-The harsh critics of the private central banking system are sadly mistaken if they think this system is going to collapse.
-It actually is not that difficult to keep this system going. The central banks have proven themselves as worthy to the task. The global pool of investors now view the central banks as their partners.
-This system is designed to be satanic to its core and it’s purposely constructed for maximum soul stripping. Most people around the world prefer this system. It’s fit for degenerates and the ungodly.
-This current system is the same system described in Revelation. The wealth inequality going out into the future will be mind blowing. The vast majority of people will have nothing but debt, while the captains and the chiefs will own it all. The people will look to the government for help and socialism will expand greatly into the future.
-The central banks are clearly going to do whatever it takes to keep things going.
-Dow 30k coming soon? I predicted Dow 20k when the Dow was 16,500. The central banks are welcoming higher asset prices.
-I have been predicting lower interest rates. That’s what we are getting
Note: Tax cuts and social spending have one outcome in common – they generate government deficit spending. These deficits are financed with government debt and these debt securities become de facto monetary equivalents. In turn, the prices of most asset classes rise in value and become more expensive for the average person. This, in turn, creates the catalyst for more social spending. The more socialism, the more expensive living becomes. Those with the assets benefit whenever the government sinks further into the red.
Despite calls to the contrary by many in the alt-financial media, socialism is alive and well. In fact, according to research polls a growing majority of Americans support social programs that would have been rejected 10-20 years ago. As long as the governments and central banks work together going forward to finance their deficit spending needs, socialism will grow in popularity. The people want it.
From government-mandated paid maternity leave to tuition-free college, the CNBC All-America Economic Survey reveals a surprising American appetite for some very progressive policies.
In a survey of 800 Americans nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, the CNBC survey finds majority support for five of six proposals that have been percolating in the national debate mostly, but not entirely, from the Democratic side. On some of the issues, the survey even found majority Republican support.
But on the issue of maternity leave, 84 percent of the public approve of a federal requirement that employers provide paid maternity leave, paced by 94 percent support from Democrats, 83 percent from Independents and 73 percent from Republicans. Increased federal funding for child care is supported by 75 percent of the public, including overwhelming support from Democrats and Independents but also majority support from Republicans.
Socialism guarantees higher deficits; People want others to pay
Talk about double-mindedness…
When it comes to paying for these proposals, Americans are not shy about supporting higher taxes on the wealthy but they balk when it comes to taxing themselves. Only 46 percent of the public supports repealing the 2017 tax cuts and just 30 percent want to eliminate all deductions, such as for home mortgages and charitable giving.
However, in what looked to be somewhat contradictory findings, Americans also lean towards more free market and less government when it comes to issues like reducing income inequality and increasing worker pay. In fact, 37 percent of the public say that increasing worker pay should be handled by the free market, compared to 11 percent who say it should be entirely the responsibility of government. Thirty-two percent say it should be only somewhat the responsibility of the government and 14 percent say mostly the government.
The bottom line; You and I are part of a small minority. Socialism is alive and well and the governments and central banks have “discovered” ways to pay for it. As long as the central banks stand ready to buy up the surplus supply of government debt, socialism will become the painless choice for a growing majority of Americans. Socialism will not collapse; the more the younger folk get left in the “net worth” dust the more they will embrace socialism. They may pretend to reject socialism, but if they believe they are getting something that someone else is paying for, they will embrace it.
My opinions on socialism do not matter. All I know is that it will grow in popularity and the central banks have developed programs to pay for it. The costs of living are now guaranteed to continue spiraling higher. So if you ask me when’s a good time to start buying income-generating assets, I will say that now is a good time. Do not fight this trend. The heathen do not understand economics and how socialism works. They are not concerned where the money comes from as long as it doesn’t come from them. Accept it and move forward. Invest accordingly.
A reader asked me a good question. Given the realities of today’s market environment, where else can we invest? How about investing in base metals such as nickel?
Higher asset prices refers to stocks, bonds, commercial and residential real estate, (commodities–industrial and/or precious metals?) Anything else? I was considering buying nickel in anticipation of electrical vehicle demand. Would you consider this an OK idea at this time with what you anticipate coming?
