Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Unimaginable mass shootings are simply a part of the "Brave New World"

These recent shootings (the Colorado Theater, The mall shooting in Oregon, and last week's truly sickening school shooting  in Ct)  have me thinking a great deal about Pharmaceutical drugs designed to alter our brains, and to alter our natural ability to interact with Society, and our natural surroundings.

All these whack-jobs seemed to be "different" people who were all taking a myriad of psychotropic drugs prescribed to help them deal with their mental differences.

I'm reminded of a book I read 20 years ago.

Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World" was written in 1931 (while the world was mired in the last major economic and societal malaise, coincidentally); and it offers a fictional look into a future world similar to the one more popularly novelized by George Orwell with  "1984".

In Huxley's book, the future world is a single nation-state where the vast majority of  people are reduced to little more than human livestock that merrily go about their days living in complete blissfull ignorance to the fact that they are slaves to an invisible elite class that keeps them drugged (literally) with a supplement called Soma, and also drugged (figuratively) with the promise of societal peace and uniform security.

In Huxley’s novel, the supplement Soma dispels any anxieties or negative emotion. The people become compliant, ambivalent robots who never feel the urge to think critically, or to fight back against the ones who oppress them intellectually.

The saying in the book was, “One cubic centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments.”

In America today, the government controlled drug industry has thousands of pills full of synthetic chemical compounds designed to treat every depressive or unhappy thought that might affect you, and others that are designed to turn your children into perfect little angels, making the burden of raising them easier on the "grown ups", who have far too little time these days to actually stop and invest the time necessary to explain to their kids how the real world actually works.

Huxley's Soma, it seems, has become very real in the form of Prozac, Ritalin, Zoloft, Xanex, and, coincidentally, an actual muscle relaxant called {drum roll} .....   Soma

But remember:

You are NOT allowed to try and "treat" your own unhappiness with an unapproved natural (and probably banned) substance like cocaine, THC, or opium. These are DANGEROUS naturally occurring chemicals; and the threat of imprisonment always lurks in the shadows if you choose your own form of mind altering substance, versus choosing a synthetic chemical concoction that is declared to be "safe" for you by your elite economic overlords, and which (only coincidentally) happens to generate profit for them...

So, a synthetic drug that alters the brain, and possibly produces a psycopathic killer as a by-product, is ok, just as long as it is "FDA Approved" ; while a natural drug that makes you mellow, hyper, or hungry for nachos, is NOT allowed in the "Brave New World"...

Makes perfect sense to me.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Examining the bigger "bigger picture"

I've  had a Eureka moment.

A review of current trends:

1) The western governments are actively oppressing the rich(er) members of society with threats of new taxes, etc.
2) Naturally, (as Rand so eloquently predicted), the rich are rebelling, ex-patriating, and heading for Argentina (or elsewhere)

Guys like Doug Casey, Bill Bonner, et al  seem to think that escape is the only rational option (even though the threat of taxation attached itself to the US citizen like a leech and follows them wherever they may travel), so one must ask what it REALLY is that these guys are running from. 

Or, are they actually MARKETING the escapist mindset in order to generate more income for themselves by appealing to our "flight" response, as opposed to selling letters encouraging us to dig in and arm ourelves, to appeal to our "fight" response (like that ultra-lame doomsday prepper show on TV does).

Now, here's my epiphany - in the grander scheme, this is all by design. Maybe not the design of people, or governments (or Bilberberger groups), but maybe by Nature itself.

Concentration within any market (or any natural population) is corruptive and damaging in the long term; and decades of concentrated entrepreneurial spirit in the western developed world has built up this grand economic Acropolis, but it has also allowed us to cross the threshold into this dark place of current circumstance where entrepreneurism is confused with greed,and is therefore seen as corruption in the same way greed is.

The historical lesson of how Democracy failed in Athens (leading to the rebirth, and Plato's Republic) is today being replayed on the global stage.

