The ultimate revolution against monarchy that gave birth to the United States and the French Revolution, began with juries standing up against government abuse.

Did Something Happen of the ECM Turning Point

Posted Oct 28, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

Did something happen on the October 28th, 2016 turning point? Just maybe what clicked yesterday was the tipping point against government. The Bundys, who were the armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy, were acquitted precisely going into the 28th of federal conspiracy and weapons charges. Since the Federal government’s abuse of “conspiracy” where they do not actually have to prove you committed a crime just wanted to, their conviction rate has soared to over 98%. To be acquitted of these charges is a mind-blowing event when it is virtually impossible to win in court when juries just assume the government walks on water.

The protest at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge over the government’s claim to land ended in bloodshed and the police shot and killed unarmed man getting out of his car and then were shooting at women and children in their car. The attitude of some police has degenerated to the point we are the enemy to be hunted and killed for their pleasure. The FBI effectively just murdered one individual. The FBI special agent in charge, Greg Bretzing, said, “They had ample opportunity to leave the refuge peacefully.” He continued, “And as the FBI and our partners have clearly demonstrated, actions are not without consequences.” Well the jury has acquitted those who stood up against this government’s outrageous abuse. Where the blacks are going wrong with Black Lives Matter, they are isolating themselves. They should create a movement that ALL LIVES MATTER and then there will be greater strength in numbers across all races, religions, and genders.

Why do I see this verdict on the very day of the Economic Confidence Model important and not just a passing moment? The ultimate revolution against monarchy that gave birth to the United States and the French Revolution, began with juries standing up against government abuse. It just may be that history is repeating here as well.

The most famous trial where a jury stood up refusing to find the defendant guilty in the face of a corrupt government, was that of William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. In 1670, William Penn held a worship service on a quiet street, which was attended by a peaceful group of fellow Quakers. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the king’s peace and summoned to stand trial.

As the two men entered the courtroom and the bailiff ordered them to place their hats back on, which they had removed. Then the judge held them in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on. Penn demanded to know upon what crime he was being charged for preaching. The judge refused to supply any information whatsoever as to his crime and instead referred vaguely to the common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment, he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury denied the right to defend himself. Penn could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him.

Finally, after the testimony the court concluded, the judge instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty as charged, dictating what verdict he expected. Penn tried to protest, but was silenced and again sent out of the courtroom. The jury, for its part, proved sympathetic to the two defendants and refused the judge’s command to find the defendants guilty just as we have seen in the Bundy case. The judge at this point became enraged and sent the jury back to reconsider their verdict. When they returned with the same verdict, the judge criticized the jury’s leader, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”

Thereafter, the jury was sent back three more times, but returned with the same verdict. Finally, the jury refused to reconsider. The judge then fined each member of the jury forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they put on their hats. Later, the members of the jury won a writ of habeas corpus and were released from prison. Penn and Mead left England after their release from prison, having a taste of justice, and sailed to America. (Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p. 113-115)

The Case of William Penn was a major turning point. Just perhaps, yesterday’s verdict will be viewed as a tipping point in our struggle for freedom from a growing abusive and intrusive government that has lost its way and drunk with power.

As we now head into the next turning point next November, we will have the French and German elections. If both incumbents lose, we may be looking at the final break-up of the EU.

Once they lent to government, that was the end of the Medici.

Bankers: Have They Ever Been Good?

Posted Oct 27, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION:
Mr. Armstrong:

I hope you are well. I ask you:

1. What were the contributions to the economy and international trade, of the great bankers of the modern history, such as, Medici, Fugger, Welser, Berenberg, Rothschild and Morgan?

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

J.E.M.V.

ANSWER:Their contribution was to facilitate the advancement of society by enabling the free movement of capital and thus the integration of commerce. Of course, people will immediately disagree with me by citing the Rothschilds who did lend to the governments of Europe. They were more of the exception rather than the rule.

