QUESTION: You defend central banks yet the Rothschilds when clearly Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild said: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Any comment?
ANSWER: No problem. He never said any such thing it was completely made up. It was attributed to him in 1838 when he was already dead for 26 years. Besides that, what is very clear is that this is based on the assumption that money is fiat. The USA began to issue paper money in 1861. During the period that Mayer lived, the money supply was primarily coined. The only plausible reference would be implied that he debased them. He was a banker and never produced the coinage.
It would be nice just for once that you bothered to actually understand the role of central banks as originally set forth. What they do today with Quantitative Easing has proven that the entire theory of an increase in money supply will be inflationary is outright BOGUS.
In every case of HYPERINFLATION, not even once did inflation ever begin by increasing the money supply. Inflation begins when PEOPLE lose CONFIDENCE in the government and they spend the currency as fast as they can or outright refuse to accept it. I have explained that the Japanese Emperor used a different approach. He DEVALUED all outstanding money to 10% of his new coinage. That led to the collapse in CONFIDENCE to the point that the people never trusted the government and as a result, the Japanese lost the ability to produce money for 600 years.
The definition of what creates inflation is entirely wrong. Even Gresham’s Law needs to be placed in context. Gresham worked in the foreign exchange markets in Amsterdam. Henry VIII debased the English coinage. But coinage traded on foreign exchange markets according to its metal content. The inflation Gresham referred to was experienced in the foreign exchange markets so what he truly observed was the decline in the British coinage value on international markets. Don’t forget, this predates the central Bank of England which was established in 1694.
The entire observation of inflation began with Gresham. However, it was extended by David Hume (1711-1776) who made observations BEFORE paper money began. This observation is not respected even today. David Hume showed why net exporting in exchange for gold currency, which then increased the domestic money supply and was hoarded by Britain, could not actually enhance wealth. Hume’s argument was essentially the monetarist quantity theory of money which would influence others over time. Prices in a country would change directly with changes in the money supply. Hume explained that as net exports increased and more gold flowed into a country to pay for them, the prices of goods in that country would rise with the economic boom. The USA saw this through the course of World War I and World War II ending up with 76% of the world’s official gold reserves. Consequently, an increased flow of gold into England would not necessarily increase England’s wealth substantially was Hume’s argument because the increase in domestic prices due to the gold inflow would discourage exports and encourage imports. Hence, this trend then counter-reacts with trade and automatically this will start limiting the amount by which exports would exceed imports. The more money that flowed into a country, like the USA, the higher the prices and this would then reduce exports. Adam Smith’s attack on mercantilism and argument for free trade, strangely ignored Hume’s argument. Hume’s view of capital flows can be verified throughout history and is really the underlying foundation of the balance-of-payments issues that Trump fails to understand. Hume also advanced the idea of “creeping inflation” that takes placed with a gradual increase in the money supply that would lead to economic growth. This is largely correct, but money supply growth must also keep place with population growth or you will produce deflation – more people and less money to go around.
With the introduction of paper money during the mid to late 18th century, the relationship between the over-supply of banknotes and a resulting depreciation in their value was noted by earlier classical economists such as David Ricardo (1772-1823). However, the issue of paper money during the American Colonial period must also take into consideration two factors: (1) England starved America and extracted money assuming they were using Spanish coinage, and (2) the American Revolution which was funded by creating paper money. There was again a lack of CONFIDENCE to the extent that when the American Revolution ended, the Constitution prohibited States from issuing money again and federally no paper money was issued again until the American Civil War in 1861.
Therefore, most HYPERINFLATION periods are associated with war like the American and French experiences. However, in Lydia, the very first government to issue coins, we see the debasement unfold as a direct result of war. Therefore, there is no evidence of hyperinflation unfolding absent a collapse in the CONFIDENCE of the people in that government.
In the case of Venezuela, obviously there has been a collapse in CONFIDENCE. The same was true in Zimbabwe after it seized all the property of white farmers. Foreign investors refused to ever participate again.
The German HYPERINFLATION came with the Communist Revolution in 1918. That sent capital into hiding and fled overseas, primarily to the United States
Left v Right – Why the Western Society is Really Collapsing
Posted Mar 16, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Hi Marty,
we just saw the German elections play out. For Germany, this is a huge move to the left – at least in government. They also say that Europe will be strongly supported. I guess that means shoveling money to Brussels and raising it via more and more taxes. Now, I researched everything you wrote about the ride of the right-wing parties in Europe and the separatist movements. I would be interested in your thought on how this plays out. E.g. Germany with its left-wing government. It rather seems to be the case that government will become more and more left-wing. Just as in the Weimar Republic. So I do not think that a right-wing could have enough political force to take power, also since Antifa is MUCH more violent and also more powerful than the right. Politicians blame the right for many things, violent events etc, while in fact, it is a rather docile movement with very little power and if so, only in the hands of individuals who do hardly organize since it really is the promotion of individualism vs group-think (left) and group movements. So from a logical standpoint, it seems rather likely to have the socialist agenda gain power. I know you say it is coming to an end. I trust you are correct. Socialism does not work and people might notice at some point. But it seems to be in a quite distant future still. Could you elaborate on that? Will Immigration finally win and move Europe and Germany into a new societal form? Finally, the European left-wingers are actually importing authoritarianism. Which very ironic since they probably think they are importing voters.
