically classified as Ms. The number of Ms usually range from M0 (narrowest) to M3 (broadest) but which Ms are actually used depends on the system. The typical layout for each of the Ms is as follows:
M0: Notes and coins (currency) in circulation and in bank vaults.[8] In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, M0 includes bank reserves, so M0 is referred to as the monetary base, or narrow money.[9]
MB: Equals M0 + reserves which commercial banks hold in their accounts with the central bank (minimum reserves and excess reserves). MB is referred to as the monetary base or total currency.[10] This is the base from which other forms of money (like checking deposits, listed below) are created and is traditionally the most liquid measure of the money supply. [11]
M1: M1 includes funds that are readily accessible for spending. M1 consists of: (1) currency outside Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler’s checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. [12] Bank reserves are not included in M1.
M2: Equals M1 + savings deposits, time deposits less than $100,000 and money market deposit accounts for individuals. M2 represents money and “close substitutes” for money.[13] M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. Economists use M2 when looking to quantify the amount of money in circulation and trying to explain different economic monetary conditions. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.[14]
M3: Equals M2 + large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets.[15] M3 is no longer published or revealed to the public by the US central bank.[16] However, it is estimated by the web site Shadow Government Statistics. [17]
MZM: Money with zero maturity. This measure equals M2 plus all money market funds, minus time deposits. It measures the supply of financial assets redeemable at par on demand.
Fractional-reserve banking
Main article: Fractional-reserve banking
The different forms of money in government money supply statistics arise from the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Whenever a bank gives out a loan in a fractional-reserve banking system, a new sum of money is created. This new type of money is what makes up the non-M0 components in the M1-M3 statistics. In short, there are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system[18][19]:
central bank money (physical currency, government money)
commercial bank money (money created through loans) – sometimes referred to as private money, or checkbook money[20]
In the money supply statistics, central bank money is M0 while the commercial bank money is divided up into the M1-M3 components. Generally, the types of commercial bank money that tend to be valued at lower amounts are classified in the narrow category of M1 while the types of commercial bank money that tend to exist in larger amounts are categorized in M2 and M3, with M3 having the largest.
Reserves are deposits that banks have received but have not loaned out. In the USA, the Federal Reserve regulates the percentage that banks must keep in their reserves before they can make new loans. This percentage is called the minimum reserve. This means that if a person makes a deposit for $1000.00 and the bank reserve mandated by the FED is 10% then the bank must increase its reserves by $100.00 and is able to loan the remaining $900.00. The amount of money the banking system generates with each dollar of reserves is called the money multiplier, and is calculated as the reciprocal of the minimum reserve. For a reserve of 10% the money multiplier, followed by the infinite geometric series formula, is the reciprocal of 10%, which is 10. …”
Gold: The Ultimate investment for capital preservation.
McAlvany DVD 2009 “Deflation or Inflation? What’s Next?”
McAlvany Seminar 2008:Protect Your Assets Now, Pt.1
McAlvany Seminar 2008:Protect Your Assets Now, Pt.2
Wall Street’s Schemes Part I: Mcalvany 2008
Wall Street’s Schemes Part II: Mcalvany 2008
Transitions Ahead Part I: Mcalvany 2008
Transitions Ahead Part II: Mcalvany 2008
Middle East Turmoil Part I: Mcalvany 2008
Middle East Turmoil Part II: Mcalvany 2008
US Dollar Cave-In Part I: Mcalvany 2008
US Dollar Cave-In Part II: Mcalvany 2008
An Inflationary Recession Part I: Mcalvany 2008
An Inflationary Recession Part II: Mcalvany 2008
McAlvany DVD 2009 “Deflation or Inflation? What’s Next?”
McAlvany DVD 2009 “How bad is it?”
Background Articles and Videos
Donald S. McAlvany
“…Donald S. McAlvany is an American Christian conservative political and economics commentator, podcaster, and newsletter author.
