debsyl wrote:
Agreed, Samix, no mere human can carry the sins of another, but Christ is no mere human.

He is the second person of the trinity and thus one with God. That is where we differ.

If he is God, he can simply forgive the sin, he does not need to "carry" sins.

Know More About : Housing Market’s On Fire; Why It’s Not Time to Buy

The housing market continues to vault ahead. We are seeing strong housing starts and the flow of building permits in the pipeline. Home prices are also steadily moving higher.

The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index, comprising the 20 largest U.S. metropolitan cities, increased a better-than-expected 9.3% in February, representing the 13th straight up month for prices.

Looking at the chart below, notice the S&P/Case-Shiller index is currently at its highest point since late 2008, when the subprime credit crisis was in full bloom. Home prices remain well below the levels we saw in 2006, prior to the housing market meltdown.

You can thank the Federal Reserve for creating the ideal environment for the hot housing market via its strategy of record-low, near-zero interest rates and the continued buying of $85.0 billion monthly in bonds to drive down the financing rates.

Chart courtesy of www.StockCharts.com

You can feel the housing market is ready for a bubble, but the trend continues to point higher, albeit at a slower rate and with interest rates inevitably going higher. You need to be careful; but for the time being, the housing market is where it’s at.

I would be hesitant to touch the homebuilder stocks, due to their already massive gains. The chart of the S&P Homebuilders Index below shows the steady upward trend since December 2012, as indicated by the parallel blue lines. Yet also notice that prices have been rising higher without any major adjustment back to the bottom support line since late April. Look at the area marked by the red oval: this is the downside risk to which you are exposed. As such, I advise you to wait for a market dip toward the bottom support line to buy, based on my technical analysis.

Chart courtesy of www.StockCharts.com

An area that I continue to like is the suppliers of home building products and services. Homeowners are deciding more often to stay with their current homes and renovate, which has helped to drive the home supplies stocks higher, including bellwether The Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE/HD).

The company recorded a strong first quarter in which it easily beat on earnings and reported revenue growth of nine percent year-over-year.

A strong recovery in the housing market drove sales, according to Home Depot, which also led to an upward revision in its sales and earnings guidance for this year.

The chart for Home Depot shows the impressive breakout in 2011 to the new record highs. Now, while the advance has been steady and impressive, the majority of the easy money has probably already been made, so you should look to buy on weakness.

Chart courtesy of www.StockCharts.com

Make no mistake about it, the housing market is sizzling, but if you want a piece of the action, your best opportunity would be to wait and buy on weakness.

What Others Are Reading : Global Recession 2013

Read More : http://www.investmentcontrarians.com/debt-crisis/how-the-coming-shift-in-monetary-policy-will-affect-your-investments/2101/

One of the most interesting debates regarding monetary policy is emanating from the Federal Reserve members themselves. The Federal Reserve’s current monetary policy program includes an $85.0-billion monthly asset-purchase program. Recent comments made by many of the Federal Reserve members indicate that they are as unsure about the current monetary policy program as the rest of us.

Increasingly, it appears that more Federal Reserve members are leaning toward reducing and even eliminating the current aggressive monetary policy program of bond buying, and doing so sooner rather than later.

Conversely, there are still several Federal Reserve members who currently vote on monetary policy and want to continue the asset-purchase program, as they don’t see an economic recovery coming anytime soon.

This divergence makes it extremely difficult to predict the future of monetary policy. This is important, because when the Federal Reserve indicates that it will begin reducing its bond-purchasing program, it will have large ramifications throughout various markets.

Personally, I have been of the opinion that the Federal Reserve will begin to reduce its aggressive monetary policy program, or at least indicate that it plans to do so, later this summer or early fall. This shift in monetary policy, I believe, will cause many assets to decrease in price, with bonds being sold off and stocks getting hit as well.

Economically, there are many mixed and conflicting data points. Both vehicle sales and housing are strong points in the economy; however, manufacturing still continues to lag. As well, the recent survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia indicated that current manufacturing conditions are weak, but that business owners are optimistic about the future.

Those types of mixed messages are causing considerable difficulty for analysts, economists, investors, and Federal Reserve members in trying to determine what the best course for monetary policy is. Investors need to incorporate some estimate of future economic activity and monetary policy into their valuation models when buying stocks and bonds; however, it’s extremely complicated to do so when the data indicate various potential outcomes.

Additionally, while jobs have been created, the level of employment growth has been far from optimal. With the continued decrease in the participation rate, this has allowed the unemployment rate to drop. However, this type of decrease in the unemployment rate does not satisfy the Federal Reserve, because they are all too aware that people dropping out of the labor force is not part of a healthy economy. This is part of the reason why they have taken on such an aggressive monetary policy stance.

What is surprising to me is that given the current economy, so many Federal Reserve members are now voicing their shared opinion that the aggressive monetary policy stance of $85.0 billion per month in asset purchases should be reduced or even eliminated.

We cannot ignore the recent statements, and one should begin incorporating this probability when calculating both bond and stock investments. Considering the Federal Reserve is such a large purchaser of bonds, creating a backstop of support, in my opinion, it would make sense to exit fixed-income positions; these will drop substantially in value once the Federal Reserve reduces and eliminates its asset-purchase program.

What Others Are Reading : Global Recession 2013

Jeff Nielson wrote:
In fact I do no recall chatter about Geithner being replaced for Obama's second term, but (especially as a Canadian) I really can't be bothered to pay too much attention to the particular names of the Henchmen.

Frankly it amazed me that they would allow Geithner to remain in that job for an entire term, given that he was a total embarrassment to the U.S. every time he opened his mouth. In comparison, Junior was a skilled public speaker.



Obviously they decided that they needed a Bag Man at the Treasury Department who at least sounds literate. One really has to wonder about the knuckle-dragging, right-wing ideologues who continue to refer to Obama as a "socialist" when these are the types of people he keeps appointing to high office.

