investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Doug Casey on the Rise of Day Trading and Why it Will Lead to Financial Disaster

International Man : The Fed ’ s unprecedented money printing , trillions of dollars in government bailouts , and artificially low interest rates have changed people ’ s behavior .
There ’ s a shift from saving to spending , borrowing , and gambling .
Many people are becoming day traders who otherwise would not .
They ’ re treating the markets like a casino .
What are your thoughts on all this ?
Doug Casey : The stock market originated as a means for raising capital for new productive ventures , a means of price discovery for what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing liquidity when investors wanted to buy or sell .
An entrepreneur provided an idea and the labor , and the public provided the capital .
It was simple , and useful to everyone .
But a relatively minor part of the economy .
The stock market has mutated tremendously , however .
Now trillions of new politically-created dollars are inundating the system .
Over the last decade especially , it ’ s become a vehicle for speculation more than anything else .
There ’ s nothing wrong with speculation , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from investing .
An investor adds his capital to others ’ labor , plants a seed , and hopes to reap a harvest .
A speculator , however , is generally someone who attempts to profit from facts or events that aren ’ t well-known or understood .
Often things with a political flavor .
There would be few speculators in a true free market economy with sound money .
Worse , when billions and trillions of new currency units are created—like now—the public is almost forced to do things they normally wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like make wild bets on things they don ’ t understand , for “ fear of missing out ” on a runaway bull market .
At some stage they ’ ll gamble on anything , trying to outrace the currency ’ s depreciation .
We ’ re now at the stage where prudent investors step back , because there ’ s no longer much value in the market .
Lots of newbies , however , are piling into the market , hoping to double their money overnight .
Or sometimes desperately trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by buying some investment that they were told might make them a 11,358 % —or some such—return .
They think they ’ re investors or speculators .
But they ’ re really just unsophisticated gamblers .
They spend outrageous amounts of money on the equivalent of racetrack tout sheets , but the touts aren ’ t horses .
Today they ’ re usually tech stocks .
Well-chosen tech stocks can be gigantic winners over time , of course .
But mainly for sophisticated investors who actually understand something about technology , science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plumber , dentist , or insurance salesman hope to get lucky .
Those folks usually discover—too late—the truth to the old saying “ High tech—big wreck.
” Even more dangerous , and more popular , are derivatives on volatile stocks : puts and calls .
These things serve a useful purpose as risk hedges for sophisticated portfolio managers .
But today they ’ re mainly used as gambling mechanisms , by people who barely know what they are .
In fact , since online gambling is generally illegal in the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock market as a substitute for sports betting , online roulette , and online poker .
That ’ s especially true during this time of COVID hysteria , when people are locked up in their homes and are looking for something to do on their computers .
That , and tens of millions are getting unemployment benefits from both the state and national government , giving them much higher incomes than they made when they were working .
All kinds of clever marketing ploys convince people that stocks that will go 10-to-1 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that one of these hot stocks will guarantee their retirement , but they ’ re much more likely to blow up the savings that they have .
This is a disaster in the making .
The fact that the public is so interested in the stock market right now is a sign of a top .
International Man : The Robinhood trading platform has exceeded over 10 million active users .
During the COVID hysteria , the platform has become popular with millennials and beginners .
Many people used their stimulus checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the significance of this ?
Doug Casey : Robinhood allows you to buy fractions of a share of stocks , and they don ’ t charge commissions .
It ’ s a brokerage for people who have no real money , and shouldn ’ t be in the market to start with .
The house doesn ’ t look like they ’ re taking a rake , but of course they are because they ’ re not trading stocks for you as a charity .
Members of the public are spending thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them what to buy .
But even if the guru is a genius—as opposed to just a glib carny barker—the odds are hugely against the lately arrived retail public .
First—in an era when professional traders spend millions to increase the speed of their executions by microseconds—the tout sheet subscriber is , at best minutes , but perhaps hours behind the action .
Second , he ’ s fighting the bid-asked spread .
Third , he ’ s paying retail commissions , directly or indirectly .
Fourth—and most important—he ’ s got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second-guessing both the guru and himself .
Successful traders are rare birds .
It ’ s actually worse .
As a rule , you don ’ t want to be where the public is .
Yes , the trend is your friend .
But it ’ s easy to be trampled by the herd , even if they ’ re all running in the same direction , and they ’ re all “ right ” for a while .
The real problem occurs at major turning points , both tops and bottoms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong , and the exit is too small to accommodate more than a few who want to get out when the trend changes .
Even if amateur traders manage to break even , or net a small profit over a massive bull market , they ’ re likely to get trapped at a major turning point .
And lose most everything .
Considering the length and steepness of the current bull market , plus the fact it ’ s driven by money printing as opposed to economic fundamentals , the reversal in trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the way you get a hundred times on your money—the meme driving today ’ s public— is not day trading .
It ’ s done by taking to heart the principles Ben Graham explains in his book “ The Intelligent Investor.
” Or by studying the annual reports of Berkshire Hathaway , written by his student , Warren Buffett .
Amateur traders—even if they ’ re successful , which most are not—are like a little kid , running in front of a steamroller , picking up nickels and dimes .
Eventually he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today ’ s frenetic market reminds me of a sardonic commercial I saw years ago .
A guy in New York says , “ Hello New York buy , hello Chicago buy , hello Los Angeles sell , New York and Chicago are buying.
” All of this has nothing to do with the purpose of the stock market , which is to raise money for productive ventures .
We ’ re looking at one of the great bubbles of history .
It ’ s going to go down in history beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Something more like the South Sea Bubble , or the Tulip Bubble .
It ’ s going to be devastating for the average person .
I don ’ t know how long it ’ s going to go on , but frankly , I don ’ t want any part of it .
What am I doing ?
I ’ ve been involved with cryptos and pot stocks in the recent past ; it worked out because I treated them as hot potatoes , not investments .
My specialty , however , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explorers , developers , and miners in particular .
They ’ ve been quite rewarding recently , and I anticipate another bubble in them developing .
There have been five gold stock bubbles in the last 50 years .
But that ’ s another story .
In the meantime , I expect to stay long the golds , and out of most common stocks , until I see a golden bear tearing apart the New York Stock Exchange depicted on the front cover of Time or Newsweek .
Assuming those rags still exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope to dump all my miners , and buy something like Berkshire Hathaway .
In the meantime , we ’ re in for some rough weather .
International Man : Right before the housing crisis of 2008 , there were plenty of stories of people who had 4 or 5 homes , all mortgaged .
We know how that ended .
Is the surge in day trading and gambling a sign of the same sort of thing but this time in the stock market ?
Doug Casey : Yes .
Right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make them millionaires , the way they felt the real estate market , and flipping houses , was going to make them millionaires before the bubble burst back in 2008 .
The stock market is way overpriced by every measure—price to book value , price to earnings , and dividend yields .
When it eventually crashes , and all the little people are wiped out , they ’ ll be very angry .
It ’ s going to result in lawsuits and regulatory actions .
It ’ s going to put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle-class , and lead to social chaos , including class warfare .
We ’ re going to see a lot more corporate bankruptcies , and government bailouts .
Lots of money in automakers , auto renters , hotels , restaurants , airlines , retailers , and many other sectors— will die and go to money heaven .
It ’ s not over by any means .
International Man : Many retirees hold large positions in risky stocks and junk bonds in a desperate search for yield .
What do you think will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should they do ?
Doug Casey : Again , this is a dangerous time in financial history .
In the past , a saver could put money in an ordinary bank account and get 4-6 % .
If he wanted to take a slight risk , he could buy a corporate bond and get 8 % .
Or do some research , buy a solid growth stock , hold it for five or 10 or 20 years , and make a lot of money .
But now , people are frenetically jumping in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing they know about the company is its ticker symbol .
I kid you not .
And they ’ re paying a lot of money for trading systems that amount to black boxes .
Trying to be a trader is a guaranteed formula for disaster for all but a very few .
International Man : What do you say to people who look at the paper gains in their 401Ks , and brokerage accounts today and feel rich ?
Doug Casey : Paper gains make them think they ’ re Masters of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bull market with knowing what they ’ re doing .
Among other things it ’ s causing a lot of people to live above their means .
They think the temporary bubble in the market will actually allow them to afford things that were out of reach , so they ’ re taking out big mortgages , and fat loans on new cars .
Not to worry—the market will pay for it .
What ’ s likely to happen is the market will evaporate all their cash , and leave them with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bubble is going to make them worse off then they were before .
It ’ s easy for them to think that they can become wealthy just shuffling paper around , as opposed to producing real goods and services that other people want .
When the public treats the market like a casino , it turns out that only the casino wins .
It ’ s not even a zero sum game , it ’ s a negative sum game .
What ’ s going to happen to the millions of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gambling— thinking they ’ re speculating or investing , when they don ’ t even know what the words mean ?
I don ’ t know what the sociological and political upheavals are going to be like when millions of them lose all their money .
But it ’ s going to be really ugly , and they ’ re going to go looking for somebody to blame .
Editor ’ s Note : The truth is , we ’ re on the cusp of a economic crisis that could eclipse anything we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people won ’ t be prepared for what ’ s coming .
That ’ s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive an economic collapse .
Click here to download the PDF now .