Conceptually, Democracy and Communism are the EXACT same thing, and they must always fail, just as they have always failed before. The whole can not be better than the sum of its parts when individual personal psychology gets thrown into the mix.

The "machine" of the smooth running utopian society has a flawed design element:  Personal choice NEVER acts as a lubricant in the gears - it acts more like sand.

The politicians, by doing what they are doing, are merely forcing a "cleansing" of the entrepreneurial spirit, and they are pushing it out into more frontier global economic territories. I don't think this is deliberate (they aren't that smart), but it is a naturally beneficial side-effect of mass political stupidity.

As stupidity concentrates itself, intelligence expands outward until it eventually surrounds and contains the stupidity.

I don't think western civilization is going to collapse as a result of this...  I think it will decline somewhat further as economic energy shifts to more frontier emerging markets; but I do think the stupidity-based political power structure in the developed world will collapse long before society does.

Again- it is not a coincidence that the death of Democracy (the first time it was tried) occured in the exact same place that Democracy is beginning to die again today: Greece (and the greater Eurozone in general). Nature is not without a sense of irony. 

The mythical "New World Order" is going to become nothing more than a global monetary and economic Republic.

Let's just hope we can find the Global Thomas Jefferson-caliber thinkers to draft the appropriate Constitution to support such a Republic.

There's your dose of thought fuel for today.

Friday, November 16, 2012

An open declaration to all liberal Social Progressives, and all corporatist Neo-Conservatives

You are all intellectual vacuum tubes.




Now, I'm not prone to name calling in my first-person relationships (unless you REALLY do something to prove you deserve the title)  but man,  following this last election, I really feel like I need to step up the rhetoric and get my intellectually disadvantaged co-workers, neighbors, and social acquaintances to TRY looking at a bigger picture of the world.

In the world (the Universe, actually), there is reality, and there is perception.

Reality is what it is - Reality will not be denied, no matter how enthusiastically you try to "believe" it away.

Reality is the asteroid that suddenly falls out of the sky and causes a mass extinction on Earth, REGARDLESS of whether or not anyone expected to end up dead or extinct when they woke up on that particular morning....

Reality tends to get really scary when it inspires you to consider possible (and plausible) future events and circumstances.

For this very reason,  reality simply has little sway over common popular perception. What a person believes is typically more important to them than the possible (or plausible) truths that might invalidate their perception, their beliefs, and potentially the underpinnings of their entire system of faith.

So, people look to others for shared perspectives, shared viewpoints, and shared systems of faith. They use the "birds of a feather" mantra, and the "strength in numbers" fallacy to create a sense of personal security and belonging that appeals to their ego, and keeps their id complacent (if not satisfied)

And so, they vote.

They vote for the preservation of their comfort. They don't vote for what's right, and they don't vote against what's wrong.... they simply vote for what appeals to them most at that particular point in time.

In other words - nobody votes to tear the entire system down - EVERYBODY who votes is first and foremost voting to preserve the system.

The system must be preserved at all costs, and THAT is where my basic premise finds its footing:

The US based system at present is collectivist National Socialism (I'm referring to the concept; not to be confused with the failed Nazi party of Germany, nor the mouth-breathing, swastika-wearing retards who have run around the backwoods of the US, screaming about the genetic supremacy of disadvantaged white morons ever since)

GWB, Karl Rove, and Zionist Neocons like them provide (and sensationalize) the Nationalist component.

Obama,  and brainless progressive elitists (academia) like him, provide (and sensationalize) the Socialist component.

Taken together, the pendulum just swings back and forth between "Nationalized Socialism" (the Progressive platform) and "Socialized Nationalism" (the Neocon Platform)

So, you have Republican Neocons who want to turn us all into Nationalist "patriots", and you have Democrats wanting to turn us into Socialist "progressives"

There is nowhere on the spectrum allowed for individuality and  the clairvoyance of personal thought. You are either "with us" or you are "with them", which makes you "against us" by default.