HA! HA! HA! I've often wondered what it must be like to be living in Canada and having to be subjected to the steady stream of farts wafting across the border from the noisy neighbor. In many cases you (Jeff) know more about the U.S. henchmen than Americans themselves know, and I don't just mean their names. On the other hand, I suppose there are plenty of people in Canada and other parts of the world that can't even begin to think of their "right honorable" or "honorable" or "royal" whatevers as henchman in the first place.

In any event, I have been keeping my ears open for news about Jack Lew because it seems unlikely that a person with his background and dishonest character would end up as U.S. Treasury Secretary unless he was going to be used to achieve strategic outcomes in service of the oligarchy.

Given Obama's track record, I have to wonder if perhaps he isn't the best person the oligarchy could have asked for in office at this time. He serves as an object of derision for the right wing, particularly the true whack jobs, which keeps them distracted, he tosses just enough crumbs here and there to progressives to keep them from getting uppity, he's a talented orator, and people are simply not accustomed to thinking of black people as servants of the oligarchy, which misdirects their attention and keeps them placated.

Zooey,

The only problem with this argument is when what the buyers are entertaining is the only choice. Here in Australia, you either have to stump up the money to buy at exorbitant prices or rent. The idea for most people is that the price will always go up so they can borrow to the limit of what they can afford. But many are now finding that they can't sell their properties for even the amount of their loans. The only other alternative (which I have taken) is to sell up, downsize, buy something outright, and pull my head in, bunker down and wait for the storm. Of course you have to have right timing, the right finances, and the willingness to make such a change in lifestyle. Most don't have even one of these, so I think for most it's a forgone conclusion that they are going to buy into the phoney market.

If I didn't have the ability to escape from this tyranny (not that I really have, yet) I would ONLY rent, but even that has its own problems....

Sorry, I thought it was relevant to the topic. Now I know.

agau121 wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:


The epitome of this is Tim-the-tax-cheat Geithner. Not only does Geithner have ZERO intellect (as is obvious any/every time you hear him speak); he has ZERO academic qualifications in the world of finance/business.

He is the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and before that the President of the New York Fed...

It may have been a simple oversight on your part, but Geithner is no longer the U.S. Treasury Secretary; Jack Lew is, and he is arguably worse than Geithner. Among other things he is a former COO of Citibank who was instrumental during the Clinton administration for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and has since refused to acknowledge that deregulation of Wall Street contributed to the financial crisis of 2008.

This segment of Democracy Now! features Matt Taibbi and Bill Black discussing Jack Lew's nomination in January of 2013:

"Failure of Epic Proportions": Treasury Nominee Jack Lew’s Pro-Bank, Austerity, Deregulation Legacy

www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_o...ons_treasury_nominee

Regarding my own congressperson, while I am not making excuses for her, my sense of her response to my question was not so much that she was pretending to know more than she actually did but rather that she was delivering a prescripted response with which she had previously been provided. My guess is that she had previously attended some sort of Democratic Party coaching session wherein they prepared their members to deliver the canned reply that she delivered to me.



Lol!

In fact I do no recall chatter about Geithner being replaced for Obama's second term, but (especially as a Canadian) I really can't be bothered to pay too much attention to the particular names of the Henchmen.

Frankly it amazed me that they would allow Geithner to remain in that job for an entire term, given that he was a total embarrassment to the U.S. every time he opened his mouth. In comparison, Junior was a skilled public speaker.



Obviously they decided that they needed a Bag Man at the Treasury Department who at least sounds literate. One really has to wonder about the knuckle-dragging, right-wing ideologues who continue to refer to Obama as a "socialist" when these are the types of people he keeps appointing to high office.

Each of us WILL give an account of our actions, but those who repent and seek forgiveness through the finished work of Christ, will receive eternal life. Only Christ, being both God and Man, can bear the punishment of God. We cannot expect to understand this, as we are not God.

It is Biblical (nothing to do with Catholicism) to state that when one confesses one’s sins and repents HE/SHE IS forgiven. Having written that one cannot continue living in sin, one must change their way of life. Notice I wrote “live in sin”, NOT “fall into sin”. As we are not perfect, man will still fall into sin, but Christians do NOT live in sin. There is a BIG difference.

I am not going to judge any religion, each person will be judged regardless which religion he/she adheres to, and there will be NO escaping the judgement. So if a politician is Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim their day of reckoning WILL come. Jeff, Samix, and Debsyl WILL come before the Almighty God and be judged. We will not be able to hide. It is ONLY the blood of Christ that can and will save.

That my friends is a REALITY!

Acts 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
King James Version (KJV)

Jeff Nielson wrote:



Indeed Robinsld, this is one of my great frustrations as well. People who either don't fully comprehend or simply refuse to acknowledge the full "Big Picture." Being the ultimate Big Picture guy (lol), this is not a problem with myself. I start with the governing premise:

1) The Ultra-Wealthy spend all of History trying to steal everything.

Over the last 400 years or so, the primary VEHICLE for the Oligarchs' plundering is the corporation; more specifically, oligopolies and monopolies. This automatically leads me to the second, ultimate Big Picture truth:

2) ALL the oligopolies and monopolies must be smashed into little pieces.

The frustration to which you allude, and has somewhat dominated my own recent complaints is that other commentators (even in the alternate media) refuse to learn. They are all looking at a much Smaller Picture, and they NEVER expand their consciousness to a level which will provide genuine understanding.

(Attempting to) "reform" our financial system and/or markets is futile with utterly corrupt governments/regulators. Attempting to "vote in" an honest government when nearly all established political parties across the West are fully bought-and-paid-for via the Oligarchs' corporations is equally/utterly futile.

And so when we see/read/listen to the "ideas" of others on how to fix things, it's like some gigantic, macabre game of Trivial Pursuit.



On the other hand, understand that "all hope" is not lost. The U.S. Founding Fathers were simply the last, great "revolutionaries" of the English-speaking world. They are in no way some sort of irreplaceable, historical "titans" (lol). Proof of that is how often and how badly they stumbled once they actually GOT their own country.

Meanwhile, in the French-speaking world; the French Revolution produced its own class of philosophers which we English-speakers must presume were of fully equal stature to the American revolutionaries. But these philosophers/revolutionaries were created by the Oligarchs -- or rather their oppression.