ANSWER: Oh yes. I do not think most people outside of Germany understand that. Merkel lost control. To keep power, she had to create a Grand Coalition with the SPD, which has been the Northern socialists with origins that go back to the Weimer Republic and the Communist Revolution. The SPD took power for both they and the CDU of Merkel realized that going back to the people would result in both parties losing even more ground. This is highlighted particularly after the Italian election. I have NEVER been asked for a meeting by anyone in the SPD. They have always fundamentally been opponents of anything my computer has forecast. They have NEVER been interested in what is economically best for the people – they are only interested in imposing their will upon the people because they do not see the same light they do.
Most people have no idea that Lenin was more of a dreamer who at least thought he was benefiting the people. It was Lenin who warned not to allow Stalin to take power after him. He said:“Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.” Stalin did everything he could to take power. This has been the curse of the left. They see themselves in a war against the producers and whatever action they take, it is always for the good of the people. This attitude marks the left who always seek to subjugate the right. They never believe in human rights other than their own and have historically always taken an authoritarian position painting themselves as the victim being exploited by the right. The official state records showed that Stalin killed about 2.9 million people. However, this does not include those who died from famine in places like Ukraine for example, which stand at about 7 to 10 million. In Ukrainian, they coined a term for what Stain did – Holodomor (Голодомо́р) meaning “to kill by starvation” has remained at the core of why Ukrainians want independence from Russia.
Nymphenburg Palace Home of Bavarian Monarchy
When you look around the globe, what you see is a rising intense fight building between the left v right, i.e. Thieves v Producers in terms of Ann Rand. Simultaneously, we are witnessing the rise of separatism. We see this everywhere. We see in Europe Scotland, Catalonia, Bavaria, Sicily and others. Even in Canada, I wrote about the move of Alberta to secede from Canada. British Columbia is left-wing and environmentalists so they are blocking a pipeline from Alberta through their province. What you see is a trade war within Canada between two provinces. In Germany, we see this sentiment starting to rise in Bavaria which has long retained an underlying sense of nationalism ever since Bavaria was incorporated into the state of Germany in 1871. The old Bavarian palace of the Monarch remains a symbol of Bavarian Nationalism. I remember being in Bavaria when they were celebrating winning the war over the Prussians in the north.
The origins of the rise of Bavarian nationalism as a strong political movement emerged from the Austro-Prussian War and its aftermath. Bavaria had always been both politically and culturally closer to Catholic Austria than Protestant Prussia. We see the similar religious strains in Britain as we do in Germany – Protestants in the North v Catholics in the South. Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg. The Bavarians shared with the Austrians a common contempt towards the Prussians, leading Bavaria to ally with Austria in the war.
After World War I, in 1923, Bavarian monarchists of the Bavarian People’s Party attempted to seize control of the Bavarian government and declare Bavaria independent of Germany and the Weimar Republic restoring the Bavarian monarchy wherein 1918 the north wanted a Communist Revolution and even asked Russia to come take Germany. This Bavarian separatist coup attempt was then preempted by the then-small Nazi Party which itself attempted to take over the Bavarian government. Bavarian nationalists and the Nazi Party competed for a support base. Finally, the 1932 election saw the Nazi Party won a major victory nationally, yet the Nazis did not surpass the Catholic Bavarian People’s Party in southern Bavaria. The Nazis won only the Protestant areas of northern Bavaria. The underlying resentment remains deep in the heart of Bavaria.
In 2013, the Bavaria Party still won 2.1% of the total vote in state elections so they have not faded away. Top officials in the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives have warned the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) that failure to stick to agreements on migrants could cause the collapse of the potential new German government. Once more, we still see the tensions between Bavaria v the North. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) needs the Christian Social Union (CSU) of Bavaria to even rule. The CSU was formerly the most right-wing party in Germany. But its rubber-stamp of Merkel and the open-door policy to refugees cost them dearly. The AfD won 19.17% of the popular vote in the September 24th, 2017 national election. This was the highest level of support in the former West German states.
Here we have a rising new party, Alternative for Deutschland (AfD), which really began in the East and took 12.6% of the national vote. Once again, we see the inner tension between the socialists (SPD) of the North and their quest to forcibly impose their will upon the South. This is the tension of centuries that goes back to the Prussian v Bavaria confrontations that began in religion.
The left will make a major stand to seize control globally. They will be VERY OPPRESSIVE and this is what will end up destroying the West as we see the economic epic center move to Asia with China becoming the dominant financial capital of the world.
World economic growth (GDP) peaked in 1973. We are looking for the final low to form during 2035.8. The next low will be in 2025 and this will be a Cycle Inversion from a high producing a low. However, you can easily see from this chart of world GDP, socialism is dying. The Pension Crisis will be a major event and the failure of that system will spark not just civil unrest, but the left assaulting the right. The left will look to plunder the wealth of the right and justify it in their minds as they are entitled to this because the right got rich by exploiting the left. This may become excessive between 2029 and 2032.