Well, I'm against everybody who is against "them"; for "they" are me, and I have given you no reason to be against me...

So, stop calling me one of "Them"

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Yay, the election's over (Thank God)

Well, the people have chosen whom they believe to be the lesser of the two great evils.

It seems that ambiguous, self claimed Christian-Muslim hybrids who stand on a pillar of personal accomplishment that is actually more of a flat stone than a true pillar, are perceived to be less evil than white skinned mormons with perfect hair, who made a ton of money by using debt to destroy other people's companies...   

That in itself is interesting, but not fascinating.

What is fascinating is the emotional outcry and the vitriol of the "losers"...

Now, I applaud all of you for caring as deeply as you seem to.

But I concurrently question the intellectual efficacy of this care.

If you don’t personally know a person, then why do you prefer to expend energy investing your sentiment into their personal actions? I'm just curious...

Find people you KNOW. Help them if they need it, and if they are willing (and reciprocal) recipients (ie: they possess the character and integrity of someone who might someday return the favor during your time of personal need).

Obama’s actions can impact your personal prosperity ONLY if you bought into the false premise of a flawed financial system that promised you that the future would always be robust enough to offset the burdens of the present.

You live in the here and now. Today is where you reside.

Tomorrow is something to PREPARE for. It is not something to EXPECT (think very carefully about the difference between those two terms)

The universe (nature, Earth, humanity, reality, God) owe you NOTHING; so you have no right to feel victimized when tomorrow comes, and your expectations are not met.

“I paid into the system- I only want what’s mine”
- pure heresy.

What you pay is GONE the moment you pay it. ALL refunds are at the discretion of the recipient.
Well, this particular recipient (the collective US citizenry) is telling you that they will NOT be returning what you provided them in good faith.

You can waste your energy crying “Foul!” and “No Fair!” and other “Boo Hoo”s; but your energy will be as wasted as a shout of “Echo” into the Grand Canyon.

A system that was always based on nothing more than collective faith, is failing. That is not an inflammatory personal opinion – it is a point of view based on rational examination of empirical data.

Demonizing someone (anyone) for their actions (however misguided those actions may seem) is merely a reflection of how little thought you have personally given to your own efficiency and harmony as a living spirit.

Place your faith where it will not (or can not) not be destroyed by the willful actions of others…

There are opportunities out there worthy of your faith. Nature (or God if you prefer) guarantees this as surely as they guarantee that your expectations will not always align perfectly with the realities of an unforeseeable future.

If you formulate your personal expectations on a future based upon the perpetuation of false premises, then the burden of the consequence when those premises fail to deliver (or collapse outright) is YOURS to bear.

Blaming Obama for your own failings is, again, pointless (Echo….. echo….echo…)

You invested your faith in a faith based system; and you leveraged this faith to the point that you now face a margin call. 

When a margin call comes - your only choices are to pay it, or default.

Society does not have the "funds" to pay on this great margin call of faith... so default is the only reasonable direction all of this is heading.

Again, remember that nobody (not even society as a whole) owes you ANYTHING.

Expecting to win, without preparing to lose, will leave you with nothing but empty hope in your heart; and hope is nothing more than the mirror reflection of its twin sister despair.

Therefore, hope is not enough for me. I must have faith; and right now my faith is not in the form of investable capital… my faith only exists in the form of savings. So, I must hold onto it tightly, and find the opportunities that I trust to reward me for my investment.

And- to any of you out there who are predictably thinking "You need to invest your faith in God, Robert"  are TOTALLY missing the point - my faith in God, Nature, the Universe have never faltered - it is my faith in humanity (in total) that has become such a precious commodity to me.  

I mean, look deeply into the eyes of your neighbor, as they scream and curse about the insanities of a nameless, faceless “government gone wild” (while concurrently demonstrating their own insanity and hypocrisy in the process); and then go look into the eyes of a 6 year old as you sit across from them during a game of checkers.