As I've remarked before, the Cycles of History are nothing more than proof that the Oligarchs always, ultimately end up destroying their own Empires. So we know the Oligarchs will destroy their current Empire. The dominant question becomes can the NEXT transition occur (for the first time) without a cycle of WAR to (eventually) purge all of the corruption?

I would suggest that remains a possibility for several reasons. First, there has been a very gradual "civilizing" of our species. Certainly over the short-term this dynamic is totally invisible (and sometimes it appears we're going in reverse - lol); but we are becoming incrementally less-barbaric as a species.

The (second) Iraq war was a good example. The U.S. was on the verge of a humiliating defeat (and withdrawal) -- before it bought-off its Sunni "enemies", declared victory, and left (lol!!). It wasn't outright military defeat; but rather PUBLIC OPINIOM had grown so overwhelmingly hostile that continuing the war could have resulted in irreparable damage to the Two-Party Dictatorship.

Having omnipotent physical (i.e. military) power in no way equates to politica omnipotence. Unless/until our Fascist governments openly choose to cease ruling by consent; even the power of the Oligarchs is vulnerable to "public opinion." And (of course) if the Oligarchs DO choose to begin operating OPEN dictatorships; that guarantees their fall even more certainly...although likely to be a very messy proposition.

Another practical reason to suspect that even the Oligarchs have no appetite for some sort of "all-out war" is that they don't have enough OIL to fight a protracted war with their oil-dependent war machines. In assymetric warfare; the PEOPLE can "fight" with virtually zero petroleum. But the mechanized war-machine of the Oligarchs must have FUEL.

Do the Oligarchs really want to precipitate some version of World War III, knowing that even if they "win" that their reward will be to have drained their own oil-powered Empire of most of the remaining oil?

But the bottom-line is that as we move toward one of these Empire-ending dynamics what is utterly crucial is to raise general awareness -- and get things RIGHT. Here I'm justifiably frustrated with the half-assed work of others.

So, Jeff, you clearly hold out hope that Albert Pike was wrong!

I hold no such hope. I think that the Oligarchs are completely committed to their path to both supreme power and control and a tiny population of serfs with whom they would run the world. This is the direction of all the power structures in the world. which is obvious if you look at the patterns underlying everything that happens on a world level. If this is to be averted, it must be done while there is still a significant population of the "little people" in the world. The Oligarchs themselves are not going to avert their own ultimate goal. I do however share your belief that it will be the Oligarchs themselves who may inadvertently cause their own demise. This most likely, in my opinion, will come from disunity within their own ranks. If this happens before the great culling which is called for by Albert Pike, there is still a chance that the huge populace of "little people" may be able to leverage this disunity and win the day. I would contend, though, that there is already such enmity festering between significant populations of the world which may prevent the "little people" from uniting against the Oligarchs and their systems.

I can't educate the entire Western world about monopolies and oligopolies single-handedly. Until these other commentators show some willingness to LEARN (and begin to properly inform their own audiences) then we are GUARANTEED to be on the road to revolution: real awareness won't occur until the complete and utter destruction of our societies.

I feel that we ARE guaranteed this outcome. I think that this path is now almost certainly assured. I agree that it requires a significant part of the media to rally to your side in this argument, but the forces of power and control are against you. However I applaud your attempts to bring light to this. Whatever the outcome, your attempts will wake at least some people up, and they can do what I'm doing - preparing for the outcome I truly expect.

Jeff Nielson wrote:
samix wrote:
Other than this; the likely scenario in this (staged) event is that the "suspect" was given his Script to read to the media. He refused to read the Script, and so a few seconds later one of the Thugs pulls his gun, murders the suspect, and plants a knife.

I think you're overly optimistic Samix (lol). Being merely "totally passive" won't save anyone once the U.S. Gestapo gets hold of you. It's either TOTAL COOPERATION or you get buried in some anonymous grave...



True, there is anyways no proper evidence against the two brothers and testimony may be the only way to entrap them, in which case people who can claim that they were forced to read one do not appear good alive.

agau121 wrote:
...The observation of a low tide does not mean that the ocean is being drained forever.


Precisely.

And in more general terms this echoes my point about there being "rules" for effective/legitimate "thinking" (i.e. logic). Logic is mathematical, and as the cliche goes; in any remotely logical/mathematical process one cannot "compare apples with oranges".

Yet we see this again and again; the product of one-half mental laziness and one-half not understanding that there is a "right way" and "wrong way" to conduct analysis. Basically no one reporting/writing on business news in the mainstream even understands the distinction you just made.

"Low tide" (to them) is precisely the same thing as the ocean being drained forever...

I just noticed a little news item over on our Blogs...

www.bullionbullscanada.com/bullion-bulls...st-ask-wal-mart.html

...and it certainly ties in to both what I've talked about recently and written about in previous commentaries:

Death of the U.S. Consumer
(3 1/2 years old)

The McDonalds Economic Index
(6 months ago)

The important stat from the Blog post above is that in WalMart's most-recent quarterly report; U.S. same-store sales FELL by over 1%, something which hasn't happened since the "recession" was still official in the U.S.

Note that this 1+% decline is not "net" of inflation, as with the calculations I did in my most-recent article on the U.S. retail sector:

U.S Retail Depression is ‘Good News’

Jeff Nielson wrote:
P.S. As usual, what does the U.S. propaganda machine call it when the Two-Party Dictatorship takes a bad rule and makes it worse? That's right: "a compromise."

I had not previously thought of the word "compromise" as being used as a code word for the pattern that you described, but now that I think about it, it often does fit a pattern.

