By: Publius Huldah
Yes he does. The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air1 which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt),2 in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.
This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders;3 and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.4
Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve Notes with gold was rescinded, the sky was the limit on how much fiat “money” the Fed could create, lend to the US Treasury (and be added to the national debt), in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.
Now we have reached the point where the federal deficits are so huge and increasing at such a furious pace that our entire fiat “money” financial system is coming apart.5
So what are we going to do about it? Does Trump want to get rid of the Fed so we can return to the constitutional money system described in Point 2 below?
Trump may say that he wants to return to the gold standard;6 but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed doesn’t do that. The Globalists’ Plan, which is advanced by USMCA, is to ratchet up the fiat “money” system created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from a national to a global level with a central bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing and enforcing an international monetary system. And as Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., warned 8 years ago [here]:
“The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication … that this scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it….”
- The IMF and the international fiat “money” system
The IMF is an institution in the United Nations system.
The IMF has already created (it was done during 1969), out of thin air, an international fiat currency called “special drawing right” (SDR). The stated purpose of SDRs was to increase liquidity in settling international accounts by making short term loans to member countries to cover their balance of payments, and other temporary financial problems.
- Article III of the IMF Articles of Agreement provides that the IMF assigns “quotas” to members [that would include the United States], representing the amount the member must pay into the IMF [members may pay their “subscriptions” using their own unbacked currencies]; and in exchange, they get an equivalent amount of SDRs [also unbacked by any precious metal] issued by the IMF.
- Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the IMF Articles of Agreement provide that the IMF is to manage the development of an international monetary system [to which we shall be subject]; and is to oversee the member countries’ [that includes the United States] underlying economic and financial conditions and policies in order to promote “sound economic growth” and “financial and economic stability”. i.e., the IMF is going to manage our economy.
USMCA Chapter 17. Financial Services harmonizes the Banking, Insurance, and Investment Practices of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This harmonization removes previously existing barriers to global regulation of those areas and to merging regional currencies into a global currency.7
As anyone who reads USMCA can see, the purpose of USMCA is to remove barriers to global regulation of all the areas covered by USMCA, and to advance development of a new global “money” system which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve System.
Look at the Table of Contents for USMCA: All those areas: agriculture, textiles and apparel goods, customs administration, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, telecommunications, intellectual property (patents), labor (which includes immigration and gender & sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace), the environment, etc., are to be made subject to global regulation.
And we exchange our fiat “money” for the IMF’s fiat “money”; the United States loses control over our monetary system; and the IMF, instead of the Fed, will manage the new monetary system – and our economy.
Trump may give grand speeches before the United Nations saying he opposes globalism and supports nationalism, but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed moves us into global government.8
And the claim that USMCA is about getting favorable tariff agreements for the United States is the Biggest Lie since the Garden of Eden.
- What our Constitution provides about money
Accordingly, except for national defense, our federal government doesn’t need much money to fund its constitutional powers. So our Framers created a taxing system wherein the funds needed to operate the federal government were raised by the import tariffs and excise taxes authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 1, and by the apportioned direct assessments on the States authorized at Article I, §2, cl. 3.9
Congress is also authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 2, to borrow money on the credit of the United States; but our Framers intended borrowing money to be restricted to funding national defense.10
Our Framers also established a money system based on gold & silver:
- Article I, §8, cl. 5: “The Congress shall have Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…”
- Article I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;11 make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”
Accordingly, during 1792, Congress passed an Act establishing a mint and set the standards for the amounts of gold and silver in our coins. Congress took so seriously the purity of our coins that §19 of the Act provided the death penalty for debasement of coins. During 1793, Congress passed an Act regulating the value of foreign coins.
A money system based on gold & silver and a limited taxing system were perfect for a federal government of “few and defined” powers. Furthermore, such systems – if adhered to – would have prevented the emergence of the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.
- Why the Federal Reserve System was established
“…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.
Why does Madison refer to paper money as an “improper or wicked project”? Because, among other evils, paper money provides governments with access to unlimited amounts of credit – and that is what was needed to finance the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.
When the Progressives12 took over our Country during the early 1900’s, they needed lots of “money” to fund their unconstitutional regulatory and “welfare” schemes. But the federal government didn’t have enough gold and silver coins to fund the regulatory welfare state they wanted. So the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 to set up a central bank – the “Fed” – which (thanks to fractional reserve banking) would have the power to supply the federal government with the “money” it wanted.13
So it was access to this credit which enabled the federal government to exceed its constitutional limits.