Where should your faith be invested?

After all – the future belongs to THEM. Not us.

The default, the collapse of Empire, and the associated dark ages of consequence to follow are OURS (whether we like it or not). The following Renaissance and enlightenment will be theirs, IF we invest carefully and appropriately right now.

No politician, and no government, is worthy of my capital, because none of them will ever reward my precious investment of faith with any form of reciprocal care later in life…

From this moment forward, think CAREFULLY about where to invest. Your future depends on it….

Monday, September 24, 2012

Attention: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke

Dear Ben Bernanke-

Today is my birthday-  I bet you don't care.

My question is:  which is more important to you:

A) Your legacy as an Economist, and Teacher, or
B) Your legacy as a Central Banker?

It seems that, following the Fed's announcement of unlimited MBS purchases (characterized in the popular culture as QE3, QE-INfinity, or my personal favorite, QEternity), That BOTH of your legacies are presently standing on shaky ground, and that your actions as Chairman of the Fed (the role of the Central Banker) are running in stark conflict/contrast to the fundamental economic laws you espoused and supported as a Teacher and  Economist...

So, just out of curiosity, which of these legacies are more important to you, personally?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Monday, September 17, 2012

Why the creation of the Universe was an act of GOOD - regardless of whether God was involved or not

Late last week, I stated in a post on some web forum:

Without the presence of heat, this Universe would chill to absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) and all electrons would stop moving. The Universe would literally come to a complete Quantum standstill. Our conscious beings would no longer exist - the neurons in our brains would cease to operate.
We simply can not exist in this Universe without the fundamental superiority of positivity over negativity.

Which drew the ire of some guy named Joe who replied:

What a load of clap trap...a wonderful "interpretation" of the laws of thermodynamics!!!
give all of a us a lesson in how your post really applies to the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics.....


- Now, I should just let this blow over,  but the gauntlet was thrown. This guy slapped my face with a white glove and extended a challenge.

So, here you go Joe, this one’s for you, buddy… The mother load of all clap-trap:

Nature abhors a vacuum... You might remember hearing that in 4th grade Science class.

Have you ever considered what it really means? Have you ever asked the question:
Why does Nature abhor a vacuum?”

Ok, no, you’ve probably never asked that question. I mean, why would you? That’s the kind of question only a truly spiritual (if not schizophrenic) spirtual zealot would waste any thought (or time) contemplating

And yes, I have tried to figure it out. My best “philosophical analysis” of how nature and creation work together follows below:

FAIR WARNING- Some of what you read below is empirical science- some is philosophical conjecture reflecting a personal viewpoint (mine). I tried to apply all the necessary caveats and pre-emptive disclaimers to prevent the “false premise” police from hauling me off to debate-jail.

In nature, most everything comes in pairs – Sir Isaac Newton taught us that for every force there must be an equal and opposite force, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every Yin, there is a Yang.

However, there is one aspect of the physical Universe (one set of “natural laws”) that operate with a different set of “rules and guidelines” – These are the laws of Thermodynamics.

The laws of Thermodynamics essentially provide for us the REASON that Nature abhors a vacuum.
Specifically, Thermodynamics says that you can’t “create” heat. Heat is just a by-product of matter changing states (or of matter and energy swapping places with each other)

The laws of Thermodynamics also state that entropy (the relationship of order versus chaos in any system) must always INCREASE (or favor chaos) over time. This is to say that as time passes, all orderly systems must deteriorate, and all well formed structures must disintegrate into less stable physical states- this is unavoidable, and the more orderly the system is, the higher the mathematical probability is that it will succumb to entropy. This concept is easy to see in old buildings that rust, collapse, and disintegrate into dust over time, and in fruit that gradually rots back into the soil, and in beautiful sand castles that degenerate into random, disordered mounds of sand grains.