When Rome turned against the producers under Maximinus, this is what really began to destroy the Roman Empire. Informants were rewarded to turn in anyone with assets they believed was hoarding wealth. They turned everyone against everyone else and that broke the bonds of civilization. Even after Maximinus was killed by his own troops and his head was sent to the Roman Senate, capital investment NEVER returned. The producers began to invest less and continued to hoard more. Confidence was simply lost and people did not trust one another anymore.
This is simply how human nature responds given the same set of circumstances. The more the left seeks to raise taxes and punish the producers, the greater the producers will hoard and not invest and we will see a continued decline in economic growth rates. We can see that we really cannot get world GDP above the 3% level. The decline post-2007 has been profound and 10 years of Quantitative Easing has only caused wealth to contract. Negative interest rates sparked more hoarding of cash even among the middle class.
Draghi is holding on for dear life. He has no prayer in hell to restore the economy of Europe. All he has done is kept the governments on life-support. When they cannot sell their bonds, they will raise taxes drastically to try to stay afloat. This is how history repeats. The same circumstances will emerge, but like a Shakespeare play, it can be acted out over the centuries with the only change being the actors.
I have written many times about the deep corruption among the political class. The way they have always taken bribes is through their families. I have written how Hillary’s brother magically got the gold mining contract from Hati when he wasn’t a gold miner. The Clinton Foundation which was supposed to be a real charity shut down after she lost the elections as all the foreign government withdrew because they were simply bribing Hillary to get influence. Obama back in 2013 was forced to sign the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act into law at a celebratory ceremony attended by a bipartisan cast of lawmakers. That was exposed in 2011 on CBS 60 Minutes News Program. Then CNN ran a story on this loophole in 2012, and suddenly there was an Act in 2013.
Now the author of Clinton Cash has come out with a new book exposing all the shenanigans going on in Washington. I previously wrote: The collapse in the rule of law is so vital for sustaining the economy that it is often overlooked. This latest book covers BOTH Republicans and Democrats. In the Secret Empires, Peter Schweizer exposes Joe Biden and John Kerry have the cornerstone of Democrats in the Washington establishment for more than 30 years. The sons of Ketty and Biden formed an investment fund dealing with countries overseas with whom the US was negotiating contracts. This is where Hillary was doing the same thing – selling influence via the Clinton Foundation.
Simply put – career politicians have to come to an end. When I was managing money, I was not allowed to have a personal account and NEITHER were my children or my mother. I could never be charged with insider trading because there simply was no possible way anyone in my family could benefit indirectly. The same standards just DO NOT apply to politicians. I have stated plenty of times, the Democrats preach hating the rich while they load the trunks of their family’s car with all the loot. Then they carve out loopholes for the rich when they pay into their reelection coffers. The corruption is way beyond anything you might imagine
QUESTION: Today’s opinion section of the WSJ features an article on government’s intervention in AIG. The troublesome point concerns the possibility of a new precedent w.r.t. property rights in the USA, viz.:
“…the government may unlawfully deprive shareholders of their ownership and control of a company as long as it does not formally seize their shares”.
Well, I thought the rights that share ownership conferred were exactly those: an ownership stake in the company and a voice in its voting.
ANSWER: The government plays with legal technicalities. They cannot seize a corporation and nationalize it without compensating the shareholders. However, it can seize a corporation and run it without formally taking the property. It is in a gray area like zoning regulations. The government can tell you what to do with your property short of taking it. However, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it was held that there was no authority to seize the steel mills because of a national strike. The court held: The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand. The court wrote in the Syllabus:
To avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority, but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The President promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations, and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. The steel companies sued the Secretary in a Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed.
The effective seizure of AIG was also illegal. Paulson let both Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns fail but then rescues AIG without authority to save Goldman Sachs (see Timeline 2007-2009 Crash). The problem we have with is is the government can do whatever it desires. The burden then falls on the citizen to go to court and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to say his rights were violated. The Constitution is a complete FAILURE, for the courts have turned it upside down and they can do whatever they want and the burden is on you. The French system is much better. The government passes a law and then the high court rules if it is constitutional BEFORE it is enacted.
The damage our system inflicts upon citizens is off the charts. The government filed charges against Arthur Anderson and put the firm out of business. The case finally made it to the Supreme Court and they unanimously overruled what the government had done. Nonetheless, the firm was destroyed in the process. And guess what? The two prosecutors who charged Arthur Anderson with obstruction of justice and destroyed the firm illegally, are the left and right hand of Robert Mueller going after Trump – Andrew Weissmann and Michael Dreeben. In government, incompetence is rewarded. Dreeben argued that it was an aggressive case, but warranted. The Supreme Court unanimously overruledthat position but it was too late to save the firm.
Supreme Court wrote:
Even “persuad[ing]” a person “with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” testimony or documents from the Government is not inherently malign. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy, even though the policy, in part, is created to keep certain information from others, including the Government.