Via International Man
International Man: The Fed’s unprecedented money printing, trillions of dollars in government bailouts, and artificially low interest rates have changed people’s behavior.
There’s a shift from saving to spending, borrowing, and gambling.
Many people are becoming day traders who otherwise would not. They’re treating the markets like a casino.
What are your thoughts on all this?
Doug Casey: The stock market originated as a means for raising capital for new productive ventures, a means of price discovery for what they were worth, and a means of providing liquidity when investors wanted to buy or sell. An entrepreneur provided an idea and the labor, and the public provided the capital. It was simple, and useful to everyone. But a relatively minor part of the economy.
The stock market has mutated tremendously, however. Now trillions of new politically-created dollars are inundating the system. Over the last decade especially, it’s become a vehicle for speculation more than anything else.
There’s nothing wrong with speculation, of course. But it’s very different from investing. An investor adds his capital to others’ labor, plants a seed, and hopes to reap a harvest. A speculator, however, is generally someone who attempts to profit from facts or events that aren’t well-known or understood. Often things with a political flavor. There would be few speculators in a true free market economy with sound money.
Worse, when billions and trillions of new currency units are created—like now—the public is almost forced to do things they normally wouldn’t and shouldn’t. Like make wild bets on things they don’t understand, for “fear of missing out” on a runaway bull market. At some stage they’ll gamble on anything, trying to outrace the currency’s depreciation.
We’re now at the stage where prudent investors step back, because there’s no longer much value in the market. Lots of newbies, however, are piling into the market, hoping to double their money overnight. Or sometimes desperately trying to forestall a retirement of eating cat food, by buying some investment that they were told might make them a 11,358%—or some such—return. They think they’re investors or speculators. But they’re really just unsophisticated gamblers.
They spend outrageous amounts of money on the equivalent of racetrack tout sheets, but the touts aren’t horses. Today they’re usually tech stocks. Well-chosen tech stocks can be gigantic winners over time, of course. But mainly for sophisticated investors who actually understand something about technology, science, and finance. Only rarely can a plumber, dentist, or insurance salesman hope to get lucky. Those folks usually discover—too late—the truth to the old saying “High tech—big wreck.”
Even more dangerous, and more popular, are derivatives on volatile stocks: puts and calls. These things serve a useful purpose as risk hedges for sophisticated portfolio managers. But today they’re mainly used as gambling mechanisms, by people who barely know what they are.
In fact, since online gambling is generally illegal in the US, a lot of people are using the stock market as a substitute for sports betting, online roulette, and online poker.
That’s especially true during this time of COVID hysteria, when people are locked up in their homes and are looking for something to do on their computers. That, and tens of millions are getting unemployment benefits from both the state and national government, giving them much higher incomes than they made when they were working. All kinds of clever marketing ploys convince people that stocks that will go 10-to-1 or 100-to-1 are only keystrokes away.
They hope that one of these hot stocks will guarantee their retirement, but they’re much more likely to blow up the savings that they have. This is a disaster in the making. The fact that the public is so interested in the stock market right now is a sign of a top.
International Man: The Robinhood trading platform has exceeded over 10 million active users. During the COVID hysteria, the platform has become popular with millennials and beginners. Many people used their stimulus checks to fund their day trading.
What is the significance of this?
Doug Casey: Robinhood allows you to buy fractions of a share of stocks, and they don’t charge commissions. It’s a brokerage for people who have no real money, and shouldn’t be in the market to start with. The house doesn’t look like they’re taking a rake, but of course they are because they’re not trading stocks for you as a charity.
Members of the public are spending thousands of dollars on tout sheets, telling them what to buy. But even if the guru is a genius—as opposed to just a glib carny barker—the odds are hugely against the lately arrived retail public. First—in an era when professional traders spend millions to increase the speed of their executions by microseconds—the tout sheet subscriber is, at best minutes, but perhaps hours behind the action. Second, he’s fighting the bid-asked spread. Third, he’s paying retail commissions, directly or indirectly. Fourth—and most important—he’s got to battle with his own psychology, inevitably second-guessing both the guru and himself. Successful traders are rare birds.
It’s actually worse. As a rule, you don’t want to be where the public is. Yes, the trend is your friend. But it’s easy to be trampled by the herd, even if they’re all running in the same direction, and they’re all “right” for a while. The real problem occurs at major turning points, both tops and bottoms. At these points the herd is always wrong, and the exit is too small to accommodate more than a few who want to get out when the trend changes. Even if amateur traders manage to break even, or net a small profit over a massive bull market, they’re likely to get trapped at a major turning point. And lose most everything. Considering the length and steepness of the current bull market, plus the fact it’s driven by money printing as opposed to economic fundamentals, the reversal in trend will be ugly.
In any event, the way you get a hundred times on your money—the meme driving today’s public— is not day trading. It’s done by taking to heart the principles Ben Graham explains in his book “The Intelligent Investor.” Or by studying the annual reports of Berkshire Hathaway, written by his student, Warren Buffett. Amateur traders—even if they’re successful, which most are not—are like a little kid, running in front of a steamroller, picking up nickels and dimes. Eventually he’ll trip, and get crushed.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Today’s frenetic market reminds me of a sardonic commercial I saw years ago. A guy in New York says, “Hello New York buy, hello Chicago buy, hello Los Angeles sell, New York and Chicago are buying.”
All of this has nothing to do with the purpose of the stock market, which is to raise money for productive ventures. We’re looking at one of the great bubbles of history. It’s going to go down in history beyond the level of the 1929 bubble. Something more like the South Sea Bubble, or the Tulip Bubble.
It’s going to be devastating for the average person. I don’t know how long it’s going to go on, but frankly, I don’t want any part of it.
What am I doing? I’ve been involved with cryptos and pot stocks in the recent past; it worked out because I treated them as hot potatoes, not investments. My specialty, however, has always been the highly volatile resource sector—gold explorers, developers, and miners in particular. They’ve been quite rewarding recently, and I anticipate another bubble in them developing. There have been five gold stock bubbles in the last 50 years. But that’s another story. In the meantime, I expect to stay long the golds, and out of most common stocks, until I see a golden bear tearing apart the New York Stock Exchange depicted on the front cover of Time or Newsweek. Assuming those rags still exist by then. At which point I hope to dump all my miners, and buy something like Berkshire Hathaway.
In the meantime, we’re in for some rough weather.
International Man: Right before the housing crisis of 2008, there were plenty of stories of people who had 4 or 5 homes, all mortgaged. We know how that ended.
Is the surge in day trading and gambling a sign of the same sort of thing but this time in the stock market?
Doug Casey: Yes. Right now, people feel the stock market is going to make them millionaires, the way they felt the real estate market, and flipping houses, was going to make them millionaires before the bubble burst back in 2008.
The stock market is way overpriced by every measure—price to book value, price to earnings, and dividend yields. When it eventually crashes, and all the little people are wiped out, they’ll be very angry. It’s going to result in lawsuits and regulatory actions. It’s going to put the final nail in the financial coffin of the middle-class, and lead to social chaos, including class warfare. We’re going to see a lot more corporate bankruptcies, and government bailouts. Lots of money in automakers, auto renters, hotels, restaurants, airlines, retailers, and many other sectors— will die and go to money heaven. It’s not over by any means.
International Man: Many retirees hold large positions in risky stocks and junk bonds in a desperate search for yield. What do you think will happen to these people, and what should they do?
Doug Casey: Again, this is a dangerous time in financial history.
In the past, a saver could put money in an ordinary bank account and get 4-6%. If he wanted to take a slight risk, he could buy a corporate bond and get 8%. Or do some research, buy a solid growth stock, hold it for five or 10 or 20 years, and make a lot of money.
But now, people are frenetically jumping in and out of stocks where the only thing they know about the company is its ticker symbol. I kid you not. And they’re paying a lot of money for trading systems that amount to black boxes. Trying to be a trader is a guaranteed formula for disaster for all but a very few.
International Man: What do you say to people who look at the paper gains in their 401Ks, and brokerage accounts today and feel rich?
Doug Casey: Paper gains make them think they’re Masters of the Universe. They’re confusing a bull market with knowing what they’re doing. Among other things it’s causing a lot of people to live above their means. They think the temporary bubble in the market will actually allow them to afford things that were out of reach, so they’re taking out big mortgages, and fat loans on new cars. Not to worry—the market will pay for it. What’s likely to happen is the market will evaporate all their cash, and leave them with a lot of debt.
This stock market bubble is going to make them worse off then they were before. It’s easy for them to think that they can become wealthy just shuffling paper around, as opposed to producing real goods and services that other people want. When the public treats the market like a casino, it turns out that only the casino wins. It’s not even a zero sum game, it’s a negative sum game.
What’s going to happen to the millions of people who can’t save, but are gambling— thinking they’re speculating or investing, when they don’t even know what the words mean?
I don’t know what the sociological and political upheavals are going to be like when millions of them lose all their money. But it’s going to be really ugly, and they’re going to go looking for somebody to blame.
Editor’s Note: The truth is, we’re on the cusp of a economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. And most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming.
That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive an economic collapse. Click here to download the PDF now.