The assets with which I concentrate my time and resources are those that generate income, especially passive income. This passive income tends to grow over time and can provide a cushion to the vagaries of the market place. Investments in bonds, stocks, residential and commercial real estate, and active businesses, qualify for such investments. While bonds have recently been spinning off lower interest payments, they have been rising in price as market yields have fallen. While there are other types of assets (e.g. gold, silver, nickel, bitcoin, artwork), over the long-term, I generally favor the ones that spin off income.
There is an another important reason why I choose income-producing assets; I can employ mathematical analysis to determine what I think is fair value. In stocks there are the P/E ratio and dividend yield. In real estate we can use the capitalization rate and internal rate of return. In businesses, we can use the discounted cash flow. In bitcoin and gold, determining fair value is a much more subjective process.
There is a place for gold in everyone’s total portfolio, because it is a hedge against bankruptcy and lawsuit, and it is discreet. With this said, I generally do not recommend the gold miners as it is a tough business and their dividend yields are low. However, you are asking me about industrial metals such as nickel.
Here are some long-term price charts for the basic industrial metals.
Clearly, these charts do not point to anything that looks appealing. Nickel looks like the worst performer out of all of them. So, let’s take a look at the largest nickel miner out there; Norilsk Nickel (NILSY).
Norilsk Nickel is a Russian-based nickel miner. If I were interested in nickel this stock would be an absolute must have nickel producer and a clear sector leader (by far the largest reserves, largest production, lowest costs). It still is trading at a very fair valuation, with a very nice 9% dividend yield. Upside would not be as spectacular as a junior, and downside is quite protected.
Eramet (ERMAY) is another one. They are spinning off a dividend yield of at least 4%. However, I am somewhat concerned with its balance sheet issues and prior price performance.
While I do not necessarily recommend these particular nickel miners, I think you see what I mean. If the economy continues to stagnate and falter, I do not envision an environment that will be wildly bullish for the base metals in general. However, efficient miners with good prospects, profitable property portfolios, and good dividends, should always be considered.
The Fed will have to begin cutting the Fed funds rate sooner, but for reasons that have little to do with a slowing domestic economy. As global bond yields continue to sink, the Fed will have to follow suit – even if the Fed can afford to remain relatively tight. I do not see a recession on the horizon and the domestic economy remains relatively sound. If the Fed does embark on a much more aggressively dovish policy, I have to believe that the asset markets will rise more than what many are anticipating.
Janet Yellen, the former chair of the Federal Reserve, said Monday the recent triggering of a recession indicator in the U.S. bond markets could signal the need for an interest rate cut and not a prolonged economic downturn.
Yellen was asked at a Hong Kong conference about the yield curve inversion and whether it signals a looming downturn.
“My own answer is no, I don’t see it as a signal of recession,” Yellen said during a question and answer session at the Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference.
“In contrast to times past, there’s a tendency now for the yield curve to be very flat,” she said, adding that it’s now easier for it to invert — which traditionally meant investors had become concerned about a future downturn.
“And in fact it might signal that the Fed would at some point need to cut rates, but it certainly doesn’t signal that this is a set of developments that would necessarily cause a recession,” Yellen added.
I have been observing that the Fed seems to be much more preoccupied with what is going on in the rest of the world than in the past. The central banks are coordinating policy in an unprecedented fashion. I am concerned that the Fed will attempt to placate the outside world at the expense of the domestic economy. This is why I have to conclude that dollar-based asset prices of all kinds are going to climb higher and continue outperforming over time.
First, I completely agree with Janet Yellen’s assessment. There is no domestic recession on the horizon. Recall, that the U.S. Fed anticipates 2019 domestic GDP growth of 2.1%. While this was a drop of 0.2% from the prior Fed estimate of 2.3%, this is hardly a time to contemplate a recession. So, imagine what lower short-term rates will mean to the prices of assets.