So, if entropy is Newton’s “opposite” of stability, then they are not “equal and off-setting” as Newton surmised. In nature, entropy “wins” against stability over the long term, every time.

Wherever (and whenever) there is perceived stability, Nature identifies a “vacuum”, and she begins to “abhor” it, and she employs entropy to begin "changing" things and moving them toward a new state.

The law of entropy can’t be reversed- sand can’t be "un-weathered" back into the solid granite it came from, and nature does not randomly create sand castles by combining wind, water, and sand (although there is no physical law that says this is impossible- it is only very VERY unlikely).

Now, here’s where I finally come to the point of all this:

No matter where you came from, no matter what your personal faith leads you to believe, there is one constant that nobody has been able to dis-prove:

At some point, there was a beginning to time. Whether it was a random “Big Bang”, or whether it was the energetic intertwining of two cosmic strings resulting in a bubble bounded by an array of stable Higgs Bosons, or whether it was an omnipotent Deity or personality named God simply waving his/her figurative “hand” over the nothingness that came before…. In the beginning, God/Nature created the Heavens and Earth and said “Let there be light”, and God saw the light, and it was good. (Genesis- 1.4)

Did you catch that?

The light was GOOD – God said so. Hence, my original statement:

We simply can not exist in this Universe without the fundamental superiority of positivity over negativity.

We have (finally) stumbled upon an argument/viewpoint that I will NOT argue. I take God’s word for it, unconditionally, that light is GOOD.

So, we live in a Universe where light is good, but where order relents to chaos over time. So, the question that follows must be: Is chaos therefore “good”, or “bad”? (This is a rhetorical question that can’t be answered with any degree of precision- it is merely presented as a thinking point).

In the studies of religion, and of human behavior and psychology, the tendency toward chaos is typically classified as a negative attribute – words like “disorder”, “anarchy”, “turbulence”, “destruction”, “pandemonium”, “riot” are often attributed to the presence or influence of other negative words like “evil”, “Satan”, “psychosis”, “civil unrest”, “mental illness”, etc…

Disorder creates confusion, and confusion/uncertainty makes people uncomfortable. Therefore, we are “trained” from early in our lives that confusion (and discomfort) should be avoided. We are trained to avoid, and to dislike, the natural force of entropy and to gravitate toward “order” and “certainty”.

In fact- we are taught that people who gravitate toward chaos are “unruly”, “dangerous”, or “evil”; and society even creates elaborate archetypes for us to loathe like “Skinheads”, “Nazi’s”, “Black Panthers”, “Siccarios”, “Boogey Men” and “Terrorists”.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't identify (or even loathe) some of them for being dangerous, but I am questioning why we loathe them in general for being "different" due to their affinity toward chaos and disorder...?

I mean, it's not unheard of to read about the occasional episode where some buttoned-down Sunday school teacher "snaps" and blows away his entire family, but because his actions do not align with his archetype, we have a more empathetic reaction than we do when we read about the people that Che Guevara killed during his "anarchistic" rampages...

We EXPECTED Che to kill people - he was a chaotic psychopath, after all, right?

The Hindus actually have a God (Siva) who characterizes entropy pretty well; and, in the Western religions, destruction, chaos, and disorder are typically more often equated with Lucifer/Satan (evil) than with God (good)

And so, many of us are taught that God loves us, and as long as we live in reverence of that fact, then no matter what kind of “bad stuff” happens to us, we will all win in the end.

Well…. Entropy says you can’t win. Entropy says that the moment you begin “ordering” things to reduce confusion or discomfort, you begin increasing complexity, and setting your new order up for its inevitable (if eventual) collapse.

Anyway - If we apply the “rules” of Thermodynamics to the total existence of the Universe, a person can relate (if they choose) the existence of “The Light” that God brought forth as the entropy that “shattered the stability” of the ephemeral darkness/cold/void/vacuum/whatever that came before it. (notice the term"whatever- I am not declaring that I know what came before the creation of everything - I simply have faith in the "something" that makes up "nothing")

Likewise, when the Universe "exploded" into being, the inverse of Thermodynamics was necessary- from the "stability" and cold of nothing, came the "chaos" and heat of a living, changing Universe.