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--LOCKDOWNS COMING: 22 STATES ALREADY LOCKING DOWN AGAIN

Anyone who understands that these lockdowns were never about health , but about control , know that the first lockdowns didn ’ t quite devastate the middle class to the point that the elitists needed them to .
Now , another round of lockdowns is coming in order for the rulers to usher in the New World Order through chaos and poverty .
This is straight up nothing short of economic terrorism and it ’ s being done by the government .
These lockdowns serve two purposes .
One , they keep up the facade and continue to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And two , they finish off the middle-class impoverishing enough people that they will willingly enslave themselves for the universal basic income pittance in the form of a digital dollar that the elites can track , trace , and control .
But in order to keep the show going and get people to buy into this scam , states are locking down again .
Twenty-two states have issued additional orders that trample people ’ s basic human rights .
Those states are : The destruction of rights is well underway for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep up this scam at all costs .
This has never been about health .
The elitists do not care about our health and whether we continue to live on this planet or not .
They only want power .
Wake up and stay prepared .
If your state is not on the list above , do not assume you will escape this hell .
It is on .
We are being played like a grand piano and most people are too brainwashed to even realize how enslaved they already are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly , we don ’ t deserve the freedom which is our birthright as human beings .
This is all planned .
This is a part of their game .
The only way to win is to refuse to play .
Rise up and live freely .
That ’ s what terrifies these psychopaths : our realization that we don ’ t need their permission to be free .

