Feed aggregator
Jim Willie on Max Keiser TV: Secret Fed Printing To Buy US Treasuries (etc.)
LA Times On Goldline and Gold Investing: Are They Good For Consumers?
A decent article, tinted with a more than a little pro-fiat bias, but could have been much worse (the following excerpts being fair admissions):
Goldline clearly engages in a hard sell, but it may be difficult to prove that they're deliberately duping people into making unwise investments.
Nor is it necessarily misleading to share with customers a sense of urgency about moving money into gold. "We're in extraordinary times," Carter said. "There's a lot of concern about paper currencies."
...
As with most investments, there's a strong element of "buyer beware" at work here. If you bought a home in L.A. around the peak of the housing bubble in mid-2007, you didn't do particularly well. If you bought more recently, you probably got pretty good value for your money.
Yeah, talk about corporate cronyism in misleading people into investments... we're glad he mentioned real estate!
We also wonder if Lazarus has noticed the omnipresent hazard of "subprime" investments of various sorts that have been and most certainly still are floating around the nation's stock of fiat "paper wealth" (the default alternative to gold).
Anyways, for your information, the flagrant propaganda is in this bit:
For instance, Beck has cited on his radio and TV shows a 1933 executive order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorizing the government to buy people's gold as a way to prevent deflation and put more money into circulation.
The order permitted U.S. citizens to keep about 5 ounces of gold in their possession. It also exempted gold used in industry, jewelry, art and antiques, which could include collectible coins.
Despite alarmist claims to the contrary circulating online, Roosevelt's order did not result in Gestapo-style, house-to-house searches for gold, and only one person was prosecuted for violating the order — a New York attorney who failed to register 27 gold bars stored in a bank.
Firstly, it is more than a little disingenuous to characterize an executive order that confiscates all except the first 5 ounces of something as "permitting 5 ounces". Anyone attempting to use gold as a significant store of wealth would likely be more concerned with the confiscation of all ounces from 5 to infinity.
More importantly, Roosevelt had little need to "go from door to door", since most gold holders kept their in bank vaults and deposit boxes, which were shuttered, looted, and then re-opened, with fresh crisp "Federal Reserve Notes" in their place. Finally, since gold-backed US Treasury dollars -- the form of money most people held -- were actually gold bailment notes, all Roosevelt had to do was make these non-exchangeable, with the stroke of a pen. So the lack of door-to-door busts is wayyyyyyyyyyyy besides the point.
More importantly, and totally ignored by Lazarus, is that Roosevelt's order and the attendant laws outlawed gold clauses in contracts, making it impossible to peg business transactions of any sort of stable monetary anchor. Effectively, the whole economy was forced to use the government's fiat dollars, a never-before condition in the history of the republic.
Despite the quiet restoration of the gold clause in the 70s (even as the final vestiges of gold convertibility for nations were eliminated), we are still reaping that bitter harvest of a shift of the economy into pure fiat.
Gold in BIS swaps said to have come from looted bank customers' deposits
Ron Paul Introduces SEC Transparency Act
Quantitative Easing Two
When I read (and listen) to such comments from our leading central bankers, I can only scratch my head and ponder the degree to which they appreciate financial and economic history – including recent financial crises. Dr. Bullard’s paper suggests that the Japanese predicament of long-term substandard growth is the worst-case scenario for the U.S. economy. It is more likely the best-case.
And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.
I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit - or else risk a financial crash.
Most regrettably, Washington policymaking (fiscal and monetary) is on a trajectory that will inevitably destroy the creditworthiness of our nation’s vast liabilities. With ominous parallels to the mortgage/Wall Street finance Bubble, Federal Reserve policies have fostered Bubble dynamics throughout our Treasury, agency and debt markets, more generally. Instead of market dynamics working to discipline Washington’s profligate debt expansion, Federal Reserve interventions ensure that a distorted marketplace again accommodates perilous Credit excess. Our central bankers should heed Mr. Trichet’s warning. Additional quantitative ease will only fuel the Bubble and risk calamity.
Quantitative Easing Two
When I read (and listen) to such comments from our leading central bankers, I can only scratch my head and ponder the degree to which they appreciate financial and economic history – including recent financial crises. Dr. Bullard’s paper suggests that the Japanese predicament of long-term substandard growth is the worst-case scenario for the U.S. economy. It is more likely the best-case.
And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.
I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit - or else risk a financial crash.
Most regrettably, Washington policymaking (fiscal and monetary) is on a trajectory that will inevitably destroy the creditworthiness of our nation’s vast liabilities. With ominous parallels to the mortgage/Wall Street finance Bubble, Federal Reserve policies have fostered Bubble dynamics throughout our Treasury, agency and debt markets, more generally. Instead of market dynamics working to discipline Washington’s profligate debt expansion, Federal Reserve interventions ensure that a distorted marketplace again accommodates perilous Credit excess. Our central bankers should heed Mr. Trichet’s warning. Additional quantitative ease will only fuel the Bubble and risk calamity.
Fed Hikes Mortgage Fee Disclosure Trigger 2% in 2011
BNY Mellon Launches eVault Service for Digital Mortgage Docs
Imploded: LibertyBank, Eugene, Oregon
Imploded: The Cowlitz Bank, Longview, Washington
Imploded: Coastal Community Bank, Panama City Beach, Florida
Imploded: Bayside Savings Bank, Port Saint Joe, Florida
Increase in FHA Mortgage Insurance Premiums Passes in House
Imploded: NorthWest Bank and Trust, Acworth, Georgia
GDP: 3 Years of Massive Downward Revisions
For 2006-2009, real GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, the growth rate of real GDP was 0.0 percent. From the fourth quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2010, real GDP increased at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, real GDP had increased at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent.
...
If indeed, the inventory cycle is behind us, then what we have on our hands is an underlying baseline trend in GDP of 1.2% at an annual rate. And if we are correct in our assumption that the looming withdrawal of fiscal stimulus at the federal level and the cutbacks at the state and local government level subtract 1.5% from growth in the coming year, then it begs the question: How exactly does the economy escape a renewed moderate contraction over the next four to six quarters, barring some unforeseen positive boost?