When God “saw” the light, God added the “heat” to the Universe.


Again, the words conjure up certain behavioral responses and reactions.

Out of nothing… came everything; including an “unbreakable” physical law that says nothing else can be added or taken away- it can only change states, and which also says that things must steadily graduate toward chaos (disorder) over the long term.

What any of this has to do with people is for YOU to decide, but, the LIGHT (and its associated physical laws) came from God (or from randomness); and the light is good since it brought with it heat/warmth/love (unless you choose not to believe in God, or in good, or in heat/warmth or love).

And so, the entropy (chaos) that the light brought with it can’t be all bad, now can it…?

If entropy resulted via the original creation act of God, then the chaos associated with entropy should not be feared- it is simply something to be aware of, and to live your life around… Right?

Personal commentary:

In societal terms, I believe Mexico is superior to the US in this regard- Mexican society has much more disorder (entropy) than US society, and yet the people seem better adjusted to living in more natural harmony with the ever-changing state of things. Nobody likes the Drug Lords, but they don’t let the constant threat of danger stop them from living their lives as they would choose. Meanwhile, in the US, we barricade ourselves behind concrete block walls within gated communities as we try to keep nature “outside the gate”.

Personal choice – it is up to the individual – we can choose to embrace the light, heat, warmth, love of a dynamic, changing Universe (a metaphor for society); or we can embrace the vacuum, cold, and void that “stability” brings about (a metaphor for a stale, boring existence within your sterile, gated community).

Just remember that the natural laws say that embracing the cold nature of stability is just setting yourself up for impending chaos and disorder as entropy steps in to shred your stability (and complacency) into a billion little pieces…

Ok, I’m crawling back under my rock to do some real work now…

If you want to know more about my personal relationship with God, then go read this:


Thursday, May 17, 2012

Compromise is often the Antithesis of Sound Judgement

Compromise is often the Antithesis of Sound Judgement

I just thought of that little soundbite...  Consider it the next time someone tries to convince you that you need to bend your reasoning away from what you know is right, just to make someone else happy....

Monday, May 7, 2012

Well, it’s official: The US government is thinking about becoming a predatory lender.

On Feb 1, 2012, The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee (a symposium composed mainly of representatives of the cabal of large US banks that are referred to as “Primary Dealers” in Treasury Auction-speak) tabled the following, seemingly innocuous, little tidbit:

“The question was asked if it made sense for Treasury to permit bids and awards at negative interest rates in marketable Treasury bill auctions. [A Treasury employee] noted that there were operational issues associated with such a rule change, but that the hurdles were not insurmountable.”

The Primary Dealers are asking the US Treasury if there is a way to allow people to bid MORE for a Treasury Security than what the cash value that the Security will be when it reaches maturity… For example, bidding $105 for a Treasury Bill that you know will only be redeemable for $100 from the Treasury at maturity.

Many financial newsletter writers and mainstream media analysts will probably take this development and infer that the market expectation is for more future deflation (declining money supplies and therefore decreasing general price levels), while traders will salivate at the prospect of higher speculative gains to be made on T-Bills that can be unloaded later at higher prices when the “greater fool” comes along.
But would this development mean for the individual long term investor (aka: the greater fool referenced above)?  It means they would be agreeing to pay the United States Government a fee to store their cash savings.

Now, I must point out that even the 0.125% earned interest from a demand deposit account or CD at the local BofA, Chase, or WellsFargo branch seems better than negative interest, right? I mean, you can preserve 100% par value on your savings (0% interest) by simply stuffing cash in your mattress. Why on Earth would it make sense to willingly surrender the value (aka: purchasing power) of your hard earned savings? This concept is interesting, but I guess it’s not altogether inconceivable.