Well, I've just (finally) finished the first film and I am blown away by the content, the implications and the potential evil that can befall both the US and the rest of the world, including my own Australia. I found nearing the end of the film I was becoming more and more of a logical inconsistency in the arguments, particularly when the presenter got to the question why would the bankers allow this:

<li>My very first observation: The bankers will NOT allow this</li>
<li>There may very possibly be elected representatives who call for this - they will be those who have slipped through the cracks, and been elected to office, despite not "toeing the party line"</li>
<li>These will not be the majority, nor will they have enough personal power, even in combination with others like themselves, to influence legislature to the benefit of all</li>
<li>Finally, above and behind all, the bankers control everything - it is ludicrous to try to create, or to wish for, a system which does not fit within the system already created by these bankers (banksters, oligarchs)</li>

It strikes me as pointless to keep railing against the oligarchs, given they control the very system itself. They don't just benefit from the system, they ARE the system... What I am trying to do in my life is find myself a niche in the scheme of things where I am the least effected by what they do. I can't myself do anything at all to change this system, as I would necessarily be working to do so from the inside. Such systems, if they are changed from the inside do so by the workings of people near the very top or in positions where they have some sort of power over the structure or function of the system. Myself, I have none of this sort of power.

Given that the banksters have the level of control I'm alluding to, how would anyone gain the authority or power to influence the system, other than by some sort of revolution of the system? Which of course, remains the one thing which may change it - and that, really is a mechanism to bring down the system from the outside rather than the inside. I still maintain, there is no mechanism by which the current system can be dismantled from the inside, short of some sort of fit of conscience by the oligarchs themselves. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen....

Read More : Consumers Spending Less; Just Ask Wal-Mart

All of the talk about the negative impact of the sequestration on consumer spending appears to have some validity.

While the rich consumers are continuing to spend on luxury items, those who are making less money and are influenced by the fragile jobs market and flat income levels continue to worry, which could likely impact consumer spending going forward. The effects of this, along with the widening gaps between the rich and the poor and the middle class are affecting consumer spending by Americans. In fact, we are seeing a widening income gap in many countries around the world, so it’s not just an American phenomenon—its impact on consumer spending is global.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE/WMT) is a good barometer on the state of consumer spending around the world, especially with the lower- to middle-class consumers.

The company reported its results last Thursday, and it seems like Wal-Mart is facing some hesitation in consumer spending.

In the fiscal first quarter, the company’s net sales grew a mere one percent year-over-year to $113.4 billion, which was below the Thomson Financial consensus estimate of $116.4 billion. The sales reading was also shy of the low range of the estimate of $114.6 billion.

The low-cost retailer blamed the decline in consumer spending on a delay in tax refunds, adverse weather, and the rise in payroll taxes. The key comparable U.S. store sales fell 1.4% for the 13 weeks ended April 26, 2013, which represents the first contraction in this key metric in many quarters.

My concern is that Wal-Mart is facing sales pressure at a time when money is cheap. What will happen to consumer spending when interest rates edge higher due to rising carrying costs?

While the decline in same-store sales is worrisome for Wal-Mart, there are also concerns regarding the foot traffic in the stores worldwide. Retailers want to see rising and high foot traffic. The thinking is that everyone who walks into the store is a potential customer and represents an opportunity to convert the foot traffic into sales at the register.

In the case of Wal-Mart, there are issues, according to Patrick McKeever, a discount retail analyst at MKM Partners: “The foot traffic trend has been deteriorating at Wal-Mart, pretty much across the entire portfolio, both domestically and internationally,” he states. (Source: Chang, A., “Wal-Mart Has a Bigger Worry Than Sales Growth,” Yahoo! Finance web site, May 16, 2013.) McKeever says the foot traffic for Wal-Mart is declining in North America, Mexico, Brazil, China, and Japan, and predicts it to fall even further this year.

Wal-Mart estimates it will see a rise in comparable store sales in the next 13-week period. If the company doesn’t deliver on this estimate, then you have to pause and consider that maybe all is not as rosy as the media is letting on.

What Others Are Reading : Global Recession 2013

Read More : Divergence Between the S&P 500 and Current Economic Recovery Grows; Are Investors Too Optimistic?

There continues to be mixed data regarding the strength of the economic recovery in America. This is creating an interesting divergence between the level of the S&P 500 and the growth rate of the economic recovery, which is far less than many had expected so far.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia recently released its index of manufacturing activity, which dropped to -5.2 in May, versus a reading of 1.3 in April. (Source: “Business Outlook Survey,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia web site, accessed May 17, 2013.)

The survey shows no consistency over the past seven months regarding the current conditions of the economic recovery. The report indicates that the economic recovery has oscillated between positive and negative readings. Current demand for manufactured goods dropped substantially to -7.9 in May, from -1.0 in April. As well, the level of inventories increased to 4.1 in May, versus -22.2 in April.

This indicates that for the surveyed businesses during the month of May, there appears to be less demand for manufactured products, and inventories are piling up, which is clearly not a sign of strength. However, the S&P 500 continues to move higher. The question is: is this upward movement sustainable?

Obviously, no one can predict the future, but investors in the S&P 500 try to anticipate future shifts in the business landscape. While the economic recovery is currently weak, people who are now buying the S&P 500 believe that growth is close at hand. The current data do not support such a strong economic recovery; however, there is the possibility that such a recovery might occur.

One such data point that supports an economic recovery over the next six months is the future activity index, also part of the Philadelphia Fed’s survey, which increased to 32.3 from 19.5 in the previous month. According to this survey, 45% of businesses expect to see an increase in business activity over the next six months, compared to only 12% expecting to see a decrease.

It appears that business owners are quite a bit more optimistic regarding the potential for an economic recovery in the second half of 2013. Considering where the S&P 500 currently trades at, there needs to be a substantial improvement in the economic recovery if prices are to be sustained at current levels. We are getting to the point where the S&P 500 is priced to perfection.

Chart courtesy of www.StockCharts.com

Considering the substantial move upward in the S&P 500 since last year, one would think that the economic recovery was going full steam ahead. Clearly, that has not been the case, but investors are quite optimistic about the future.

Personally, I think most of the good news has already been priced into the market. This means that any setback could potentially cause a significant pullback in the S&P 500. Considering that the economic recovery is not markedly different from this time last year, one has to raise the caution flag for new purchases in the S&P 500.

While I am glad to see that more business owners are optimistic about the future, the current data does not support the premise that a strong economic recovery is close at hand. I would need to see additional data indicating that current business activity is improving—not just optimism about the future—to fully trust in this premise.