With this easy credit, the federal government was enabled to “buy” the States by giving them fiat “money” to implement unconstitutional federal programs: State governments literally sold the retained powers of the States and the People to the federal government. A particularly malignant example is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019” (“red flag” law), which appropriates $20 Million for each of FY 2019-2023 to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the “red flag” legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill. If a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.
Rubio’s bill puts the burden of proof on the Respondent. For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. This is evil.
Rubio’s bill is also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government; and it violates the “Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV, §2; violates the 2nd Amendment; and violates the “due process” clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment.
How many States and Indian Tribes will surrender their Citizen’s Right to THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by passing Rubio’s “red flag” law in order to get the “money” from the fed gov’t?14
If we had preserved the monetary system set up by our Constitution, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to become the totalitarian monster it is today. If you want a limited government, don’t give it unlimited “money”.
- What States can do
The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation for States to take some steps in the right direction: See THIS under the heading, “End the Fed from the Bottom Up”.
Open your eyes, Americans. Time is running out.
1 See excerpt from testimony before Congress on Sep. 30, 1941 by the then Governor of the Fed.
2 Robert P. Murphy, Is Our Money Based on Debt?
3 HERE is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. §16 promised redemption of the Federal Reserve Notes in gold. During 1935, §16 was amended to remove that promise: HERE is the amendment, codified as 12 USC §411.
4 See 31 USC §5118.
7 See Joan Veon HERE:
“Globalization is the process of breaking through the protective barriers designed to separate the nation-states from the world system. Between 1944 and 2008 [Bretton Woods I & Bretton Woods II] all the nation-state barriers have been removed with exception of the national regulatory laws governing financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgages, and Wall Street. The real purpose of BWII is to establish the framework for a global regulatory system. This also presents the possibility of merging all regional currencies into a global currency.” [italics added] You can also see her video HERE.
9 HERE is the Act of 1813 where Congress laid a direct tax of $3 Million upon the United States. It shows how Congress apportioned the tax (based on population) as required by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3. (See page 93 of the linked pdf edition.)
10 In Federalist No. 41 (5th para up from bottom), Madison says:
“The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. …”
11 Congress is not authorized to create paper money. In “A CROSS OF GOLD”, Dr. Edwin Vieira says:
[at Part 2]: “…America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ values in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs.…” [boldface added]
[at Part 3]: “…every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.” [boldface added]
When, in 1933, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was repudiated, the federal government dishonored their “bills of credit”. We should have listened to our Founding Fathers.
12 In the 1880’s, the Fabian Society was founded in England. Fabians advocate a gradual transition to socialism [as opposed to violent revolution]. They also hold that the elite – and they are the elite – should run everything [as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.] In the early 1900’s, Fabians took over our Country – here they went by the name, “Progressives”. Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson were Progressives; and the Fabian socialist ideology has dominated our Country ever since.
13 For an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at end notes 1 & 2; and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s fascinating explanations of these issues in his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series HERE. Dr. Vieira also shows why we must not accept a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve System.
14 And all that money used to bribe States and Indian Tribes to pass Rubio’s “red flag” law, will be added to the national debt.
By: Denise Simon | Political Vanguard
Obama signed Executive Order 13520 on November 20, 2009, titled ‘Reducing Improper Payments’. Defined in this order is the purpose to examine all parts of the federal government where improper payments were made, the reasons, the amounts and how to reduce the amounts and risks. Further, the order points to the Office of Management and Budget along with the General Accounting Office to lead the mission. Required upon review is full transparency and reporting for access to members of Congress and the American people. Each agency was/is accountable for self-examination and reporting. There was/is a timeline of dates to meet for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury to take further action to reduce the financial chaos within the Federal government. Each reporting quarter required updated submissions.
If any of the requirements were not met then an Inspector General would be assigned to agencies for failure to comply to determine faults and reasons. From this ongoing effort, policy proposals would be submitted stopping all future improper payment exposures.
All sounds great eh? Except, visiting the respective webpages of the OMB and the GAO, there is no reporting. The only summary published dealt with fraud, not waste or abuse. This summary was published in 2018.