by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan
Anyone who understands that these lockdowns were never about health, but about control, know that the first lockdowns didn’t quite devastate the middle class to the point that the elitists needed them to. Now, another round of lockdowns is coming in order for the rulers to usher in the New World Order through chaos and poverty.
This is straight up nothing short of economic terrorism and it’s being done by the government.
Greg Mannarino: “They Want People Desperate. People Aren’t Desperate Enough”
These lockdowns serve two purposes. One, they keep up the facade and continue to keep the masses in a panicked state of fear. And two, they finish off the middle-class impoverishing enough people that they will willingly enslave themselves for the universal basic income pittance in the form of a digital dollar that the elites can track, trace, and control.
But in order to keep the show going and get people to buy into this scam, states are locking down again. Twenty-two states have issued additional orders that trample people’s basic human rights. Those states are:
1. Minnesota
2. Maryland
3. California
4. Iowa
5. Wisconsin
6. Utah
7.Rhode Island
8. Michigan
9. Connecticut
10. Massachusetts
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
11. Illinois
12. Colorado
13. Idaho
14. Florida
15. New York
16.New Jersey
17. Pennsylvania
18. Texas
19. Kentucky
20. Mississippi
21. Nebraska
22. New Mexico
The destruction of rights is well underway for a second time. They are really desperate to keep up this scam at all costs. This has never been about health. The elitists do not care about our health and whether we continue to live on this planet or not. They only want power. Wake up and stay prepared. If your state is not on the list above, do not assume you will escape this hell.
It is on.
We are being played like a grand piano and most people are too brainwashed to even realize how enslaved they already are. If we let this happen again, frankly, we don’t deserve the freedom which is our birthright as human beings.
This is all planned. This is a part of their game. The only way to win is to refuse to play. Rise up and live freely. That’s what terrifies these psychopaths: our realization that we don’t need their permission to be free.


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Joe Biden’s $11 Trillion Plan to Bankrupt America

The president-elect promised record levels of spending and taxes on the campaign trail .
Will he succeed ?

The president-elect promised record levels of spending and taxes on the campaign trail. Will he succeed?
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Only 56% Of Biden Voters Say They Were Voting FOR Biden

Only 56 % of Biden Voters Say They Were Voting FOR Biden Looking back at the presidential election , Trump voters overwhelmingly say they voted for the president , while a sizable number of Biden supporters admit they were voting against Trump rather than for the former vice president .
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 49 % of Likely U.S .
Voters say they voted for Democrat Joe Biden .
Forty-five percent ( 45 % ) opted for the president instead , while four percent ( 4 % ) chose some other candidate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ click here . )
Among Trump voters , 90 % say they voted for the president , while just eight percent ( 8 % ) say they were voting against Biden .
But among Biden voters , only 56 % say they were voting for Biden .
Twenty-nine percent ( 29 % ) of these voters say they were voting against Trump , while a surprisingly high 15 % are not sure .
The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S .
Voters was conducted November 5 and 8 , 2020 by Rasmussen Reports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 percentage points with a 95 % level of confidence .
Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research , LLC .
See methodology .
Trump ’ s job performance was the most important issue for Biden voters , closely followed by the coronavirus .
For Trump voters , the economy came first and then how the president did his job .

Only 56% of Biden Voters Say They Were Voting FOR Biden
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Looking back at the presidential election, Trump voters overwhelmingly say they voted for the president, while a sizable number of Biden supporters admit they were voting against Trump rather than for the former vice president.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters say they voted for Democrat Joe Biden. Forty-five percent (45%) opted for the president instead, while four percent (4%) chose some other candidate. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Among Trump voters, 90% say they voted for the president, while just eight percent (8%) say they were voting against Biden.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
But among Biden voters, only 56% say they were voting for Biden. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of these voters say they were voting against Trump, while a surprisingly high 15% are not sure.
The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted November 5 and 8, 2020 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Trump’s job performance was the most important issue for Biden voters, closely followed by the coronavirus. For Trump voters, the economy came first and then how the president did his job.
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/only_56_of_biden_voters_say_they_were_voting_for_biden


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Talk of “Unity” Is Both Hypocritical and Delusional

In Joe Biden ’ s address after being declared president-elect by news organizations , he promised to be a leader who “ seeks not to divide but to unify.
” Making that assertion after the campaigns we have seen , not to mention the light-years-apart treatment of the candidates , while Donald Trump is still adamantly disputing the election because of alleged Democrat malfeasance is , at a minimum , ironic .
And it would be the height of hypocrisy if only a few of Trump ’ s claims of cheating are true .
But we need to go further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden uniting us is a delusion .
Agreement on the specific ends we want to achieve is unattainable because our desires are mutually inconsistent .
Our agreement is very limited on even very broadly defined issues , and once we look further than vague , aspirational language and feel-good generalities , Americans disagree on virtually everything .
All of us want to be fed , clothed , housed , educated , etc .
We agree in that sense .
But we disagree about virtually every aspect of who , what , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We want different types and amounts , in different ways , at different times and places , and for different people .
We are vastly different in the tradeoffs we are willing to make among our desires , not to mention who we think should pay our bills .
Once we consider any of the myriad actual choices faced , the fact of scarcity necessitates that our specific ends conflict , rather than align .
Consider a mundane example played out daily in our homes—breakfast .
Does everyone in your family agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day ” ?
Does everyone even eat breakfast ?
Does each member have coffee , a cold caffeine drink , or neither ?
Juice ?
What kind ?
Are all agreed on when , where , what , or how much to eat ?
Do we agree on who should pay for breakfast , cook it , and clean up after it ?
Do we agree on the “ dress code ” that should apply , either at breakfast or afterward ?
Diverse individuals have diverse preferences .
Multiplying this single example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached in society every day makes our fundamental disunity clear .
And we are no more unified when we get to public policy .
We are not in agreement about people ’ s rights and government powers that some view as essential but others view as unforgivable .
The same is true of many foreign policy choices .
We can not be unified as “ one nation under God ” when some vehemently reject any reference to God .
We can not be unified about abortion when some view it as murder and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take from some to give to others also inherently create disagreement from those whose pockets are involuntarily picked .
Reducing what we take from some , entailing giving less to others than they wish , also triggers disagreement .
So long as government dictates such choices , political unity is unattainable .
In fact , politics as currently practiced eviscerates the one thing Americans could agree about .
This reflects the far-too-little-recognized fact that we have greater agreement on what all of us want to avoid than on what all of us want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Locke called our “ lives , liberties , and estates ” violated .
That is , each of us wants rights and property defended against invasion .
Respecting all of our property rights reduces the risk from predation for each of us .
But creating added rights and privileges for some at the expense of others ’ equal rights and privileges makes government the most dangerous predator , even when who is selected to do so is determined by majority vote .
Each of us would like the freedom to peacefully pursue our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , “ liberty is the only object which benefits all alike , and provokes no sincere opposition , ” because freedom to choose for ourselves is always the primary means to our ultimate ends .
That is why the traditional functions of government are to protect us from abuse by our neighbors and foreign powers , while its greatest threat is supposed protectors becoming predators against citizens .
That is why Acton recognized that liberty requires “ the limitation of the public authority.
” But we are incredibly far from agreement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voluntary market arrangements they enable let individuals decide for themselves , limiting each of us to persuasion rather than coercion .
Except in the very unusual case where we must all make the same choice , this allows us to better match our choices to our preferences and circumstances .
And unlike minority votes in elections , every dollar “ vote ” matters .
In fact , we should recognize that markets are our primary means to transform our disagreements into mutually beneficial cooperation , while restrictions on markets hobble that essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widget for sale at $ 10 and you say yes .
That does not mean we agree on its value .
We disagreed .
I valued it at less than $ 10 worth of other goods and services , or I wouldn ’ t have sold it for that .
You must have valued it more than $ 10 , or you wouldn ’ t have bought it for that .
Importantly , however , we have transformed our disagreement on values into an exchange that gives both of us benefits we consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In contrast , talk of political unity is primarily rhetorical cover for those who are in power to coerce those who disagree with them .
They benefit themselves at others ’ expense , taking others ’ resources and making them acquiesce in what they object to .
And unlike markets , in which greater disagreements about value create greater net benefits from voluntary arrangements , “ unifying ” political initiatives are just ways to control who will be forced to do what for others , driving Americans apart while hamstringing cooperative arrangements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created .
Grand invocations that “ I will unify us ” are actually shorthand for “ We disagree about many things , but those in this group are unified against others ’ preferences , and we mean to get our way , regardless of their well-being and desire , ” which is made clear by the demonization of anyone who doesn ’ t support the supposed “ unity ” position as divisive .
That kind of unity is tyranny .
Strengthening our union actually runs along a different path than the unity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interests of others .
It is uniting in a common commitment to honoring one another ’ s rights and the liberty this makes possible for all of us .
Without unity in that , we can never achieve the kind of unity that is actually desirable and achievable .
The alternative is the prospect of more of what we have experienced of late , which resembles what Thomas Hobbes called “ a war of all against all.
” But if we are united only by the ongoing fight to win that war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the birthright we have from our Declaration of Independence and Constitution .
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University .
He is the author of The Apostle of Peace : The Radical Mind of Leonard Read .