The Medici were different. Raymond de Roover, who became a Professor of history at Brooklyn College, wrote “The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank,” which was first published in 1966. It remains the seminal work on this period. He had access to contracts and internal documents. A special clause was entered into the core contract of the Medici bank “to deal as little as possible with the court of the Duke of Burgundy and of other princes and lords, especially in granting credit and accommodating them with money, because it involves more risk than profit.” (id/ p 343)

Obviously, Raymond de Roover makes it clear that the Medici did not wish to lend to the princes of Europe, for there was no way to collect a debt from a sovereign. The contract continued by warning that “many merchants in this way fared badly…our fathers have always been wary of such involvements and stayed aloof, unless it was a matter of a small sum lent to make or to keep friends.” The Medici policy was “to preserve their wealth and credit rather than enrich themselves by risky ventures.”

Indeed, later generations ignored this command, and once they lent to government, that was the end of the Medici. The Fugger’s were the German bankers wiped out by the default of Spain, which was rather stupid since they had previously defaulted after wiping out the Italian bankers.

Banking has always furthered the economy and raised the standard of living for all. When the bankers get in bed with government, society is placed in a dangerous position.

ONLY country to have benefited from the creation of the euro was Germany

Posted Jan 24, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

Schengen Agreement & the Fall of Europe

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, You have been nominated for the FX analyst of the year in 2016 again. True, your calls on the Euro and the Swiss peg were amazing. But what has fascinated me even more is you also forecast that the Schengen Agreement would come to an end before the refugee crisis. Can you elaborate on how these forecasts are even possible for you obviously do what no one else has ever been able to accomplish?

Thank you for a eye-opening blog.

FJ

ANSWER: Everything is connected. Nothing takes place in some isolated vacuum. Hopefully, people will open their eyes and see what I see; when they do, it will change how the world is managed. Just the other day, a die-hard Democrat tried to argue that Trump would start World War III and that Hillary has more experience. I said her experience was limited to working at the State Department, hiding her own emails, and setting up a Canadian entity that sold foreign influence to the highest bidder who then deposited the money in her “charity”. Come on. What experience? Then I mentioned how people made the very same argument about Ronald Reagan, saying that he too was a tough “hawk” who would also start World War III. He continued to bring down the Berlin Wall.

When we wake up and realize that the system cannot be altered by one person, then perhaps we will start to investigate the truth. As far as the EU is concerned, it is a total disaster. Brussels is fighting Poland, Hungary has fallen further into an abyss, and passports are being checked again, even between Denmark and Sweden, because now everyone is afraid after Germany allowed rapists and terrorists in and tried to cover it up. In short, the EU is functionally moving into a supernova. Brussels remains in a state of denial and tries to force the EU upon everyone while denying any democratic process in order to save the jobs of the Eurocrats.

Everything is connected. The Schengen Agreement is just one domino. The Schengen Agreement was wearing down because of economic differences. Let’s be honest here. The ONLY country to have benefited from the creation of the euro was Germany. Why? It eliminated the FX risk for German manufacturers. Thus, Germany was able to expand its trade within Europe. The rest of Europe had to convert their debts to the euro and they doubled. The failed structure of the euro placed tremendous pressure upon the entire world economy. The collapse of the Schengen Agreement was inevitable and not exclusively caused by the refugee crisis.

So as Mark Twain said, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Keep in mind the euro still has a few years left. However, its days are clearly numbered, as we know it today.

Next wave of taxes coming from Obamacare January 1st, 2017

DNC Caught Creating Violence at Trump Rallies

Posted Oct 21, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

Megyn Kelly grilled Donna Brazile on the recently released videos that show the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hiring people to create violence at Trump rallies in an effort to discredit Trump supporters. American political activist James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, released the undercover tapes entitled “Rigging the Election” to expose the corruption behind the curtain.

When questioned by Kelly, DNC Chairwoman Brazile dismissed the tapes by claiming that O’Keefe had doctored the videos. “No one has come out to question the validity of these tapes,” probed Kelly, “In fact, they’ve acted on them.” Kelly questioned why the DNC would fire two staff members if they held the belief that the tapes were falsified. However, Brazile insisted that the DNC did not “fire” the staff members, but rather they “stepped aside” to avoid becoming “a distraction” to the Clinton campaign.