Most people are generally optimistic about the future, but actions speak louder than words; if business activity does not improve by a considerable amount, investors in the S&P 500 could start heading for the exits and booking their profits, leading to a sell-off.

What Others Are Reading : Global Recession 2013

Jeff Nielson wrote:
No AgAu, not "nitpicking", but a minor error in logic. What is the form of the argument?

The economy of China is slowing at the moment, so the commodities boom is ending permanently.

This is a nonsequitur. You cannot claim a temporary event as evidence that a long term trend is permanently ending.


This one little tweak clarifies your meaning for me. I had actually caught the author's non sequitur but was not sure if that was what you were referring to in your comments. The observation of a low tide does not mean that the ocean is being drained forever.

Matt Taibbi discusses the continuing efforts on the part of Wall Street lobbyists to gut the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, which was already gutless at its inception.

I have a brief and at least somewhat relevant anecdote related to Dodd-Frank. Some time during the past two years (I cannot remember exactly when), I participated in a mass telephone "town hall" meeting with my congressperson. When I got a chance to speak, I expressed my concern about the still-present threat of over-leveraged mega banks and asked what was being done in congress to address the problem. Her reply was that Dodd-Frank had been passed, that it was in the implementation phase, and that she knew that it must have some substance to it because it was eliciting resistance from the Wall Street mega banks. She asked me to be patient while the various committees involved, none of which she is a member, finished their work and implemented the final rules. It didn't know whether to laugh of cry.

At the time I actually found this reply on her part to be instructive to me, although for different reasons that she intended, because it revealed to me that either I actually knew more about the situation than she did and that she was essentially impotent to do anything meaningful in congress, or that she knew full well the ramifications of her reply to me and that she thought it would placate me. Based on my knowledge of her background (she worked as a nurse prior to being elected to congress), my guess is that she was naive and essentially did not know any better. In any event, there are doubtlessly many other like her in congress who are either unwilling or unable to improve the situation or are simply unaware that there is a problem--a serious one--in the first place.

Matt Taibbi:

"It's becoming an annual tradition: Spring rolls around, and while nobody is looking, Wall Street quietly lays siege to Washington and reaches a hand out to yank the last remaining teeth out of the government's financial regulatory head.

In the last two weeks, we've seen two major developments here. There was a wave of deregulatory bills that snuck through the House with surprisingly bipartisan support, and a series of regulatory decisions by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that will seriously weaken the already-weak Dodd-Frank reform legislation, particularly with regard to derivatives trades.

If a story about a wave of bills designed to prevent the meager derivatives reforms passed in Dodd-Frank from being enacted sounds familiar, that's because it is. I wrote almost exactly the same story a year ago, in the middle of May, 2012, when a herd of Wall Street-friendly congresshumans teamed up in the House Financial Services Committee to push through a wave of nine ambitious bills targeting derivatives reform. This is from last spring:

The nine bills being contemplated by Congress take a variety of approaches to gutting Dodd-Frank. Two bills, H.R. 1840 and H.R. 2308, are essentially stalling tactics, requiring regulators to undertake more of those sweeping cost-benefit analy­ses that result in lengthy delays. Another bill, H.R. 3283, is more substantive: Sponsored by Connecticut Democrat and hedge-fund industry BFF Jim Himes, it exempts foreign affiliates of U.S. swaps dealers from all Dodd-Frank oversight.

The rule, if implemented, would make the next AIG possible, given that AIG was undone by half a trillion dollars in derivative bets produced by such a foreign affiliate – its London-based financial products outfit, AIGFP. If passed, says Rep. Brad Miller, a Democrat from North Carolina, H.R. 3283 would leave a "massive, gaping hole" in Dodd-Frank. "It would be very easy to move those trades to whatever the most indulgent country would be," Miller explains.

After those bills escaped the House, most of them stalled on the way to the Senate, where of course the Democrats still hold a majority and are reluctant to openly scrap Dodd-Frank just yet."

Read more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taib...eform-again-20130521

And once again it's time for another journey into the world of Orwellian double-talk. Many readers know that American labour groups (and even some rogue politicians) have expressed anger at how easy it is for U.S. OLIGOPOLIES to bring in foreign workers...and drive-down U.S. wages even lower at a time of massive unemployment and Great Depression wages.

So now the U.S. government is going to "reform" its rules...meaning its going to make them even worse. It's going to raise the quota (not lower it) and ERASE the requirement that U.S. corporations even try to find a U.S. worker before importing another (cheaper) one.

Of course even calling these "high-skill" visas is more Orwellian nonsense? Want to know one category of these "high-skilled workers" who get this special visa-exemption to bypass other immigrant workers?

Teenage fashion models.

Apparently if you're female, very young, and very pretty; being able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time makes you "high skill"...



P.S. As usual, what does the U.S. propaganda machine call it when the Two-Party Dictatorship takes a bad rule and makes it worse? That's right: "a compromise."



P.P.S. As is also usual, it's a Republican leading the charge to drive U.S. wages lower.


Hatch, Democrats Reach Compromise on High-Skilled Visas

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/hatch-...high-tech-visas.html

Senator Orrin Hatch has reached a deal with Democrats on changes to a high-skilled visa program, clearing an impediment to Republican support for legislation revising U.S. immigration law.

“There were several things that he proposed that were absolutely unacceptable; we tried to find those things that were acceptable and to build upon them, and I think we’ve reached a reasonable compromise,” said Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat and a co-author of the immigration proposal.

The Judiciary Committee, in its fifth day of considering amendments to the immigration plan, may vote on the compromise today, Durbin said.

The agreement would change the formula for calculating the number of visas for foreign technology workers while keeping the bill’s limit of 180,000 a year. It would lift a requirement that companies look for a U.S. worker before hiring a foreign visa holder for all companies except those whose workforce is more than 15 percent foreign...

I'm sorry to sound like the proverbial "broken record"; but it's becoming harder and harder to discuss particular pieces of the overall propaganda mythology without observing that it is a COMBINATION OF LIES.

Case in point is recent Fed blather (yet again) about an "exit strategy"...except they have promised so many "exit strategies" already (and never delivered) that even the propaganda machine is too embarassed to use those two words any longer.