by Gary Galles via Mises
In Joe Biden’s address after being declared president-elect by news organizations, he promised to be a leader who “seeks not to divide but to unify.” Making that assertion after the campaigns we have seen, not to mention the light-years-apart treatment of the candidates, while Donald Trump is still adamantly disputing the election because of alleged Democrat malfeasance is, at a minimum, ironic. And it would be the height of hypocrisy if only a few of Trump’s claims of cheating are true. But we need to go further and recognize that even the possibility of Joe Biden uniting us is a delusion.
Agreement on the specific ends we want to achieve is unattainable because our desires are mutually inconsistent. Our agreement is very limited on even very broadly defined issues, and once we look further than vague, aspirational language and feel-good generalities, Americans disagree on virtually everything.
All of us want to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, etc. We agree in that sense. But we disagree about virtually every aspect of who, what, when, where, why, and how. We want different types and amounts, in different ways, at different times and places, and for different people. We are vastly different in the tradeoffs we are willing to make among our desires, not to mention who we think should pay our bills. Once we consider any of the myriad actual choices faced, the fact of scarcity necessitates that our specific ends conflict, rather than align.
Consider a mundane example played out daily in our homes—breakfast. Does everyone in your family agree on “the most important meal of the day”? Does everyone even eat breakfast? Does each member have coffee, a cold caffeine drink, or neither? Juice? What kind? Are all agreed on when, where, what, or how much to eat? Do we agree on who should pay for breakfast, cook it, and clean up after it? Do we agree on the “dress code” that should apply, either at breakfast or afterward?
Diverse individuals have diverse preferences. Multiplying this single example by the uncountable decisions that must be reached in society every day makes our fundamental disunity clear. And we are no more unified when we get to public policy. We are not in agreement about people’s rights and government powers that some view as essential but others view as unforgivable. The same is true of many foreign policy choices. We cannot be unified as “one nation under God” when some vehemently reject any reference to God. We cannot be unified about abortion when some view it as murder and others consider it sacred. Policies that take from some to give to others also inherently create disagreement from those whose pockets are involuntarily picked. Reducing what we take from some, entailing giving less to others than they wish, also triggers disagreement. So long as government dictates such choices, political unity is unattainable.
In fact, politics as currently practiced eviscerates the one thing Americans could agree about. This reflects the far-too-little-recognized fact that we have greater agreement on what all of us want to avoid than on what all of us want. None of us wants what John Locke called our “lives, liberties, and estates” violated. That is, each of us wants rights and property defended against invasion. Respecting all of our property rights reduces the risk from predation for each of us. But creating added rights and privileges for some at the expense of others’ equal rights and privileges makes government the most dangerous predator, even when who is selected to do so is determined by majority vote.
Each of us would like the freedom to peacefully pursue our own goals. As Lord Acton put it, “liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition,” because freedom to choose for ourselves is always the primary means to our ultimate ends. That is why the traditional functions of government are to protect us from abuse by our neighbors and foreign powers, while its greatest threat is supposed protectors becoming predators against citizens. That is why Acton recognized that liberty requires “the limitation of the public authority.” But we are incredibly far from agreement on that today.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Well-established property rights and the voluntary market arrangements they enable let individuals decide for themselves, limiting each of us to persuasion rather than coercion. Except in the very unusual case where we must all make the same choice, this allows us to better match our choices to our preferences and circumstances. And unlike minority votes in elections, every dollar “vote” matters.
In fact, we should recognize that markets are our primary means to transform our disagreements into mutually beneficial cooperation, while restrictions on markets hobble that essential function.
Say I offer you a widget for sale at $10 and you say yes. That does not mean we agree on its value. We disagreed. I valued it at less than $10 worth of other goods and services, or I wouldn’t have sold it for that. You must have valued it more than $10, or you wouldn’t have bought it for that. Importantly, however, we have transformed our disagreement on values into an exchange that gives both of us benefits we consider to be worth more than the costs.
In contrast, talk of political unity is primarily rhetorical cover for those who are in power to coerce those who disagree with them. They benefit themselves at others’ expense, taking others’ resources and making them acquiesce in what they object to. And unlike markets, in which greater disagreements about value create greater net benefits from voluntary arrangements, “unifying” political initiatives are just ways to control who will be forced to do what for others, driving Americans apart while hamstringing cooperative arrangements and squandering the wealth they would have created.
Grand invocations that “I will unify us” are actually shorthand for “We disagree about many things, but those in this group are unified against others’ preferences, and we mean to get our way, regardless of their well-being and desire,” which is made clear by the demonization of anyone who doesn’t support the supposed “unity” position as divisive. That kind of unity is tyranny. Strengthening our union actually runs along a different path than the unity of 50 percent plus one, unified against the interests of others. It is uniting in a common commitment to honoring one another’s rights and the liberty this makes possible for all of us. Without unity in that, we can never achieve the kind of unity that is actually desirable and achievable. The alternative is the prospect of more of what we have experienced of late, which resembles what Thomas Hobbes called “a war of all against all.” But if we are united only by the ongoing fight to win that war against other Americans, we are selling out the birthright we have from our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Author:
Gary Galles
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. He is the author of The Apostle of Peace: The Radical Mind of Leonard Read.