McAlvany attended the University of Texas. In 1972, McAlvany founded International Collectors Associates (ICA), headquartered in Durango, Colorado. The firm is described as a “securities, precious metals brokerage, insurance and consultation firm serving clients in over 20 countries.” In 1976 McAlvany began publishing the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, a monthly newsletter that analyzes economic, political, and financial issues, globally. in recent years he has also produced a monthly podcast on economic and “hard money” investing.[1]
He has been a lecturer at Christian, political, monetary and investment conferences “in Western Europe, Africa, Australia, the Middle East, Hong Kong, Singapore, as well as all over the North American continent and Latin America.”
He serves on the board of The Conservative Caucus, is a member of the Council for National Policy[2], is chairman of the Council on Southern Africa, was “a founder of the Industry Council on Tangible Assets (ICTA), and one of the founding directors of the fellowship of Christian Financial Advisors.”[3]
He was formerly the editor of The African Intelligence Digest.[4] …”
“…McAlvany gained some notoriety for his prediction of a possible Y2K catastrophe, before 2000. In 1999, McAlvany self-published the book Y2K Tidal Wave: Year 2000 Economic Survival[5]. Like economists Dr. Gary North, Ed Yourdon[6] and Ed Yardeni[7], and many others, McAlvany suggested that a Y2K date-rollover failure of the global Information Technology (IT) infrastructure might precipitate severe disruption and perhaps even an economic collapse. A concerted last-minute effort by IT professionals prevented this catastrophe, but McAlvany later described Y2K as “a close one.” …”
More and more Federal government interventions and more and more bailouts–this is national socialism/fascism–not capitalism!
The cost to the American people will be unemployment rates of between 15% to 20% within two years and inflation rates of between 25% to 50% within four years.
Let the markets work!
Do not do business with any bank or business that needs or takes a bailout or capital from the Federal government.
Always remember it was the Federal government insisting that banks make mortage loans to people they would not normally lend to that started this mess in the first place.
(Part 1/2) Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Announces Economic Recovery Plan
(Part 2/2) Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Announces Economic Recovery Plan
Inside Look – Financial Stability Plan – Bloomberg
Reaction to Geithner Speech – Bloomberg
Inside Look – Geithner’s Financial Rescue Plan – Bloomberg
LET THEM FAIL ! NO BAILOUT ON MY BEHALF JIM ROGERS
Thomas Sowell – Obama’s Vision
Thomas Sowell – The Vision of the Anointed
Ron Paul on Socialism, Inflationism and the Death of the Dollar
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian 1
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian 2
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian 3
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian 4
First, some background information as to how did we get into this financial crisis in the first place:
Deconstructing the Subprime Crisis
subprime derivatives
Second, what lessons can we learn from the financial crisis:
Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis
Third,the investment banks got greedy,arrogant, and stupid:
Jeremy Siegel on the Resilience of American Finance
Fourth, how do we get out of this massive failures of both the Federal government and securities market?
Please note which foreign country bought significant amounts of agency or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securites–Communist China!
Wall Streets Day of Reckoning: Turmoil in the Global Market
Wharton Faculty Teach-In October 21, 2008
Finally, here comes the mother of all bailouts to recapitalize the financial institutions:
Obama: More Bank Failures Likely
The rush to getting the so-called stimulus bill through Congress with or without any Republican support was noticed by many commentors.
Why?
Hang on to your wallets and watch the dollar depreciate some more.
The Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will be asking for between 2 to 3 trillion dollars for creation of either (1) a “bad bank” to aggregate all those toxic investments or troubled assets to get them isolated from all US financial institutions so that lending can be rebooted or started again or more likely or (2) recapitalize the financial institution by investing money in exchange for preferred stock and warrants to be repaid sometime in the next five to ten years.
Creating A ” Bad Bank”?; Cleaning Up Toxic Assets – Bloomberg
Soros Says Bad Bank Plan Won’t Solve Lending Woes
Bad Bank Loses Favor – Bloomberg
Jim Lacamp on CNBC’s Kudlow & Co Feb 5, 2009 Part 1
Bernanke on Fed’s Future: More capital injections & guarantees – setup “”bad banks”
I agree with Eric, if a “bad bank” is what Secretary Geithner is going to recommend to Congress, just say no way pal.
Nobody is going to agree as the valuation or price for a troubled toxic asset.
Once was enough on the job training or OTJ for a Treasury Secretary.
Jim Rogers was right, why does anybody listen to Geithner?