Why is the Fed once again LYING about an exit strategy? Because the U.S. economy is "so strong". This is despite the fact that ALL recent data released by the propaganda machine has been weak. But of course the propaganda machine never allows facts to get in the way of its "message".

So because the U.S. is so strong the Fed-heads are once again talking "exit strategy", but refusing to call it an exit strategy. And this is "putting pressure" on bullion prices.



But fear not bullion-holders (lol!), for today we hear that the money-printing will continue unabated. Is this because the U.S. economy is so weak the the Wall Street fraud-factories so insolvent that WITHDRAWING this life-support would cause instant death?

No, of course not. The "reason" why the money-printing can continue is because "inflation is so low"...



...since this "proves" that the money-printing isn't doing any harm.



And so we see EXACTLY how corrupt governments produce hyperinflation. No government (no matter how terrible) would ever openly drive their own currency to ZERO. This is why I know that most readers still don't believe me when I state that our currencies will go (literally) to zero.

So how does hyperinflation ever occur? Two reasons. First we have corrupt governments telling HUGE (and growing lies) about inflation. The U.S. inflation-lie has increased from merely always being a few percentage points to a full ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (i.e. multiple of ten).

With the inflation-lie already increasing exponentially; the strategy is clear: simply tell bigger and bigger and bigger lies about inflation -- no longer caring if anyone believes the official number. Because as long as you completely conceal the truth they will never understand how BIG the lie really is. It's very possible that in less than two years (real) inflation will be ONE HUNDRED TIMES the official number in the U.S.

But note the other dynamic: lag-time between when money-printing takes place and when the EFFECTS of that money-printing reach the general economy. The only reason we don't already have hyperinflation is that somewhere around $5 TRILLION in new money-printing has been fed into the banking system -- but completely hived-off from the broader economy.

That can't continue...without this MOUNTAIN of paper over-flowing into the broader economy. Some of it slowly leaks in through inflating U.S. equities and bond prices. But GREEDY banksters can not be prevented (forever) from using all the newly-printed money to gamble in the REAL economy.

As I've suggested before, we might have already engaged in enough money-printing to guarantee hyperinflation (in combination with all this debt). But with the mega-lies about Western inflation getting larger and larger; even if we already aren't past the point-of-no-return on hyperinflation we are CERTAIN to speed right past that point without even slowing down...




Fed's Bullard: No tapering with inflation so low

www.marketwatch.com/story/feds-bullard-n...on-so-low-2013-05-21

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - There is no case for slowing down the pace of the Federal Reserve's bond-buying program given the low level of inflation, said St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, on Tuesday. "Inflation is pretty low in the U.S. I can't envision a good case to be made for tapering unless the inflation situation turns around and we are more confident than we are today that inflation going to move back toward target," Bullard told reporters after a speech in Frankfurt according to Reuters. Bullard is a voting member of the Fed's rate setting committee this year. The Fed is buying $85 billion of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities per month. There had been growing talk that the Fed might scale back the purchases as soon as the next meeting on June 18-19. In a separate speech Tuesday, New York Fed President William Dudley said he did not know if the next adjustment to the bond buying program would be "up or down."

Earl wrote:
Jeff,


Mertis, I would have never guessed you to be a closet Metal-Head!

Being one of the founding members of the "Earl and Mertis Fubar Band", allow me to explain, Jeff- LOL

Mertis, has three guitars, a nice acoustic, a nice "Strat", then one, this demon I brought home for her. Plus, the effects pedals, things went from "I'm leaven on a jet plane", to ACCEPT rather quickly. LOL

I gotta, give her credit vocally, she's got the "God Bless You" down. LOL

There will be more to come, as the "band" repertoire expands, I'm sure.

I call it "Metal Health"-

Thank You
Earl




Explanation noted Earl!

Yes, if I had ever learned to play guitar (more than just being able to pluck a few chords - lol); I can certainly see the "therapeutic value" in playing metal. Nothing like getting LOUD to release a little frustration...I know all about that.

With the media shoveling TONS of manure upon us daily; it only becomes possible to rebut some of the most-absurd Big Picture drivel...from these Small Picture scammers.

Why does Citi's pretend-analyst claim that the commodities boom is "over"? Because prices are not performing well today. Again, this non-analysis is so severely flawed on so many levels it takes a LONG trail of bread-crumbs to lead people back to the real world.

1) Price is NOT a "fundamental." In free-and-open markets (which we obviously don't have) price is a derivative of fundamentals; and for those of limited intellect/understanding they use it as a proxy -- instead of fundamentals.

However, in manipulated markets; the only thing which prices "prove" is manipulation itself. So we begin this analysis with the basic point that EVERYTHING the Citi-idiot says is irrelevant.



2) We get to REAL analysis. What could cause the commodities boom to end? Only two things: the cause of the boom ends OR inventories grow too large. There are no other fundamentals which can cause ANY commodities boom to end.

What do we see?

What caused the commodities boom is the OTHER 6 billion people in the world wanting to raise their standard of living. Has anyone heard the 2 BILLION poor people in China and India alone announce that their standard of living has now risen "high enough"?



Obviously we have only begun to see the gap in standard of living close. Equally obvious: economic power is shifting to the East. If anything; that dynamic argues for a much STRONGER commodities boom -- the opposite of what the Citi-idiot claims.

This only leaves inventories. In the real world; inventory levels for the vast majority of commodities are much, much lower than when the commodities boom began. The only exception to his are industrial metals. And the reason this is an exception is SOLELY due to the amount of economic destruction caused by the Oligarchs (primarily in the West).

Thus inventory levels also argue for increasing strength in the commodities boom going forward.

One last, general point.

How/why do we such totally defective pseudo-analysis from 99% of what is spewed by the mainstream media? Because it is all small-picture trivia. In the world of Corporate Media "analysis"; all that happens is what is reported TODAY.

What happened yesterday is totally irrelevant, and what happened the day before yesterday has already been totally forgotten. And what will happen tomorrow is always assumed to be exactly the SAME as what happened today...with the only exception being when the propaganda machine wants to make excuses for "bad news."