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Not Over Till It’s Over: Trump Gaining Traction With Legal Vote Challenge?

by Daniel McAdams and Ron Paul of Ron Paul Liberty Report President Trump ’ s efforts to ensure a fair @ @ @ @ @ by virtually every mainstream media outlet .
Even Republicans have by and large abandoned him @ @ @ @ @ challenges in places like Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania starting to gain traction ?
@ @ @ @ @ Schwab tells us we can never have normal again .
And…what will Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @

by Daniel McAdams and Ron Paul of Ron Paul Liberty Report
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
President Trump’s efforts to ensure a fair election process have been demonized by virtually every mainstream media outlet. Even Republicans have by and large abandoned him. But are the legal challenges in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania starting to gain traction? Also today, globalist Klaus Schwab tells us we can never have normal again. And…what will Biden’s foreign policy look like?


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--There Is No Alternative To Stocks? On This Week’s Moves In Stocks, Bonds, Gold & Silver

On Monday the dollar had a ferocious rally , moving up from 15.87mg gold to 16.77mg and from 1.21g silver to 1.32g .
In mainstream terms , the price of gold dropped about a hundred bucks , and the price of silver crashed $ 2.20 .
One notion we ’ re hearing a lot now is , “ there is no alternative to stocks.
” Certainly , stocks have been rallying .
They were up in Sunday evening ( as we reckon it here in Arizona ) trading .
Then Pfizer announced good news for its COVID vaccine , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bid up stocks even more .
Many in the mainstream believe that stock prices are linked to the economy .
Many of the rest would quibble slightly , and say that stock prices predict the economy .
However , we argue that stocks and other assets trade inverse to interest rates .
A stock has a yield ( well , most do ) based on its earnings .
This is the inverse of the famous P/E , i.e .
the less famous E/P ratio .
When the interest rate moves down , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with the economy ( falling interest goes with weakening the economy , but that is an argument for a different day ) .
Quoting stocks as an annualized yield is useful , because then you can compare to bonds .
As Zero Hedge writes , the yield of stocks has been falling even relative to bond yields .
The difference between S & P 500 earnings yield and the yield on a 10-year Treasury is down now to about 2.5 % .
It should be noted that this is based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors take home in the form of cash .
Not to mention that earnings can include whole categories that should not be counted as earnings .
For example , capital consumption .
What Do The Investors Get ?
Dividend yield is what investors take home .
Dividends are less subject to creative financial engineering ( though too often since 2009 , they have been paid with borrowed funds ) .
Dividend yield is a whole point lower than earnings yield .
So the spread to Treasurys is more like 1.5 % ( compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whether or not there is an “ alternative ” to stocks , when the crowd has not gone mad , they are regarded as riskier than bonds .
And should trade at a discount in price ( i.e .
a higher yield ) to provide a safety margin against the risk of adverse changes to the business .
And right now , investors would rather own stocks than bonds , and damn the torpedoes along with the risks .
They could benefit from a lecture by economist Russel Napier , who quipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago that , “ Equity is the thin line of hope between the asset and the liability.
” Debt certainly rose during the COVID lockdown ( companies borrowed to keep running , while revenues were lower or zero ) .
So that thin line is even thinner .
But investors keep bidding it up .
For now .
One thing stocks are not a signal of : the degree to which the president believes in free markets .
The president does not have that much effect on stocks anyway , not being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
But , if anything , the stocks of the 500 biggest corporations should do well in an environment of onerous regulations and punitive taxes .
Why ?
The biggest threat to an incumbent major corporation is a disruptive startup .
If an Amazon is allowed to grow , it could eventually wipe out B Dalton , K-Mart , and JC Penney .
If a Skype is allowed to grow , it could wipe out AT & T ( at least the long distance business part of it ) .
Regulations impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And startups most of all , as the legal costs can be greater than their ability to raise capital .
Compare to major corporations , whose lobbyists help Congress draft the new law and then help the regulators draft the new regulations called for by the law .
The regulation works out well for them , facilitates their business model—if not petrifying it by disallowing innovation .
Taxes , also , prevent innovative young companies from threatening major corporations .
This is because growing companies reinvest their earnings .
The higher the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A dollar of earnings would allow $ 0.90 of reinvestment at a 10 % tax rate .
But only $ 0.50 reinvestment at 50 % .
In other words , the higher the tax rate , the more that a dollar of capital already invested is worth in terms of new dollars of earnings .
Anyways , if gold is the asset people turn to when they don ’ t like the risk-reward ratio of investments , it means something when the price of gold drops .
At least if it drops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply and demand fundamentals to see if that is likely .
Here are two-day graphs showing the massive Monday price drops of both gold and silver , and the tepid Tuesday rallies .
A few features of this chart are striking .
The basis follows the price over the cliff .
Indeed , we can see when backwardation likely starts .
Strictly speaking , backwardation is not merely a negative basis , but a positive cobasis .
However , the drop in basis is so precipitous around noon ( London time ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -1 % around 14:00 , that we assume the cobasis spiked above zero at the same time .
Keep in mind this is the December contract , which is heading into expiry so it will have a lower basis which is prone to temporary backwardation , and which is more volatile too .
When basis tracks price , it means that the move is led by leveraged speculators in the futures market .
Once again , they believe they know what is supposed to happen when there is good economic news and stocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gold is supposed to go down .
So they sell .
However , notice those little drops in basis before the price dropped .
They are around 01:30 , 05:00 , and 08:00 .
Futures speculators were selling at those times , but robust demand for physical metal held the price steady until just before noon .
Then once the price is down , we see a hesitant spike in basis around 15:00 and then a bigger one starting around 16:30 .
These were attempts by futures traders to predict a price rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps closing short positions opened hours earlier to bet on the move .
There was not much buying of physical during these times , so basis decouples from price .
Then around 20:00 ( which is 15:00 in New York ) , futures traders were not particularly active , but physical metal buyers bid up the price from around $ 1,870 to $ 1,885 by 07:00 the next morning .
And the basis fell below -1.3 % .
After that , futures traders made a few more bids on gold , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , it ’ s the same pattern as gold , though with some minor differences ( as always ) .
Notably , the basis drops from around 3 % to below zero , and ends around +0.5 % .
There are a few attempted rallies by the futures speculators , but the basis correlates to the price a bit better than in gold .
The next few weeks are sure to be interesting .
Of course , regardless of market changes during that time , Monetary Metals will continue to deliver clients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold .
And silver , too !