Second, I predict that the Fed will have to begin to cut the Fed funds rate soon, because the rest of the global economy is sinking and the U.S. dollar has remained persistently strong. As the days go by, the global pool of negative-yielding sovereign debt continues to grow and the total amount now tops $10 trillion. The U.S. offers too much relative yield.
Third, the domestic economy will continue to outperform and if the Fed cuts, look for economic output here to continue to remain relatively higher.
Fourth, I find it difficult to comprehend that so many market analysts are anticipating an upcoming recession by looking at the sharp drop in the 10 year UST. Bearishness is very high right now. Lower rates are going to juice the U.S. economy at the worst time. Many market participants will be caught off guard.
Fifth, do not get caught up with yield inversions. It has been clear that there has been official intervention with longer-dated Treasuries. The long end of the yield curve fell in direct relation to the Fed’s change in policy stance. I cannot overestimate how large of a change the Fed has undertaken just since late December. Though the 10-year UST yield began to fall into the stock swoon of late 2018, the yield continued to sink as stocks recovered. This shows us the power of the Fed’s about-face. Bond traders are already buying in anticipation of what is to come.
Sixth, I no longer hear talk of asset bubbles by the monetary authorities. I have to believe that on some level, they are going to welcome higher asset prices. Higher asset prices justify higher debt levels, and this will work hand-in-glove with the central banks as they once again ramp up their asset purchases.
If we just focused on the United States economy, the Fed has room to remain tighter, but given the relative strength of the U.S. dollar and the yield differentials between U.S. sovereign debt and other nation’s, the Fed understands that the world is awash with too much government debt issuance and the central banks need to step up their coordination for more rounds of QE and monetary stimulus. Those who believe that the PBOC is not participating are seriously misguided. Its balance sheet continues to grow as well and foreign reserves remain at high levels.
I know I am going out on a limb, especially in the face of such bearishness, but I still see higher real estate numbers in the wheelhouse of the U.S. and the lower rates are providing an auspicious tailwind. Short of a nuclear war, I don’t see this changing. Of course, we may see some short-term drops, but I expect higher prices for many things and the government will step in to “help” those who have gotten left in the dust.
Note: The Spring home selling season just got underway here in the D.C. Area and prices in the under $600,000 category are up about 6-10% YOY. A starter town home listed down the street, which would have sold for $360,000 last year is selling for $409,000. The open house was very crowded and I assume it will close for at least $405,000.
They are dropping GIC rates (CD, term deposits) here the last couple of months. Mortgage rates have dropped, especially the 5 year. Yes sir, the asset prices are going to be held up for much longer pending a black Swan event. The masses are buying new cars, electronics, and larger houses they cant afford with these low rates. I got rid of all my financial fear mongers bookmarks many months ago, and feel I have a clear head. Thanks Chris
All the gold shills, too many to mention
Peter Shiff, top gold shill
All the clowns on CNBC, Bloomberg Canada, Fox Buisness
You’re so right in that the internet confuses people more than informs them.
V – Toronto
The alt-financial media can be addictive
Someone has been learning. I try to keep a perspective when analyzing the markets. For instance, the written articles from the mainstream outlets (e.g. Bloomberg, CNBC, and Marketwatch) tend to be less biased than their TV programming. The guests are just shilling their agenda. Relying on others for advice and predictions is a one-way ticket to poverty.
Keep in mind that the X22 Report, Greg Mannarino, ZeroHedge, Peter Schiff, and Martin Armstrong make a lot of money with their sensationalism and disingenuous reporting. As an economist, it is easy for me to see past the data cherry-picking and linear analysis. You and I may see past this, but about 30% of the unfortunate souls who stumble upon this clickbait stuff get hooked and cannot reconcile. These alt-financial showmen know this.
Indeed, the world is a grim place. I get it. But that doesn’t mean our financial lives need to be grim as well. It really isn’t that difficult to invest in this environment. I am not talking about getting rich; I only discuss about becoming more self-reliant. We need to rely less on the people this quoted reader mentions and more on our own intuition.