This is intentional. You always/exclusively only REPORT short-term trivia for two reasons. First of all there is the desperate need to hide the Truth. But even more important than this is the mental-conditioning.

If all you ever report to the Sheep are short-term trivia; the Sheep will inevitably believe that short-term trivia is all that matters and they will simply forget about the existence of either long-term data OR long-term analysis.

It's through such brainwashing that you can "surprise" the Sheep with literally any news. We will be "surprised" when the next (official) Depression begins. We will be "surprised" when our currencies are completely destroyed (even people on this site). And (of course) we will be "surprised" when our governments finally acknowledge/declare their own bankruptcy.




Citigroup Sees ‘Death Bells’ for Commodities Supercycle in 2013

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/citigr...ercycle-in-2013.html

The commodities supercycle is probably ending this year as China’s economic growth slows and the nation focuses less on infrastructure and urbanization, Citigroup Inc. said.

This year will probably signal “death bells” for the supercycle, or a longer-than-average period of rising prices, Citigroup said in a report dated yesterday, reiterating similar calls made last month and in 2011. The Standard & Poor’s GSCI gauge of 24 raw materials is down 2.1 percent this year, after an almost fourfold advance since the end of 2001.

The rally in the past decade spurred new mines, wells and crop acreage. Economic growth in China, the biggest user of everything from copper to cotton to coal, slowed to 7.4 percent in the third quarter, from as much as 12 percent in 2010. Expansion will increase to 8.05 percent in the three months through September and remain at 8 percent until mid-2014, according to economist estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Change is “ushering in a new decade of opportunities based on how individual commodities will perform against one another and against broader market indicators such as equities or currencies,” Citibank said in the report. “The downward shift in China’s economic growth rate combined with the decline in the commodity intensity of growth have a permanent and profound impact on global markets.”...

debsyl wrote:
After my husband said that Aurcana was trading at +/- $2.80 a share I had to find out what was happening. I knew Aurcana hadn't bucked the trend and yet it was trading substantially higher than the price I had bought it at.

A quick look at my stocks revealed that I now only have about 1/8 the stocks I previously had.

Can someone tell me what transpired on May 3rd?


Debsyl, no shame in having missed the previous discussion about this. To improve its share-structure (and attractiveness to outside investors) it did a reverse-split (as Earl mentioned).

As Brian pointed out in several earlier posts; this should have IMMEDIATELY resulted in stronger share-price performance. But that outlook assumes we have "markets" instead of crime-scenes.

What has ACTUALLY happened instead is that the Banksters have focused their attacks on this Company -- as evidenced by the plummeting share price (check out the chart at Stockhouse).

Why is AUN's share price plummeting? Apparently it's making too much profits, and increasing production too quickly. While I would never suggest to anyone to over-concentrate in any one company; this is not a reason to flee from Aurcana -- but rather a great reason to buy.

The same arguments which apply to metal also apply to (quality) miners; of which Aurcana has clearly earned a place: prices must rise, so when the current price is lower this simply means a better buying opportunity.


I was already writing about these companies being "dirt cheap" way back in the middle of 2011, so I simply lack any language to use to describe how cheap these companies are presently.

The only way I can partially illustrate this point is to point out that these companies are now ALL cheaper than after the Crash of '08...at which point the entire sector went on nearly a "ten-bagger" run (i.e. 1,000% gain).

robinsld wrote:
Hmm, "inflated forecasts" seem to also be part of their modus operandi in Australia. In particular, I'm thinking of a huge tunnel system in Brisbane for which inflated forecasts of traffic use for tolls were made to win the deals. Then the company set up to run the tunnels went into receivership because they didn't even come close to half the traffic that was forecast. As far as I can see, this means that the people of Queensland are now saddled with the debt for these bogus tunnels. By they way, they are really nice tunnels - just not really needed for a city the size of Brisbane. There are now more and better tunnels under Brisbane than there are in Sydney!!


Yes, note yet another example of Perkins' amorality. LYING is a sin which ranks so low on his behavioral totempole that he doesn't even mention it as one of the forms of behavior for which he's (supposedly) trying to make amends. He only acknowledges the horrendous consequences of particular lies.

In other words, in Perkins' (very) low standard of personal morality/conduct; lying to simply get rich is something he would do just as automatically as putting on a tie each morning. It was only when confronted (again and again and again) with the horrific consequences of his lying that his (minimal) conscience began to rebel.

For most ordinary people; a "confession" of deeds such as Perkins committed would be contained in a SUICIDE NOTE -- rather than put into a book to sell and profit from.

In this case, I would suggest that Perkins gross behavioral deficiency is more a symptom of a much broader social disease than a flaw in any way unique to Perkins. What percentage of people in our society would NOT lie to get ahead -- when they could see the easy/obvious opportunity to profit from doing so?

At one time; I would have suggested such people would have comprised a significant majority. Today, with the Oligarchs deliberately devolving our sense of morality AND rapidly increasing the general level of economic desperation; I would argue that a solid majority would (gladly) lie-to-get-ahead.

Morality is such a slippery slope. One day you're merely lying to make a few bucks. The next day you're goose-stepping as you lead Victims to the nearest Concentration Camp...

Thanks for the post AgAu! It's very important to address the dichotomy between "Bill Black: economist" and "Bill Black: banking expert".

When Black talks about banking, I shut up and listen. I learned a considerable amount of what I know about the U.S. financial system directly from Black. However, when he strays into more general economics; as I've noted before his analysis is simply/obviously weak.

The glaring example in this clip is when Black refers to "non-existent inflation" in the U.S. (lol). What needs to be explained is why Black and other intelligent, generally reputable economists are effectively economic illiterates.

What separates me from them? Apart from generally more-independent thinking; I got exposed to the precious metals sector. It was here I completed my course in "Economic De-Programming 101".



When you see individuals like Black (honest/intelligent/capable) who display this incredible ignorance about their own profession; inevitably these are people who rarely if ever mention the word "gold."

Again, my own advantage is one acquired by accident. I came to the precious metals sector via deciding to become a "commodities investor". Had I not suddenly developed that general curiousity (nearly a decade ago); who knows when (or if) my own eyes would have been open...?