by Keith Weiner of Monetary-Metals
On Monday the dollar had a ferocious rally, moving up from 15.87mg gold to 16.77mg and from 1.21g silver to 1.32g. In mainstream terms, the price of gold dropped about a hundred bucks, and the price of silver crashed $2.20.
One notion we’re hearing a lot now is, “there is no alternative to stocks.” Certainly, stocks have been rallying. They were up in Sunday evening (as we reckon it here in Arizona) trading. Then Pfizer announced good news for its COVID vaccine, and that seemed to be the signal to bid up stocks even more.
Many in the mainstream believe that stock prices are linked to the economy. Many of the rest would quibble slightly, and say that stock prices predict the economy. However, we argue that stocks and other assets trade inverse to interest rates. A stock has a yield (well, most do) based on its earnings. This is the inverse of the famous P/E, i.e. the less famous E/P ratio. When the interest rate moves down, then so does E/P. This has nothing to do with the economy (falling interest goes with weakening the economy, but that is an argument for a different day).
Quoting stocks as an annualized yield is useful, because then you can compare to bonds. As Zero Hedge writes, the yield of stocks has been falling even relative to bond yields. The difference between S&P 500 earnings yield and the yield on a 10-year Treasury is down now to about 2.5%.
It should be noted that this is based on reported earnings. This is not what investors take home in the form of cash. Not to mention that earnings can include whole categories that should not be counted as earnings. For example, capital consumption.
What Do The Investors Get?
Dividend yield is what investors take home. Dividends are less subject to creative financial engineering (though too often since 2009, they have been paid with borrowed funds). Dividend yield is a whole point lower than earnings yield. So the spread to Treasurys is more like 1.5% (compared to 2.5% for earnings yield).
Whether or not there is an “alternative” to stocks, when the crowd has not gone mad, they are regarded as riskier than bonds. And should trade at a discount in price (i.e. a higher yield) to provide a safety margin against the risk of adverse changes to the business.
And right now, investors would rather own stocks than bonds, and damn the torpedoes along with the risks. They could benefit from a lecture by economist Russel Napier, who quipped at a talk in London a few years ago that, “Equity is the thin line of hope between the asset and the liability.”
Debt certainly rose during the COVID lockdown (companies borrowed to keep running, while revenues were lower or zero). So that thin line is even thinner. But investors keep bidding it up. For now.
One thing stocks are not a signal of: the degree to which the president believes in free markets. The president does not have that much effect on stocks anyway, not being in charge of either monetary or fiscal policy. But, if anything, the stocks of the 500 biggest corporations should do well in an environment of onerous regulations and punitive taxes. Why?
Big vs Small
The biggest threat to an incumbent major corporation is a disruptive startup. If an Amazon is allowed to grow, it could eventually wipe out B Dalton, K-Mart, and JC Penney. If a Skype is allowed to grow, it could wipe out AT&T (at least the long distance business part of it).
Regulations impact small companies harder than big corporations. And startups most of all, as the legal costs can be greater than their ability to raise capital. Compare to major corporations, whose lobbyists help Congress draft the new law and then help the regulators draft the new regulations called for by the law. The regulation works out well for them, facilitates their business model—if not petrifying it by disallowing innovation.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Taxes, also, prevent innovative young companies from threatening major corporations. This is because growing companies reinvest their earnings. The higher the tax rate, the less they can reinvest. A dollar of earnings would allow $0.90 of reinvestment at a 10% tax rate. But only $0.50 reinvestment at 50%.
In other words, the higher the tax rate, the more that a dollar of capital already invested is worth in terms of new dollars of earnings.
Massive Monday & Tepid Tuesday
Anyways, if gold is the asset people turn to when they don’t like the risk-reward ratio of investments, it means something when the price of gold drops. At least if it drops durably. So we look at the supply and demand fundamentals to see if that is likely. Here are two-day graphs showing the massive Monday price drops of both gold and silver, and the tepid Tuesday rallies.
A few features of this chart are striking. The basis follows the price over the cliff. Indeed, we can see when backwardation likely starts. Strictly speaking, backwardation is not merely a negative basis, but a positive cobasis. However, the drop in basis is so precipitous around noon (London time), from just under +0.2% to below -1% around 14:00, that we assume the cobasis spiked above zero at the same time. Keep in mind this is the December contract, which is heading into expiry so it will have a lower basis which is prone to temporary backwardation, and which is more volatile too.
When basis tracks price, it means that the move is led by leveraged speculators in the futures market. Once again, they believe they know what is supposed to happen when there is good economic news and stocks are bid up to the sky. Gold is supposed to go down. So they sell.
However, notice those little drops in basis before the price dropped. They are around 01:30, 05:00, and 08:00. Futures speculators were selling at those times, but robust demand for physical metal held the price steady until just before noon.
Then once the price is down, we see a hesitant spike in basis around 15:00 and then a bigger one starting around 16:30. These were attempts by futures traders to predict a price rally after so big a crash. Or perhaps closing short positions opened hours earlier to bet on the move. There was not much buying of physical during these times, so basis decouples from price.
Then around 20:00 (which is 15:00 in New York), futures traders were not particularly active, but physical metal buyers bid up the price from around $1,870 to $1,885 by 07:00 the next morning. And the basis fell below -1.3%.
After that, futures traders made a few more bids on gold, but the price moved sideways around $1,880.
Here’s silver.
Overall, it’s the same pattern as gold, though with some minor differences (as always). Notably, the basis drops from around 3% to below zero, and ends around +0.5%.
There are a few attempted rallies by the futures speculators, but the basis correlates to the price a bit better than in gold.
The next few weeks are sure to be interesting. Of course, regardless of market changes during that time, Monetary Metals will continue to deliver clients a yield on gold, paid in gold. And silver, too!


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Money Beginning To Flow Out Of Gold & Silver: Where Is It Going, And Is It A Short Term Trend?

by Chris Vermeulen of The Technical Traders Transportation and small-cap stocks are showing signs of early leadership after being out @ @ @ @ @ years .
They are typically the stocks that lead during the start of a new @ @ @ @ @ news for stock investors .
However , money is beginning to flow out of gold @ @ @ @ @ it going and is this only a short term trend ?

by Chris Vermeulen of The Technical Traders
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Transportation and small-cap stocks are showing signs of early leadership after being out of favor for nearly two years. They are typically the stocks that lead during the start of a new bull market which is exciting news for stock investors. However, money is beginning to flow out of gold and silver. Where is it going and is this only a short term trend?