In addition to the incriminating tapes, Hillary’s leaked e-mails contain further evidence that the DNC is engaging in foul play. On March 12, 2016, Brazile sent an email to Jennifer Palmieri, the director of communications for the Clinton campaign, with the subject line, “From time to time I get questions in advance.” The email contained a specific question about abolishing the death penalty that the staffers wanted to share with Hillary.

On the following day at a town hall meeting hosted by CNN and TV One, Hillary was questioned on her position on the death penalty in wording that was identical to Brazile’s email. Brazile’s close ties to CNN as a former analyst have raised concerns over whether the network is leaking information to the Clinton campaign. CNN’s own Jack Tapper called the incident “completely unethical” and personally believes that question in the email was provided by moderator Roland Martin or someone around him.

When presented with the evidence, Brazile dismissed the conspiracy by employing the same excuse used to explain the O’Keefe tapes — the document was falsified. “I am a Christian woman so I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted because your information is totally false,” Brazile defended before discrediting the validity of all the emails recovered from Hillary’s server. “I have my documents. I have my files. Thank god I haven’t had my emails ripped off from me and stolen and given to some criminal to come back altered.”

There is no hope left for a fair or honest election process. This will be the most outrageous election in American history, and it will illustrate what our computer has been warning — 2015.75 was the peak in government and it is all downhill from here.

The models are still pointing to a surge in a turn out and the Trump “should win” that does not change. However, I personally remain skeptical and keep in mind that the computer projected Gore should have beat Bush. Only after the fact when the count was finally really verified, Gore did win, but the courts handed it to Bush. So a Hillary victory “appears” more likely, but the computer is merely doing the very same thing again and suggesting that 3 out of four models project a Republican victory. Hillary has a 25% chance to win legitimately. That remains to be seen.

As I have said before, a Hillary victory would be far more devastating because it will tend to push the global economy over the edge. ONLY the Us economy is holding up the entire world which is why the IMF and others plead with the Fed not to raise rates and it should be more considered with international policy objectives surrendering domestic policy to save the world. With Hillary raising taxes on small business, she will increase the cost of labor and that will have the net effect of increasing unemployment in addition to the next wave of taxes coming from Obamacare January 1st, 2017.

“Trickle-down economics” actually worked

Are We Still Suffering from 2007-2009 Crash or is There Something Else?

Posted Oct 21, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have a very basic question. With all the trillions of dollars of stimulus in Europe, USA, and Japan, we are in the age of deflation as you have pointed out. The Federal Reserve itself predicts less than 2% economic growth so that is probably optimistic yet the best in the western world. This all seems to defy logic and you explained it is confidence and not the empirical level of money. The various explanations running around focus the cause on being the 2008 crisis as the main culprit. That appears to be bit shallow. Could you put your two cents into this nonsense?

I respect the fact that whilst you were one of the billionaire hedge fund managers and even won hedge fund manager of the year and are clearly not with the bankers. Your public track record showed you had the lowest draw down of anyone in the management field. What they did to you proves you are not one of them. It is becoming terribly obvious that it takes a global perspective to comprehend this mess. There are too few real big international hedge fund managers left these days and they seem to be in league with the bankers donating to Hillary and not very trustworthy.

I appreciate you speak with experience and distinguish opinion from fact. You are truly alone when others remain silent or just buy government.

Thank you; See you in Orlando

PM

ANSWER: The crisis of deflation has very loose ties to the 2007-2009 crisis, but its tentacles spread far and wide. It is also a direct factor of the decline and fall of western society — our moment with destiny. The entire structure of government social programs is predicated upon a Ponzi scheme that uses Marxism to justify robbing one generation for the previous one. Stir in Keynesianism, and you have a lethal cocktail we cannot survive.