Shame on you Glenn Beck – Telling the Truth about Timmy Geithner
Tax Cheat
Geithner Is Sworn in As Treasury Secretary
Who were some of the biggest campaign contributors to President Obama and the Democratic Party?
Follow the money–the executives and employees of the bailedout financial institutions.
No surprise there–the Chicago Way–pay for play.
Getting it right is more important than doing it fast.
When the new Treasury Secretary comes to Congress to report on TARP and then asks for another 2-3 trillion ($2,000,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000,000) for additional authority to purchase toxic or troubled assets or recapitalize the financial institutions in trouble, the American People are going to go ballistic.
Inside Look – Banks Urge Quick Release of TARP 2 – Bloomberg
“Dr. Doom,” Nouriel Roubini about banking nationalisation and moral hazard
Jim Rogers: The fundamentals of Commodoties are IMPROVING!
It is abundantly clear that the American elites of both political parties are not telling the American people what is really going on or the scope of the problem.
What the American political class does not understand is the American People are very mad and about to revolt.
The American people will stop calling and e-mailing their Representative, Senators, and President.
Instead the American people will start marching.
So what will the Treasury Secretary recommend.
Yes, you got it, back to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s second plan to recapitalize the banks.
Again, how much is this going to cost the American people for providing a capital infusion now to be paid back latter, say in five to ten years, if not sooner.
Stay tuned.
Background Articles and Videos
New Bank Bailout Could Cost $2 Trillion
By DEBORAH SOLOMON, DAVID ENRICH and JON HILSENRATH
“Government officials seeking to revamp the U.S. financial bailout have discussed spending another $1 trillion to $2 trillion to help restore banks to health, according to people familiar with the matter.
President Barack Obama’s new administration is wrestling with how to stem the continuing loss of confidence in the financial system, as it divides up the remaining $350 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program launched last fall. The potential size of rescue efforts being discussed suggests the administration may need to ask Congress for more funds. Some of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds has already been earmarked for other efforts, including aid to auto makers and to homeowners facing foreclosure.
The administration, which could announce its plans within days, hasn’t yet made a determination on the final shape of its new proposal, and the exact details could change. Among the issues officials are wrestling with: How to fix damaged financial institutions without ending up owning them.
The aim is to encourage banks to begin lending again and investors to put private capital back into financial institutions. The administration is expected to take a series of steps, including relieving banks of bad loans and distressed securities. The so-called “bad bank” that would buy these assets could be seeded with $100 billion to $200 billion from the TARP funds, with the rest of the money — as much as $1 trillion to $2 trillion — raised by selling government-backed debt or borrowing from the Federal Reserve. …”
Roubini Predicts U.S. Losses May Reach $3.6 Trillion (Update1)
“…U.S. financial losses from the credit crisis may reach $3.6 trillion, suggesting the banking system is “effectively insolvent,” said New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini, who predicted last year’s economic crisis.
“I’ve found that credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions, half of them by banks and broker dealers,” Roubini said at a conference in Dubai today. “If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion. This is a systemic banking crisis.”
Losses and writedowns at financial companies worldwide have risen to more than $1 trillion since the U.S. subprime mortgage market collapsed in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
President Barack Obama will have to use as much as $1 trillion of public funds to shore up the capitalization of the banking sector, following the $350 billion injection by the Bush administration, Roubini told Bloomberg News. Congress last year approved a $700 billion rescue fund, of which half remains to be disbursed. …”
“In unveiling its bank-share purchase program, the Treasury Department required nine of the nation’s largest financial-services companies to sell a total of $125 billion in preferred stock to the government, and said an additional $125 billion in stock could be bought from other firms on a voluntary basis. Below, see a list of participating companies. Click the headers of the columns to sort by company, state and amount.
Last updated: 02/04/2009 …”
posted at 12:35 pm on January 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
“…No, not the stimulus. Another monster bailouton top of the stimulus. If the timeline here is right, Team Barry could be asking for it by mid-February, which would mean the $700 billion in TARP I lasted … five months.
Ever get the feeling like we’re just buying time?
[P]ersons close to the situation in Congress told Politico that the deteriorating economic situation leaves little breathing room. Bank losses are up and auto sales down. A top Hill staffer predicted Obama could be forced to seek more money even before the President’s Day recess in mid-February.