One day, these shills may be correct. But what will be the cost to you? My net worth has more than doubled since early in the decade and now I make enough passive income to be financially free. I finally broke free of the alt-financial shackles about three years ago, and I will never look back. I only needed the confidence. Take my word, they are all full of sh%$!
The world is not upside down; So what if we have yield inversions?
In a centrally-managed economy, the entire yield curve is controlled. The central banks must make certain that the governments remain in business, regardless of their fiscal policies, so long as it achieves their desired long-term objectives for a socialist new world order. Longer-dated U.S. Treasury interest costs were getting too expensive, so the Fed needed to lower longer-dated bond yields. If these rates drop below short-term yields, so be it. Yield inversions no longer mean the same thing anymore.
A weak economic backdrop provides the central banks with plenty of reasons to maintain QE and their dovish policies. The central banks need to temper the global economic growth rate; any inflationary forces would undermine their ability to keep the governments in business. The weaker the economy, the better.
“The financial world is truly upside down,” said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer of Bleakley Advisory Group, who offered the chart below in a Friday research note. Amid a gloomy global backdrop, more investors are willing to accept negative returns.
The total sum of negative-yielding debt in bond issues represented in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index AGG, +0.50% stood at nearly $9.7 trillion, marking a more than 50% increase from September.
Since the New Year, I have been a buyer of U.S. Treasuries on any dip. If I were a U.S. Treasury trader, since December I would have been buying every U.S. Treasury security not nailed down. Why? The owners of the U.S. Fed made it clear late last year that their tightening experiment was abruptly coming to an end. All the markets responded well, with the longer dated Treasury market responding the most favorably. The more the Fed members speak, the more dovish they become.
Recall last year, we thought the banking families and owners of the Fed wanted to blow things up, since the Fed’s monetary policies were inimical to achieving its primary objective. We knew that the global central banks could never cease QE in its many forms, despite what they were claiming. This also includes the PBOC. In hindsight, it was all a thought experiment, because the elites are not ready to pull the plug. This monetary system can be maintained for years.
So what if the world is drowning in a sea of government red ink?
Primary Fed objective:Do whatever it takes to keep the United States government solvent and in business, with the Fed in control of the process. This means that the Fed must make certain that bond yields decline, so that interest costs stay reasonable (as a precent of GDP). Thus, it will begin a dovish campaign of lower rates and further asset purchases. Who else will absorb this extra supply? Besides, the Fed returns its investment income to the U.S. Treasury. The more Treasuries the Fed holds, the cheaper it is for the U.S. government to borrow.
Secondary Fed objective: Keep the country out of recession, maintain stable prices, and minimize unemployment rolls. Why is this secondary? It is an objective as long as it allows the Fed to achieve its first objective. If the Fed determined that its best course of action to attain its primary objective was to sink the economy, it would do so. The economy is hostage to the Fed’s primary objective.
I have been warning the reader that over the past several months I have observed how the global monetary authorities are no longer discussing the concept of asset bubbles. The topic has taken a back seat to the Cassandra calls of recession. If you scared about collapsing house prices in Australia, the monetary authorities have an answer; more monetary stimulus.
The Fed gave all the other central banks the green light
The European Central Bank launched another round of stimulus for eurozone banks at its last meeting, in part justified by the cut to growth expectations for the 19-member bloc to 1.1% in 2019, from a previous 1.7%.
Smaller central banks are also now singing from the same hymn sheet of caution.
The Reserve Bank of Australia has increasingly voiced its doubts over the economic outlook amid a China slowdown and a soft property-market, stirring market expectations for a rate cut versus an interest-rate hike. And the Swiss National Bank kept rates on hold at its Thursday meeting, trimming its inflation expectations.
Investors in Canada’s debt market are becoming more convinced that the next interest-rate move from the country’s central bank will be down, with bonds due in more than a decade now yielding less than cash.
An investor has to be willing to lend for around 14 years in order to get more than the 1.75 per cent rate that the Bank of Canada currently has as its overnight benchmark. While Canadian bonds due in 2033 on Thursday yielded around 1.79 per cent, securities maturing in June 2029 offered a rate of just 1.67 per cent.