By: Denise Simon | Founders Code
It is a new term for alternative tangibles or intangibles of value but they have been around for centuries. Perhaps we are just fearing the unknown or rogue/fraudulent activities in instruments of value and the volatility of that value. Okay, that part is a good thing for sure. But give competition what it deserves, a chance.
John Berlau did an exceptional job with this summary and after having an extended chat with Mr. Berlau, there is more to come on the topic. Meanwhile, enjoy his synopsis. Your comments are invited.
Why Speculative Consumer Goods Are Not “Securities”
Many questions are being asked about cryptocurrency. Is it a major innovation that will improve standards of living in ways we cannot yet imagine? Or is it a trendy phenomenon that will result in a speculative bubble of volatile assets? The answer to these questions may be: both of the above. New technologies have often produced bubbles that result in large disruptive busts. But after the bubble has burst and the dust has settled, the benefits of the innovation survive and lead to new, unforeseen benefits.Continue reading
By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
A hedge fund pioneer whose quantitative models became the basis for today’s algorithmic trading models is on the verge of throwing in the towel. David Harding is credited with pioneering the quantitative models in the mid-1980s, models that are now greatly replicated and are failing miserably because of the popularity of trend-following and risk-based parity models.
Harding commented that he now has to “reinvent himself” given the “perceived efficiency of computers that systematically buy and sell according to programmed instructions,” trading on information that is perhaps nothing but noise.
Many market luminaries have commented about the impact of high-speed computer-based trading that has destroyed historical benchmarks, creating a false sense of liquidity.
Over the past three years, a record number of hedge funds have closed while capitalization-based passive ETFs have flourished. To put it differently, the best and brightest minds in finance are going out of business while the passive no-brainer investment funds focusing almost entirely on capitalization are doing great.
Wow! Talk about an imbalance. Will this massively overcrowded strategy follow the same path as hedge funds? If history is a guide, the answer is yes. A basic premise to this strategy—if you can call passive buying a strategy—is to find more people to buy more of the same over-owned companies. Sometime the buyers will exhaust themselves or conditions will change.
The greatest investors have been big picture people, focusing on the substance of geopolitics and macroeconomic research versus thoughtless style.
Many are focused on today’s commencement of the two-day FOMC meeting. As widely known, the Central Bank radically changed direction on January 8th adopting a “patient” outlook regarding monetary policy following a tumultuous December. Two weeks earlier, the Fed was focused upon a more active monetary policy including increasing bond sales.
No change is expected but I am certain every word will be parsed.
I continue to argue that growth will continue to surprise on the upside, strength that may again alter monetary policy expectations.
Markets were quiet relatively quiet yesterday. Will the calm extend into today?
Last night the foreign markets were up. London was up 0.59%, Paris was up 0.50% and Frankfurt was up 0.87%. China was down 0.18%, Japan was down 0.08% and Hang Sang was up 0.19%.
The Dow should open nominally higher awaiting numerous central bank announcements. The 10-year is unchanged at 2.60%.
By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
Many times I have commented that geopolitical changes are tectonic. Globally, the policies and politics that have dominated since the conclusion of WWII are under attack as the commoner feels abandoned by the government. There is a general distrust of all governments, the result of regulatory fiat instituted by unelected bureaucrats.
In many dimensions, it is urban vs rural. Elitist versus commoner. A case can be made that four of the five largest democracies are in the beginning throes of a gunless revolution. England’s May. France’s Macron. Germany’s Merkel. America’s Trump.
In many regards, instability is the order of the day hoping that this instability does not lead to widespread violence.
What does the above have to do with the markets? Everything. The markets are dominated by multinational technology companies. The assumptions surrounding their business models have been shattered and the companies are fighting to maintain the status quo.
For example, Apple states that if Chinese tariffs rise to 25%, Apple would relocate its production facilities. As noted several times, over 90% of iPads and iPhones are manufactured in China. Wow! Talk about impacting profits, an impact perhaps magnified by slowing sales.
The above paragraph perhaps partially explains the volatility based upon trade comments; volatility amplified by the market dominance of these companies.
Radically changing topics, globally speaking, there is $7.76 trillion of negative real bond yields, up $2 trillion from October according to Barclays. In mid-2016 there was a record $12 trillion of negative real yields. Typically, negative real yields correspond with inflationary growth as funds gravitate to the real economy from financial assets.