Every day, people choose to bid more for items in Ebay auctions than they could ever hope to re-sell these items for.  Depreciation is a basic capital condition that some people simply choose to pay no attention to. They don’t seem to care WHAT their money is worth, just so long as they can preserve some arbitrary balance number on their account that allows them to sleep comfortably. I’m cool with that- ignorance is a basic human right that we are all entitled to.

However, I just can’t fathom why people would be willing to purchase a printed piece of paper that guarantees that it will be worth less in the future than it is today; when they could just as easily use the funds to go out and buy a Harley Davidson and have a little fun on weekends while their asset declines in value, but hey- whatever floats your boat (or yeah- why not just buy a boat?)

Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion merely adds credence to my already well-formed point of view that general and widespread financial illiteracy is a basic component of societal strife and widespread economic decline, despite anything Keynesian economists might declare to the contrary.

So, I continued reading, and it got even more interesting:
 “It was the unanimous view of the committee (again: the Primary Dealer banks) that Treasury should modify auction regulations to permit negative rate bidding and awards in Treasury bill auctions as soon as feasible.”

Hmmm…. as soon as feasible… that got me wondering why.

US Treasury Bills are in an undeniable bull market from a global demand perspective. Since the world ended in 2008, the liquidity in the US Treasury market has drawn global investors like moths to a flame; so the ability to let people bid whatever they want for these very artistically decorated and official looking pieces of paper seems like a no-brainer; but there is another, more unseemly and potentially insidious, aspect to this:
The largest generation in US history is moving into the Treasury market en masse as they enter their retirement years. This gives me pause and causes some concern:

Why would a generation of 60-something Americans agree to trade their printed Federal Reserve Notes for printed Treasury Bills that are guaranteed to lose money? My fear is that they simply wouldn’t realize it was happening. Moving out of stocks and into Treasuries is just “what you’re supposed to do” in your golden years, and I fear today’s retirees are simply singing to the same sheet of music that their parents did; or worse, they are taking their guidance from some clueless Financial Advisor who is charging them a fee to advise them to pay the government another fee to “protect” their savings. The tag-line for this sales pitch is already well-formed:

“US Treasuries are the safest, most secure place to place your money- since they are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government”

More troubling is that these “advisors” might be working for the very banks that are pressuring the Treasury to allow this nefarious practice, so that the banks can take down the Treasury auctions themselves, re-sell the Bills for profit (to the retirees), and pocket the difference in the purchase price, as well as the depreciation of the par value of the Bill, all for themselves.

The Primary Dealers have already been doing this in the Bond market for 3+ years with the Federal Reserve as their counterparty (the Fed has been purchasing an increasing amount of new Treasury issuance from the dealer banks within 2 weeks of each new auction); but now they stand to break into the piggy banks of a whole new set of “surrogates” for the Federal Reserve (US retirees).

The idea that these “counterparties” might be willingly (if unknowingly) entering into these predatory (as opposed to being merely parasitic) relationships sickens me; until I remind myself, yet again, that general and widespread financial illiteracy is a basic component of societal strife and widespread economic decline, despite anything Keynesian economists might declare to the contrary.

Seemingly, the Mogambo Guru has it 100% spot on. We’re freaking doomed.

From a market analysis perspective, the ability to price inverted yield Treasury Bills into the market will certainly give the Treasury Bull market room to run higher, But the flipside of this will be the ability of the commodities market bulls (especially those commodities that compete as forms of savings) to continue charging as well; since the myriad of people who once declared that Gold is a stupid savings vehicle because it pays no income and requires storage and maintenance costs will slowly begin to figure out that the exact same conditions now exist with “safer” US Treasuries as well.

Protect yourself. The greatest weapon you have to fight this financial mass psychosis is information; but you have got to know how to wield this weapon or it will be turned against you.  Remember: This is all a big game, and the global banks are playing to win. If you choose not to play, then you will be partying with the losers after it's over...