My warning to the reader; assets priced off the yield curve (e.g. businesses and real estate) will move higher despite affordability concerns. Have plenty of cash on the sidelines, low leverage on our assets, and no debt that does not have offsetting income. Be ready for any asset bust. With the central banks telegraphing their intentions, we would be foolish not to listen. Don’t be a victim of central bank policy. Stay ahead of the game.
Note: Keep in mind, I once believed in the predictive capacity of Martin Armstrong’s algorithms and you can count me as a victim. This was why I attended his November 2015 WEC in Princeton. It wasn’t wasted money. The $3,000 in total costs was money well spent. I found out he was just another salesman.
Now, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, so to speak, but I received an email from a subscriber regarding Martin Armstrong’s cycles. This email is one of a few dozen I have received from readers who have lost money and wasted opportunity listening to his recommendation.
I used to follow him [Armstrong] closely and made decisions based on his comments…..no longer. However, I am in too deep because of his precious metals prognostications. I positioned 20% of my net worth in PM’s, waiting for his ( I quote ) “$5,000 oz. gold and $100 oz. silver by late 2020 into late 2021.”
God speed and God bless!
Here was my response.
Thank you for the email and thoughts. I, too, believed what Martin Armstrong was discussing all the way until the end of 2015.
Prior to the end of 2015 I thought perhaps he knew what he was talking about, since he seemed so adamant about his Big Bang Theory. Moreover, he became a go-to guy in the alt-financial media. But as the months dragged on, I realized he was incorrect, and began to readjust my perspective on things and his work.
He was one of the only ones who was correct about the stock market, but since bonds did not tank as he expected, assets priced off the yield curve continued to do well and I remained bullish on a sundry list of items. I recall him discussing gold at the 2015 conference while gold was 1050 at the time. He was talking gold dancing in the 950-900 level and silver dropping to about 9.
He had been talking about a huge reversal in the price of gold [by 2017]; But personally, based on past performance [of gold and silver], I thought that reversal was too early. Indeed, we are seeing gold fluctuate around this level now for the past few years.
Given what we are seeing in the economy with the deflationary forces at play and the fading of the yield curve once again, I don’t see any reason for gold to take off at this point. My concern about Armstrong’s cycle is that since there was no nominal high in 2015 there cannot be a nominal low in 2020. My concern is that the economy may drag lower for years and that we will be wishing that the economy bottomed out in January of next year.
I think you see what I mean. We see the economies around the world fading. [Given that we never experienced a spike in bond yields] what is the catalyst to stop those [economic] declines by January of 2020? It is impossible in such a short time frame to see this happen. There are indeed cycles to the economy, to business, and to the monetary system [even with ongoing central bank intervention]. It’s just not according to Armstrong’s timeline.
“This was a bit of a surprise, as the Fed took out its entire rate-hikes plans for this year and ended the balance sheet roll-off a bit earlier than expected,” said Ben Emons, managing director of global macro strategy at Medley Global Advisors in New York.
A growing number of financial market observers view the Fed’s recent actions with alarm. They have convinced themselves that a sharp slowdown in economic growth must be imminent and believe the Fed must be nervous.
But is the Fed really alarmed over the prospects of a recession? While it just dropped its 2019 GDP estimate from 2.3% to 2.1%, that is not a huge swing and it’s within their margin of error. But bond investors think the Fed knows something it hasn’t told us. As a result, the 10-year UST yield dropped this afternoon to its lowest in 15 months. So much for spiking bond yields. Perhaps the owners of the central banks have another agenda that it cannot make public.
Even for a bond market bracing for an accommodative Federal Reserve, policy makers’ moves on Wednesday were a stunner, raising the specter of recession.
In particular, analysts said bond investors were taken aback by the sharp reduction of interest-rate-hike projections by the Federal Open Market Committee to zero from two back in December, as reflected in the central bank’s “dot plot” — a chart of Fed members’ projections for future rates.