Thus when I criticize the flawed economic analysis of good people like Black I don't want this to come across as being judgmental. It's simply important that we are aware of their limitations -- so that we can filter-out the "good" and reject the garbage.

How deficient is Black's economic background? All he talks about is how the banks are "too big" and "too concentrated" -- i.e. they are an oligopoly. He talks about them being "parasitic". He talks about them being all-powerful. He talks about them even being "nasty."

In other words, after first identifying the U.S. banks as an oligopoly; he then describes many of the bad traits of ALL oligopolies. Then we get to Black's "solutions".

He wants to SHRINK them, and he wants to "tightly regulate" them. In other words, he then talks about the CLASSIC approach to dealing with oligopolies. And yet in a 15-minute plus clip this economist does not even use the word "oligopoly" once.

It's not just the Big Banks which are too big; it's all corporations. It's not just the Big Banks which need to be smashed into little pieces, it's ALL the oligopolies. Hasn't Black even noticed all the raping-and-pillaging of Big Oil and Big Agriculture?

And Black's solutions are not some "brilliant idea" he dreamt up all by himself. They're straight out of an "Economics 101" textbook ("201" perhaps?).



If a young child figures out (all by themself) that we need to "smash the oligopolies"; we would pat the child on the head, hand them a sucker, and applaud their cleverness.

When an economist proposes "smashing the oligopolies"...except he can't even remember to use the word "oligopoly", this is somewhat less-praisworthy.



P.S. Note the word Black uses again and again and again instead of "oligopoly": the metaphor of "scorpions". He's been programmed (brainwashed) so thoroughly to never THINK OR USE THE WORD "oligopoly" that he's forced to use a metaphor throughout a 15-minute clip -- because there is no other word in the English language he could have used to describe what these banks actually are.

It's Tuesday May 21st, and the price yo-yo which YANKED gold violently up to $1400 yesterday is drifting lower again today. While I explained the immediate implications of the bankers' capitulation yesterday; I didn't look ahead.

While that's usually an activity guaranteed to make one look foolish (in these corrupt, fantasy-markets), I'll stick my chin out and give it my best shot (lol). Does the fact that the banksters were unwilling to allow gold (and silver) prices to continue sinking yesterday mean that we have definitely reached "a bottom."

No.

Not the answer people want to hear (lol); but my mantra is to always prepare readers for whatever lies ahead (in various permutations) rather than being some feel-good cheerleader for the sector. In the paper-fantasy markets prices can always go lower...but those lower prices carry consequences (for the banksters).

Obviously the "consequence" I always talk about, and the consequence we have seen for the past 6 weeks is extreme buying of physical metal -- the "cross" against these Vampires; the "kryptonite" against this Corrupt Superman.

This is why I continue to tell people it's not a question of how low we can tolerate prices going, but how much more self-inflicted punishment can the banksters absorb?

Their extreme (and ultimately futile) effort to curtail gold-imports to India over the short term indicates nothing less than a fear of IMMEDIATE default. Meanwhile we see strong and growing evidence of Decoupling. Both of those scenarios represent outright defeat for the banking cabal.

The evidence from the physical market and the behavior of the banksters suggests that barring some NEW variable being introduced that the banksters cannot tolerate the consequences of prices approaching $1300 (US). Of course this presumes that their primary concern is the gold market.

Silver-buying has remained strong (especially legal-tender coins) but it hasn't ignited in the way that gold-demand has -- but we all know the silver-supply situation was already much more critical.

I'm going to assume (unless/until I see evidence to the contrary) that the primary area of concern is the gold market, due to the extreme/unprecedented liquidation of paper-gold. Recall information I presented recently (via Basher Central).

Roughly $300 BILLION has been sunk into paper-gold "funds" of one sort or another. Potentially all of that money could be pulled out, and so far less than 25% has actually been liquidated. Since we know that much/most of the proceeds from this liquidation is going straight into physical bullion; the banksters cannot tolerate strong, additional demand from the Sheep.

This means both not tempting them with lower prices AND not stimulating their greed with any dramatic price-surge -- other than one-day melodramas like yesterday. What this suggests is one of two scenarios looking ahead to the next rally. Either we will see simply more choppy, sideways price-action (before the market takes off on some unannounced "cue"); or the banksters will CHOOSE a "V-bottom": one more plunge -- which then immediately triggers the next rally.

There are THREE problems with investors planning to "wait" for that one, last "buying opportunity".

a) It might not happen at all
b) We have no idea how long/how far the plunge will go
c) There is no bullion AVAILABLE at lower prices

While the first and third possibilities are pretty much self-explanatory, ( requires a little more expansion. The problem with trying to "time" any bottom is that the selling often stops sooner than one expects.

You're expecting an ambush that lasts a whole week (or longer), but instead it's over in a day and a half. Prices start to boomerang higher, but since you're still expecting lower prices you're not convinced. You blink, and suddenly bullion prices have risen by 20% and you're chasing the market higher.

Worse, we should now EXPECT inventory supply problems in any/every rally. The liquidation of paper-gold not only means the eventual death of this banker-fraud; but it also means that in future rallies a much, much higher ratio of investor dollars will go into METAL instead of PAPER.

The fact that the availability of physical metal isn't a problem at the moment is a luxury -- not a "constant." We are getting very close to the day when PRICE become a trivial concern in comparison to availability.

At the moment we have low prices and good availability. A bird in the hand...

Why penalize the murdering of males at all -- if we only have concern for women?

Because our societies are run by rich (white), male Oligarchs; and if we didn't engage in some punishment of violence against males their own (precious) lives would be at risk.

What's the ONLY time our societies 'forget' about their insane bias for women? When it has to compete against our even more-extreme bias for the wealthy.

Need more convincing? In Arizona (the state where the murder above took place), only ONE women has ever been executed. Her crime? Killing a WEALTHY MAN.

...Only one woman has ever been executed in Arizona, one-time Alaska cabaret singer Eva Dugan. Convicted of killing a wealthy Tucson chicken farmer, she was hanged and accidentally decapitated in 1930.