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Lending Versus Counterfeiting

What is the Difference Between Counterfeiting and Lending?

Merriam Websters Dictionary defines the noun “loan” thusly:
        1) Money lent at interest
              2) Something lent for the borrowers temporary use
T            3) The grant of temporary use.
A loan typically involves an asset that is idle (like spare money, a spare house, or a spare shovel) which someone else can put into economic use; and the rent typically comprises compensation for said use. Rents typically cover wear and tear (if the real asset is a durable good), or are offered as a premium/profit paid in good intention for the purpose of showing your appreciation for the lender’s generosity in extending their financial asset for your use.
But definition number one above is the one I want to focus on here. Money lent at interest. Recently, the wheels seemingly fell off the wagon with that one, because since early 2009, the Federal Reserve has been “lending” money to the commercial banks at effectively 0% interest.
Why is this important? Look again at the definitions above. If the loan involves money, but is not lent with interest, then the implied motive behind the loan must be “for the borrower’s temporary use” meaning that the Fed must be expecting the Banks to give this money back to the Fed at some point; since one can only “loan” their real property- Otherwise, the “loan” becomes a “gift”.
What’s more interesting is that (as we all know) the Fed doesn’t even have to HAVE the money on their balance sheet in order to lend it- all they have to have is a willingness to credit the commercial bank’s (or the Treasury’s) account with the agreed upon amount, and voila!... there is now money from whence there was none.
Now, for a moment, just Imagine that your neighbor stopped by on a warm Saturday afternoon and asked you if he could use a shovel for a few hours; and you, possessing no shovel, but possessing the willingness to lend him a shovel, suddenly MADE a shovel magically appear in his hand from nothing. Why, you would be as powerful as the Federal Reserve, by golly….
So, in reality, what the Fed is doing is issuing dollars (creating currency), but merely calling it a “loan” without any expectation that they will ever see those funds again.
So, why do they call it a loan? Because the term “loan” always carries with it the connotation that there is a claim (a lien if you will) against the borrower. When the lent asset is currency, then the counterparty is most often the Treasury, who assumes a debt (a bond) in exchange for the lent funds. This debt is then shifted onto the backs of the population as a lien- a claim on someone else’s productivity.
So, we have the few (Central Bankers and Treasurers) pledging the future productivity of others (the masses) against their free will, and without their direct consent. This is an interesting dynamic, since Central bankers and Treasurers are not elected by the masses. The question must logically follow as to how they are legally authorized to represent the masses, or to burden us with the debt that they create when they “lend” more currency into existence.
The Constitution clearly states in simple language what federal money is (a dollar is 371 grains of fine silver). It also states clearly that only Congress has the power to emit bills of credit, and to coin money and regulate the value thereof.
The Federal Reserve’s official bio says that Congress abrogated this power to the Fed via law, but nowhere is there a constitutional amendment that says congress is authorized to abrogate that power.
So the Federal Reserve is out there emitting bills of credit into circulation, and calling them dollars, in spite of the fact that they do not meet the definition of a dollar… So I ask you: What is the difference between counterfeiting and lending?
The answer, if you choose to listen to the Fed, is nothing.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The final portrait of my life will be painted within the memories of the people I knew...

Not sure if the philosophical one-liner above is worthy of Thoreau or Frost, but I thought of it, and decided to share it.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Do you Support our Troops? Then LISTEN to them...

Do you love (I mean really LOVE) your country?

Are you a Veteran? Do you feel free in the land you swore to defend?

Do you believe that America's brightest future has to include DHS, TSA, ATF and other forms of militant authoritarianism?

Are you brave enough to watch this all the way to the end.... ? Are you brave enough to admit it moved you to tears?  I am.

Finally, do you trust your own judgement?

Please LISTEN to what your conscience, and those pesky tears, are telling you.