“This decision falls firmly on the dovish side of consensus as the about-face from ‘further gradual tightening’ has now reached a complete 180 degrees,” said Ian Lyngen, head of U.S. rates strategy at BMO Capital Markets, in a Wednesday note.
The agenda for a socialist new world order must move forward
The Fed is not reinstituting aspects of its QE programs over recession concerns. The Fed understands that the global central banks must begin further rounds of monetary stimulus, so that the monetary system can be maintained for the indefinite future. The global central banks need to absorb all the extra sovereign debt supply, since the global investor can no longer digest it all.
Take a look at the growing social spending around the globe. Today, I came across a Bloomberg article titled, Trudeau Targets Home-Buying Millennials With Equity Plan, and it explains that Canada’s housing agency will spend up to $1 billion USD over three years to take equity positions in homes bought by first-time buyers. It’s part of a plan by Justin Trudeau’s government to make housing more affordable for the youngest voters.
I am not telling the reader that this is a stupid program. There are no fundamental attribution errors on this blog. But, after reading this Bloomberg article, if I were a Canadian investor, I would be planning for even higher home prices. Social spending always results in higher prices for everyone. The worst part of this; the central banks are more than happy to print the money to fund these programs. Socialism is alive and well, and it’s what the people want.
The point of this exercise is that the owners of the central banks cannot divulge their real intentions. Thus, the central banks have to be disingenuous in their intentions and claim they are using QE to help support the economic growth.
It is clear that the policies underpinning QE are poorly designed to enhance economic growth, but most in the MSM and alt-financial media still are of the belief that the Fed, ECB, and BOJ employ QE to help stimulate economic activity. All the while, social spending continues to spiral upward and the agenda for a socialist new world order accelerates. The NWO will be financed by QE and the citizens will rejoice. China’s monetary policies are even more obscene and obscure.
My real concern over the next several years is this; as the owners of the central banks quickly guide the nation-states into the desired outcome, the monetary authorities and governments will begin to care even less about how their monetary policies impact the average person. I can see how asset prices move higher regardless of how the economy performs. The average debt-slave will be left in the dust.
Armstrong is saying the economy will bottom in January 2020. Do you think that we will turn things around after that point?
Let’s answer Dave’s question by first looking at Armstrong’s ECM:
Armstrong’s Big Bang of 2015.75 was predicated on growing default pressures for sovereign debt coming to a head on or about that day. Around this time he expected bond yields to escalate until bankruptcy. Higher bond yields would have also resulted in much lower real estate prices and assets priced off the yield curve.
Problem One: 2008, not 2015, was the pivotal year for all sovereign debt. In 2008, for the first time, organic investor demand for sovereign debt was no longer large enough to absorb all the massive new government issuance. In 2008 and 2009, supply began to outstrip demand and the gap has been growing every year.
Problem Two: Quantitative easing was not a failure if viewed from the establishment’s eyes; it was the elites’s response to this growing supply/demand gap. The Fed and their apologists could never admit this and chalked up QE to helping the economy.
It was clear that a debt forgiveness was not in the cards. Had QE not been promulgated, the monetary system would have collapsed. Yields would have spiked starting a decade ago, and that would have been it. The central banks have been absorbing all the extra supply to ensure fading yields.
Problem Three: If the economy has been on an effective IV-drip for a decade and 2015 was not a nominal high (low in longer-dated bond yields) as expected, how can we bottom in early 2020? If sovereign bond yields continue to fade and have yet to spike and real estate prices continue to rise what will be the catalyst for a bottom? There is none.
Problem Four: The central banks seem to have things under control as they are managing the entire yield curve. The monetary authorities, especially in China, have been intervening for 10 years now and I see little reason to conclude that the banks during any time in 2020 will stop the QE process. The central banks are in firm control of the agenda and the global investors know this. If the central banks stop now or any time in the future they will get the blame.
Problem Five: Those who understand the conspiracy for world government and have also concluded that the elites are still in firm control of the economic system will achieve greater predictive accuracy and will be able to stay ahead of the rest of the other prognosticators, Armstrong included. Mr. Armstrong scoffs at the talk of conspiracy. A man at the 2015 WEC asked him about a conspiracy and Armstrong got angry at him.