Bloomberg writes after hedging out currency risk, the yield on the 10-year Treasury dropped to minus 0.4%, the lowest since the funding markets blew up during the 2008 financial crisis.
Some would argue the surge in the number of bonds with negative real yields is the result of trade fears that will slow global economic activity. Some would also argue the rapid selling of investment grade rated debt over the past month that has created the greatest surge in investment grade credit spreads since 2016 is also the result of fears of a slowing economy.
The issue at hand is the economy is not slowing. Quoting several Federal Reserve officials, the current economic environment is “robust’ and is expected to remain robust for the next several quarters.
Simplistically speaking, there is a disconnect. The other day I referenced JP Morgan research commenting about the proliferation of fake news and research reports that are greatly influencing trading… trading dominated by computers and six-word headlines.
Can I remotely suggest that such is occurring today in an attempt to sway public opinion about the dangers of changes in trade policy? Wow! This is conspiracy theory stuff.
If JP Morgan is correct about the massive proliferation of questionable news and research reports, the above does not sound outlandish. In my view, if any “credible” analyst writes comments that are found today in the blogosphere, comments that would make Henry Blodget blush, that analyst would be quickly cashiered.
Enough of the conspiracy rant, for the fourth straight day equity gains were cut in half by market close thus suggesting selling into any type of strength.
Just as an aside, late yesterday according to the LA Times, the California Public Utilities Commission will vote next month for a “texting tax” to provide funds for phone service to the poor. State regulators have proposed the tax would be retroactive going back five years.
Various business groups including Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the CA Chamber of Commerce is fighting the proposal, calling such as “dumb and unneeded.” Several consumer advocacy groups are also protesting stating it would unfairly impact those who are “less fortunate.”
Wow! If passed, would this be viewed in a similar manner as France’s fuel tax? Government data states over 80% of California have a cell or smartphone.
Last night the foreign markets were mixed. London was down 0.40%, Paris was down 0.37% and Frankfurt was down 0.12%. China was up 1.23%, Japan was up 0.99% and Hang Sang was up 1.29%.
The Dow should open nervously flat. The 10-year is up 2/32 to yield 2.91%.
By: Denise Simon | Founders Code
Anyone old enough to remember the sin taxes? Well, seems California has proposed to take it to a whole new level to aid the poor… use cell phones… didn’t the Federal government do that with the Obama-phones?
Anyone remember taxation without representation? Oh, just an archaic notion anymore.
SACRAMENTO, CA (NBC NEWS) — California residents may soon have to pay a tax on texting.
According to KNTV, the public utilities commission is floating the idea to help fund programs that give low-income residents access to cell phones.
It’s not clear how much the texting tax would be or how it would be collected.
Several business groups have come out against the proposal.
One business group says the program is flush with cash.
But state regulators say the program is breaking the bank after the budget for the program has been raised 300 million dollars in six years.
The wireless industry says the texting tax would put them at a disadvantage over other free messaging services like Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, Apple’s i-Message and others.
Mobile phone companies along with telecom providers are working to defeat this ridiculous proposal. There is no formal amount of the tax that has been announced, but frankly the poor in California actually need places to live and employment rather than cell phones. There is some chatter that just a flat fee added to the mobile service or a surcharge would be proposed versus some tax per text.
The Bay Area and the California Chamber of Commerce are looking to create a fund estimated to be in the $40-50 million range per year. Oh, wait… there is also some consideration to making these taxes retroactive going back 5 years. If that is the case, that fund would amount to well over $200 million.
A dense California Public Utilities Commission report laying out the case for the texting surcharge says the Public Purpose Program budget has climbed from $670 million in 2011 to $998 million last year. But the telecommunications industry revenues that fund the program have fallen from $16.5 billion in 2011 to $11.3 billion in 2017, it said.
“This is unsustainable over time,” the report says, arguing that adding surcharges on text messaging will increase the revenue base that funds programs that help low-income Californians afford phone service.
Telecom companies are already arguing that texting is an informational service like email and not a service under the authority of the commission’s authority.
Just imagine how much texting goes on through several platforms including iMessages, WhatApps, Skype or by Facebook. It is estimated that in one year alone, 3 trillion text messages are sent.
Often what begins in one state is later adopted in others. So, if you can stand it, it would be prudent to review the whole proposal by clicking here.