To start, the leveraging of housing was far more significant than just real estate. For example, people would often take home equity loans for various purchases in many categories that were expensive like a piano. To this day, pianos are anywhere from 25% to 50% below 2007 price levels. There was a bubble in this market as well because people could get easy home equity loans with no problem. Those days are gone. Many high-end things of this nature are off considerably since the ability to borrow easy money on your home came to an end.

Consequently, the 2007-2009 crash in real estate impacted other markets beyond just housing. We have seen a contraction in many areas that relied on home equity loans for financing. So the days of easy money came to a terrible end. The collapse in that leverage is not fully appreciated.

The shift to Asia can be also demonstrated with pianos. The top name is Steinway and Weber. Both were German. They are now mostly manufactured in Asia. Japan began to make pianos, and eventually the Japanese improved quality. Now the top names in pianos are Yamaha and Kawai. Pearl River may be the biggest manufacturer in the world. They are in China and they manufacture for other brands. So first product manufacturing migrated for the better price, but that manufacturing improved and actually became a top brand. This is the path all products follow.

Then there is the crisis in pensions mixed with the crisis in demographics. All the pension systems were based upon a Ponzi scheme whereby the assumed population would always increase, so the young would pay for the old. Obamacare was constructed on the same fatal flaw. Note that the trend in lower interest rates did not begin with the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Pension funds WRONGLY assumed that government debt was safe, and as a result, many pension funds simply bought 30-year bonds in an effort to match maturity dates for pensions. That led to a strong bull market and the break-even was 8%. They kept bidding to try to lock in rates for pension payment in the future and their lack of management skills led to this 35-year bull market. Rather than picking stocks, they just believe government is the best thing since sliced bread. Now, they can no longer survive with rates this low, which is why the Fed keeps saying we must “normalize interest rates” for we will see a massive wholesale collapse in pensions. Yes, the 2007-2009 crisis helped create the final Phase Transition into a major long-term high in bonds (5,000 low in rates), but it obviously is not responsible for the 35-year bull market in bonds (decline in rates).

Taxes have risen sharply. Back in 1980, the tax rate was 70.0% on $600,177 for married couples filing jointly. What Clinton calls “trickle-down economics” actually worked. The top tax bracket under Reagan dropped to 50.0% on $203,661 in 1982, and it fell to 38.5% on $181,189 in 1987 for married couples filing jointly. In 1988, in response to the 1987 Crash, the rate was cut again to 28.0% on just $57,738. It then began to rise in 1991, reaching 31.0% on $138,481. Then in 1993 when the Clintons came to power, they raised the tax rate to 39.6% on $397,221. It fell back in 2001 to 39.1% on $385,487, and in 2002, it fell to 38.6% on $391,867 followed by 35.0% in 2003 on $389,249. It was raised again in 2013 to 39.6% on $440,876.

When we look at the annual growth rate in the economy using GDP, nothing even came close to the surge in economic growth during Reagan’s administration. If you look to buy a car and one dealer wants full sticker and another gives you a 5% discount just 5 miles away, I think you would drive the 5 miles. Lowering the tax rate from 70% to 28% by 1987 produced the biggest surge in modern history. Yet all we hear is that trickle-down economics failed.

The growth in the national debt was steadily declining, demonstrating that trickle-down worked. The debt soared during Cheney’s war. This clearly shows that it is a fallacy that war is good for the economy. True, it worked with World War II only because 40% of the workforce had been farmers displaced by the combustion engine and the Dust Bowl.

The other fallacy being totally overlooked is that under Obama, the interest expenditures have soared despite the fact that interest rates have declined. Under Reagan, the national debt was $1.029 trillion, and under Obama, as of September 2016, it stands at $19.528 trillion. If interest rates today were 8% as they were under Reagan, the interest expenditures along for the year would be $1.6 trillion.
Hillary will raise taxes again. Every Democrat has done that except Kennedy, who also cut taxes like Reagan. Government is growing and it is consuming all the productive forces within the economy, and regulation like FATCA is destroying international trade. There is nowhere to go but down. This was not set in motion by 2007-2009. That was simply the catalyst, but not the total cause.