I see central bank intervention only growing in the coming years. There is no more business cycle; that’s a relic of the past. There is no way that the economy can bottom out any time in the near future when bond yields will continue to sink. We cannot bottom out as long as the global debt balance continues to increase. Turnaround talk is the stuff of folly and wishful thinking, but this does not mean that assets values will fall.
Imagine a scenario where the economy continues to succumb to all the debt while asset prices resume their upward trajectory. I say to throw all that silly cycle talk and discussion of pi out the window. Socialism will not collapse, because this is what the people want. The more debt that is generated for social spending, the lower the inflation rate, the weaker the economy, and the higher asset prices move.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.
As a writer for a blog that uncovers the alt-financial charlatan deceptions, I continually scour the alt-financial media to bring us the ongoing disingenuous scamming to my readers. Every few days I run down the Martin Armstrong blog to see what types of misleading stuff he conjures up. Case in point; I came across this missive titled, Global Recession & Hard Landing, and had to comment it.
Our focus at this WEC will be how you can position yourself. So while others just see a recession emerging, as always, they will be unable to comprehend the real shifts within the global economy as a whole.
I have absolutely nothing against the man personally, so when I comment on his “research” it is only to save us from unnecessary financial harm and the massive opportunity cost of waiting for the world to end according to his timeline. I did spend nearly $3,000 to attend his November 2015 WEC Princeton conference to get his take on his “big bang” theories and although I came away with nothing new, it was money well spent. I found out that the man behind the curtain was only a promoter with a number of services to sell his unfortunate followers. The whole thing was like a mirage, but his cult is very powerful with a number of people.
Look everywhere, but not at the elephant in the room
If I had listened to Armstrong’s advice four years ago, I would have lost a lot of potential profit and it would have come at a tremendous opportunity cost. Most of the 2015 WEC attendees I spoke to at the time were overly concerned about how rising global bond yields would collapse the economy. I told them that the central banks would probably take the world in another direction and that yields would remain subdued. I asked them, why would the central banks let sovereign bond yields rise? Wouldn’t they get the blame? They all said that the central banks lost control. I strongly disagreed.
This just goes to show that if we rely on others to make our investment decisions, we lose money. We lose with poor decisions and we lose money buying services we don’t need.
Back to point… Armstrong can never admit he was wrong, so he needs to keep pounding home the same point every year. Some fall for it.
Even the US economy has been gradually slowing since the 1950s. As taxes rise and the share of the economy government consumes keeps growing, they are starving the real economy and suppressing its economic growth rate. We are headed into a very hard landing. It has been the rise in taxes and regulation that is also behind the trend to automate replacing workers as much as possible.
Armstrong never blames the Federal Reserve for the problems it causes. He is responsible for running cover for the Fed in the alt-media. The reason why taxes and government spending climb every year is because the United States is enslaved under a private banking cartel that has absolutely suffocated its victim (you and me). But that idea doesn’t work for people who either cut a deal to get out of jail or are trying to curry favor.
No QE in China, but what it does is much worse
We simply must approach this from an international perspective for China is also slowing but thank God they have rejected Quantitative Easing which I have warned is a complete failure.
Armstrong is indeed correct; the ChiCom government and the PBOC have not engaged in quantitative easing. It reminds me of Bill Clinton when asked about Monica Lewinsky. I take note that Armstrong has been a huge promoter of ChiCom policy at the expense of the United States and rarely criticizes the Party. Perhaps, we can lump Armstrong in with Ray Dalio and his constant praise of all things ChiCom.
For years, my contention with Chinese investments rested in the simple conclusion that foreigners can never get an accurate financial, economic, and monetary system picture of what the government and all their controlled corporations are doing. Why create a Chinese version of QE when the government can just create fictitious shell companies and off the bad debt to their balance sheets?
I am tired of the disingenuous shill, the click bait articles, and the up-sell in the alt-media. I write my blog as a Christian with nothing to gain (except my soul) and as someone who is able to warn others to stay away from those trying to save us.