If so, this would be a nightmare political scenario for the incoming administration, which has focused on using the next month to muscle through its economic recovery plan…
But Obama gets one honeymoon as a new president, and waiting is not without risks. Financial newspapers reflect a growing concern that the government must do more to buy up the bad investments that hang over financial markets; with more bad earnings reports due this week, there is sense that this is a crisis that can’t be avoided…
“Congress isn’t going to step up and say, ‘Hey, can we give away another $700 billion?’” said an aide to a second Democratic House member. “But there’s a growing sense among people who are really watching this closely, I think, that it is entirely possible, six months from now, maybe even less, the administration is going to come back and say, ‘We need more; we need … more of the same.’”
“Timothy Franz Geithner [pronounced /ˈgaɪtnər/] (born August 18, 1961) is the 75th and current United States Secretary of the Treasury, serving under U.S. President Barack Obama. He was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a tax chiseler.
Geithner will be directing the nation’s economic recovery from the worst financial crisis in three generations, a task that could define the first two years of Obama’s term. Specific duties include directing how $350 billion of already existing Wall Street bailout money is to be spent, then making the case to the United States Congress and the public if more is needed. In addition, Congress is working on an $825-billion economic recovery package that dedicates about two-thirds to new government spending and the rest to tax cuts. Geithner will be playing a big role in disbursing that money.[2]
Geithner’s nomination came under fire due to his failure to pay over $30,000 in taxes in the past. Geithner was able to receive Senate confirmation but he remains under deep criticism for not following the rules of the agency he now oversees.[3]
“James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an American investor and financial commentator. He is co-founder, along with George Soros, of the Quantum Fund, and is a college professor, author, world traveler, economic commentator, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).
Rogers, whose full name is James Beeland Rogers, Jr. was born in Wetumpka, Alabama. Rogers grew up in Demopolis, getting started in business at the age of five, picking up bottles at baseball games. He got his first job on Wall Street, at Dominick & Dominick, after graduating with a bachelor’s degree from Yale University in 1964. Rogers then acquired a second BA degree from Balliol College, Oxford University in 1966. After Oxford, Rogers returned to the U.S. and enlisted in the army for a few years.
In 1970, Rogers joined Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder, where he met George Soros. That same year, Rogers and Soros founded the Quantum Fund. During the following 10 years the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P advanced about 47%.[1] It was one of the first truly international funds.
In 1980, Rogers decided to “retire”, and traveled on motorcycle through China. Since then, he has been a guest professor of finance at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business.
In 1989 and 1990, Rogers was the moderator of WCBS’ The Dreyfus Roundtable and FNN’s The Profit Motive with Jim Rogers. From 1990 to 1992, he traveled through China again, as well as around the world, on motorcycle, over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) across six continents, which was picked up in the Guinness Book of World Records. He tells of his adventures and worldwide investments in Investment Biker.
In 1998, Rogers founded the Rogers International Commodity Index. In 2007, the index and its 3 sub-indices were linked to exchange-traded notes under the banner ELEMENTS. The notes track the total return of the indices as an accessible way to invest. …”
“Pay to Play, sometimes pay for play, is a phrase which has been used for a variety of situations in which money is exchanged for services or the privilege to engage (play) in certain activities. Some uses refer to illicit activities, such as the exchange of money for influence in politics, while others can be normal, even expected, practices. An example of the latter is the concept of No Pay No Play in auto insurance law: an uninsured driver is not permitted to recover money for property damage or bodily injury damages caused by an auto accident, even if the uninsured driver is not at fault, because the lack of pay into the system results in the revocation of the uninsured driver’s right to play when compensation is collected.