The Winds of War. Prince of Savoy.

Posted Oct 18, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

Video Player

00:00

10:00

This is a video of Putin explaining the balance of power from the Russian viewpoint. He is absolutely correct in saying that an anti-missile system neutralizes opposition. It would certainly embolden the war hawks into believing that they could defeat Russia and rule the world at the expense of American and Russian citizens.

Montesquieu, who influenced the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution, met the political leader and soldier known as the Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736). The political discussions between these two men helped Montesquieu understand the evils of government and forged the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the right to bear arms. The Prince of Savoy was considered, even by Napoleon, as one of the seven greatest strategists in military history. He fought against the Turks (1683-1688, 1697, 1715-1718) and he fought against the French in the War of the Grand Alliance (1689-1691). He was also the teacher of Frederick the Great of Prussia (b 1712; 1740–1786) who he shaped into a brilliant military strategist.

The Prince of Savoy also fought in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). Nonetheless, jealousy attached to his accomplishments and he was plagued by a rumor that he was really the illegitimate son of King Louis XIV of France, which he perpetually denied. Yet, Louis XIV was always ashamed of such offspring and he restrained the prince’s ambitions as if he was perhaps his son. So after 20 years of living in Paris and Versailles, he left France and offered his talent to Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (1640-1705) who was fighting the Turks. He distinguished himself in the siege of Vienna in 1683 and his military career was born.

The Prince of Savoy acquired brilliant skill and wisdom that allowed him to see that military victory was merely an instrument for achieving political ends. He was Europe’s most formidable general who was wounded 13 times, yet always faced a world of cunning foes with conspirators at his back, which he regarded as the “hereditary curse” of Austria. He served three emperors: Leopold I, Joseph I, and Charles VI. Of these three men, Prince of Savoy considered that the first had been a father, the second a brother, but with the third, he was just the hired help.

He was a truly brilliant man of many talents. The Prince of Savory came to see standing armies as evil, for they were easily used because of the expense of keeping them. He came to see that there should be NO armies and that was the only way to reduce war. The brilliant insight of the Prince of Savoy greatly influenced Montesquieu, for this was his source that it laid the foundation for the right to bear arms, as the Second Amendment to the United States constitution. The underlying idea was to eliminate standing armies that feed the cycle of war.

The Prince of Savory was also a student of history. He understood that the early days of Rome were based upon citizen militias. The story of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus reflected him coming from his farm to lead the army defending Rome and then returning to his land. This was such a profound story that even George Washington was part of the Order of the Cincinnati.

Indeed, there is a tremendous risk of standing armies and building huge defense systems. These people naturally want to play with the toys they create. It would give them such pleasure as if this were some video game for children.

On the other side of the coin, there are rumors that Russia has a whole new class of weapons that nobody knows about or quite understands, which were designed to defeat the American anti-missile defense system. If the US wants to engage Russia in the Middle East and compel them to invade through Iraq crossing the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, there is little doubt that Russia might use tactical nuclear weapons in the field to defend their troops.

If the US and Europe are foolish enough to enter that venue with boots on the ground, we may see China aid Russia since its economy is turning down and it would distract the population from an economic decline. China borders Afghanistan right next to Iraq. It appears that the US is backing the Sunni (including ISIS) and Russia has taken the side of the Shia. Keep in mind that both Russia and China can send armies in directly over land.

The stars are beginning to align, as they say, and the winds of war may be upon us to divert the people from revolution due to the collapse of socialism and all its promises.
War becomes a tool of conquest or diversion. We are in the latter stage of this motive. The world economy is crumbling before our eyes. There is not much we can do about it because governments are desperate to hold on to power. There can be no reform when that entails a loss of power on their end. They will fight until the very last drop of blood. The problem, though, it’s always our blood rather than theirs. I agree with the Prince of Savoy — standing armies are ultimately used.