One more item going through the FCC:
The Federal Communications Commission says it is giving cellular carriers added authority to block text messages, saying the action is needed to protect consumers from spam or robotexts. But critics of the plan note that carriers are already allowed to block robotexts and worry that the change will make it easy for carriers to censor political texts or block certain kinds of messages in order to extract more revenue from senders.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s announcement acknowledges that carriers are already allowed to block illegal robotexts. Pai did not promise new consumer-friendly blocking services; instead, he said his plan “allow[s] carriers to continue using robotext-blocking and anti-spoofing measures to protect consumers from unwanted text messages” (emphasis ours).
Despite that, Pai is proposing to classify text messaging as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service. That’s the same legal classification that Pai gave to home and mobile broadband services as part of a December 2017 vote to deregulate the industry and eliminate net neutrality rules. The FCC has not previously ruled on whether text messaging is an information service or a telecommunications service.
An FCC vote on Pai’s plan is scheduled for December 12.
By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
The G-20 meeting is over.
I believe the two greatest issues facing the markets for the intermediate future is monetary policy and the normalization of the Fed’s balance sheet. Both events will have a direct impact on earnings and valuations.
Regarding monetary policy, in my view, the markets have been spoon fed by the FOMC essentially telegraphing its intentions for the proceeding year. This has now changed, reverting back to normalcy where the data will dictate policy.
In short, the Central Bank is signaling to investors a hard truth about relying upon contradictory economic data; there are no easy answers anymore. It is going to be choppy with perhaps surprises.
The FOMC is attempting to be flexible but such flexibility will create uncertainty.
Commenting about asset sales, the Federal Reserve is now doubling the number of security sales. How will such increases in bonds available for sale impact prices especially as demand for monies by the Federal government is rising?
Higher interest rates dictate lower equity valuations unless corporate cashflows rise at a greater rate to offset the negative impact of potentially higher rates.
And then there are earnings itself. How will trade and interest rates impact the profitability of the over-owned and highly-valued technology shares? FAANG is down about 25% from its early October peak, the result of earnings that did not meet sky-high expectations.
According to the Consumer Technology Association, approximately 80% of US cell phones and 92% of US tablets and laptops are imported from China.
As noted many times, FAANG comprises a large minority of the popular indices capitalization. Late last week, legendary Vanguard Chairman John Bogle stated that he is expecting a 1.75% total annual return in a 50/50 blended account over the next decade. His rationale is similar to the concerns above; lofty valuations, massive over-ownership, rising interest rates, shrinking margins and trade concerns.
Change is the only certainty, however, I believe the financial markets are not prepared to handle change given the massive proliferation of passive investing which by definition states that past performance will be indicative of future performance. The big get bigger and the small get smaller unless there is some event that disrupts preconceived expectations.
As indicated above, the Fed has jumped off its predictable path into a policy of wilderness. Expectations will change. How will such changes be viewed?
This week is a data-filled week that can alter expectations. There are numerous employment reports, manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys and various trade statistics. Moreover, there are some second-tier technology companies posting results as well as an OPEC meeting.
How will all be interpreted?
Last night the foreign markets were up. London was up 1.76%, Paris was up 1.06% and Frankfurt was up 2.27%. China was up 2.57%, Japan was up 1.0% and Hang Sang was up 2.55%.
The Dow should open sharply higher on the trade truce. Oil is up a 5% as Saudi Arabia and Russia extended their pact to manage the market and Canada’s largest producing province ordered unprecedented output cuts. The 10-year is off 13/32 to yield 3.04%.
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Socialism is all well and good until it makes it impossible to live, work or exist… just take a look at France. This is the second weekend that French protesters are getting frisky in the streets over fuel prices. I am told that it is between $6 and $8 a gallon over there and people are ticked at Macron. Police in Paris are using tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters.
Angry mobs were trying to break through a security cordon at the Champs-Elysées and violence broke out. Over 5,000 protesters were marching there. At least 13 people were arrested after getting into fights with the police. Organizers of the “yellow jacket” movement billed the latest protests as “act two” in their rolling campaign. They want an end to an increase in fuel duty on diesel. Taxes y’all. Hello California.
Metal barriers were erected to keep the violent hordes away from key buildings such as the prime minister’s official residence. Some of the protesters ripped up paving stones and threw fireworks at the police. They were shouting slogans that call for President Emmanuel Macron to resign. Perhaps Macron might want to rethink his stance on America’s ‘nationalism’.