In politics, pay to play refers to a system, akin to payola in the music industry, by which one pays (or must pay) money in order to become a player. The common denominator of all forms of pay to play is that one must pay to “get in the game,” with the sports analogy frequently arising.[1]
Typically, the payer (an individual, business, or organization) makes campaign contributions to public officials, party officials, or parties themselves, and receives political or pecuniary benefit such as no-bid government contracts, influence over legislation,[2][3] political appointments or nominations,[4][5] special access[6] or other favors. The contributions, less frequently, may be to nonprofit or institutional entities,[7] or may take the form of some benefit to a third party, such as a family member of a governmental official.[8]
The phrase, almost always used in criticism, also refers to the increasing cost of elections and the “price of admission” to even run[9] and the concern “that one candidate can far outspend his opponents, essentially buying the election.”[10]
While the direct exchange of campaign contributions for contracts is the most visible form of Pay to Play, the greater concern is the central role of money in politics, and its skewing both the composition and the policies of government.[11][12] Thus, those who can pay the price of admission, such as to a $1000/plate dinner or $25,000 “breakout session,” gain access to power and/or its spoils, to the exclusion of those who cannot or will not pay: “giving certain people advantages that other[s] don’t have because they donated to your campaign.”[13] Good-government advocates consider this an outrage because “political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations.”[14] Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington called the “Pay-to-Play Congress” one of the top 10 scandals of 2008.[15]
Incumbent candidates and their political organizations[16] are typically the greatest beneficiaries of Pay-to-Play. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been criticized for the practice. Many seeking to ban or restrict the practice characterize pay-to-play as legalized corruption. …”
“Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. Tarpley maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by a rogue network of the military industrial complex and the CIA. His writings and speeches describe a model of false flag terror operations by a rogue network in the military/intelligence sector working with moles in the private sector and in corporate media, and locates such contemporary false flag operations in a historical context stretching back in the English speaking world to at least the “gunpowder plot” in England in 1605. …”
“In January 2008, Tarpley became one of the first critics to assert that Barack Obama is actually managed by right-wing powerbrokers. Tarpley claimed that a shift in power had taken place in the ruling class, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction and its presidential candidate Obama ascendant over the lame-duck neocons. The targets of US imperialism would now be Russia, China and its ally Pakistan, instead of Iraq, Iran and Syria. He developed these themes in his two books on Obama.
Tarpley is also a tough critic of free market, particularly the Austrian School and Chicago School economics [12]. …”
“Elizabeth Warren is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law. Warren graduated from the University of Houston with a B.S. in 1970 and received her J.D from Rutgers Law—Newark in 1976.
Warren is a member of the FDIC’s Committee on Economic Inclusion. She is the former Vice-President of the American Law Institute and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She served as the Chief Adviser to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. Warren is a popular teacher, winning awards from her students at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan, and the University of Houston Law Center.
Warren has testified several times before House and the Senate committees on financial issues. The National Law Journal has repeatedly named Professor Warren as one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Attorneys in America, and she has been recognized for her work by SmartMoney magazine, Money magazine, and Law Dragon. …”
“On November 14, 2008 Ms. Warren was appointed by United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.[5] The reports of the Panel are available at http://cop.senate.gov. …”
Elizabeth Warren Introduces COP’s Valuation Report
In this video, Chairperson Elizabeth Warren introduces COP’s third oversight report: Valuing Treasury’s Acquisitions. This report features a deal-by-deal analysis of the value Treasury received in exchange for the taxpayer dollars it spent on the ten largest TARP transactions.
Obama and Democrats are Responsible: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
The Democrats and Obama caused the financial crisis of 08 by supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and covering up their bad books.
Obama and Fannie Mae
Spendulus Alert: $50 billion for “mandatory mortgage modifications”
By Michelle Malkin
“I uploaded the entire Sellout Substitute Amendment championed by the Turncoat Caucus this weekend. Did you read through to the very end of the 778-page legislative text? Did your Senator? If you did, then you saw this: ….
“…Yes, you read that correctly. $50 billion more of your money made available to tax cheat/bailout failout architect Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to force banks to do loan modifications with homeowners deep under water on their mortgages. That’s in addition to the $20 billion already allocated by the House last month for the same purposes.
Banks have been engaged in these “mo mod” programs over the past year. The Democrats want to accelerate the pace and use the power of government to essentially provide a blanket amnesty for borrowers and lenders who made bad financial decisions. Yes, I know there are many responsible borrowers out there having trouble negotiating loan modifications. I’ve heard from some of you. But this $50 billion giveaway to the banks — the brainchild of unscrupulous borrower Chris Dodd – is exactly the wrong way to go. …”