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--GUN CONTROL: Here’s How South Americans Were Gradually and Quietly Disarmed

For some law enforcement officers , a civilian with a gun is dangerous , whether mentally stable or not .
It stands to reason that just as there are mentally unstable citizens , there are also compromised officers .
Laws , opinions , and ideologies on gun ownership and gun control differ worldwide .
South America , for example , never wanted its citizens armed .
It isn ’ t a process that happens overnight .
It doesn ’ t start with outright confiscation .
Selco has written about it too .
Citizens have been programmed for years NOT to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America have been an inquisitorial ruling for hundreds of years .
An almost nonexistent ruling by the dictatorship regarding crime and self-defense has gotten citizens used to being unarmed and helpless when faced with criminals .
The “ authorities ” recommend citizens to give all the valuables to the criminals , stay put , and do not , by any means , defend themselves .
Of course , this is one of the reasons for the high rates of crime in the cities .
On the other hand , though there seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves for protection with a weapon bought on the street can expect problems .
As a result of the lengthy , impartial , inquisitory method , South America deals with one of the worst drug problems globally , and armed forces and law enforcement organizations are inundated with violent gangs in several countries .
What do South American officials claim the general perception of gun possession to be ?
In South America , possession of a gun equals violence , rather than the hand of a violent criminal who holds the gun .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ many efforts made to minimize civilians owning guns .
Law-abiding South American citizens are deterred from possessing a firearm for defense , hunting , or even practice target shooting .
Regular , non-violent citizens now generally associate guns with gangs , drugs , crime , and violence .
Add to the general perception , media , movies , and lack of responsible education makes keeping these people unarmed that much easier .
In other societies , people would be taught that the hand holding the gun holds power and needs to be worthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes with it .
Self-responsibility in most South American societies is a loose concept , which , not surprisingly , leads to many problems in this part of the world .
Police officers should be grateful to have decent citizens around them who legally carry a firearm .
A decent citizen , who knows how to use a gun properly , could offer support in certain situations .
However , South America ’ s preference is to minimize a civilian defending himself or herself .
Why ?
Money and control .
Gun laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America An article published by AS/COA in 2019 details gun-related legislation in Argentina , Brazil , Chile , Colombia , Mexico , and Venezuela .
At the time of that publication , gun possession was legal for civilians .
Recently , however , restrictions have become more strict .
The only exception is Bolsonaro , the President of Brazil , who loosened the rules in 2019 .
For the remaining 5 , countries the permit standards for firearm possession require the following : Argentina requests a justifiable reason for the need to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering Argentina suffered the most volatile political situations on the continent for decades of the last 30 years and a severe economic crisis .
Restrictions are meant to diminish violence and get guns off the streets Or so we are told .
Educating oneself on the judicial system will reveal that violence levels are due partially to corrupt judges releasing violent criminals for a fee .
In many places in South America , a gangster caught with a gun won ’ t go to jail .
Officers will confiscate the guns to later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money while allowing the gangster to go free .
The odds of this happening in some countries may be less likely , but it happens .
And will continue to happen .
Several countries will allow possession of a gun for self-defense inside a home .
There are limitations set for carrying a firearm outside the home or from one place to another .
The ratio of law enforcement officers per citizen is extremely low .
Having a considerable amount of well-armed , well-educated , law-abiding citizens is not something ( corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those citizens may become tired of the corruption and take matters into their own hands .
Brazil is a very rich country with a well-developed industry .
It is the only South American country that could , in the near future , rival the big boys up North .
President Jair Bolsonaro has recently eased gun laws for the South American country that , in 2019 , reportedly had more than 63,800 homicides and led the world in firearm-related deaths .
Justification for applying for a gun permit is necessary .
Under President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justification can be living in an area with a high crime rate .
Another change brought on by this decree : permits have now gone from five-year validity to 10 .
The amount of ammunition purchased at once has risen , and how many weapons an individual can own have risen .
Historically the right to bear arms was a necessity for years In the USA , generations ago , carrying a means of defense was necessary .
Wild animals , aggressive natives , bandoleers , etc .
Back then , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next , it was best if you took something to defend yourself .
Since then , with each new decade came new rules that aimed to keep the bad guys under control .
But , without getting too political , disarming the general population seemed to be many governments ’ agendas .
South Americans believe that fewer guns in the hands of people are going to make their streets safer .
Michele Bachelet did it in Chile , encouraging citizens to turn in their unregistered guns , which were then destroyed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pablo Escobar having put the country on the map for good , gun laws are quite restrictive .
The government is the only one with the right to control the distribution , manufacturing , and licensing of firearms .
The official position for Columbia ’ s gun law is to study every case before a permit is provided .
The internal conflict of Columbia has lasted for decades .
Owning firearms is complicated for everyone there .
Regarding Venezuela , forget everything you have read about owning guns or buying ammo .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ammo slowly stopped flowing the shops .
Intentionally designed that way to pass unnoticed .
There is not one single gun shop left .
Civilians can not legally buy firearms , nor can they purchase ammo .
However , the paramilitary gangs ( called “ colectivos ” ) sponsored by those sitting in the big chairs roam freely , armed to the teeth .
These policies have nothing to do with violence and crime .
These policies have created an unarmed population that will easily be controlled .
Bad people can and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a permit .
All that matters is control .
Jose is an upper middle class professional .
He is a former worker of the oil state company with a Bachelor ’ s degree from one of the best national Universities .
He has a small 4 members family , plus two cats and a dog .
An old but in good shape SUV , a good 150 square meters house in a nice neighborhood , in a small but ( formerly ) prosperous city with two middle size malls .
Jose is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survival stories from the collapse of his beloved Venezuela .
Thanks to your help Jose has gotten his family out of Venezuela .
They are currently setting up a new life in another country .
Follow Jose on YouTube and gain access to his exclusive content on Patreon .
Donations : paypal.me/JoseM151

by J.G Martinez
For some law enforcement officers, a civilian with a gun is dangerous, whether mentally stable or not. It stands to reason that just as there are mentally unstable citizens, there are also compromised officers.
Laws, opinions, and ideologies on gun ownership and gun control differ worldwide. South America, for example, never wanted its citizens armed. It isn’t a process that happens overnight. It doesn’t start with outright confiscation. Selco has written about it too.
Citizens have been programmed for years NOT to fight crime.
Gun laws in South America have been an inquisitorial ruling for hundreds of years. An almost nonexistent ruling by the dictatorship regarding crime and self-defense has gotten citizens used to being unarmed and helpless when faced with criminals.
The “authorities” recommend citizens to give all the valuables to the criminals, stay put, and do not, by any means, defend themselves. Of course, this is one of the reasons for the high rates of crime in the cities.
On the other hand, though there seem to be no arbitrary laws, someone arming themselves for protection with a weapon bought on the street can expect problems.
As a result of the lengthy, impartial, inquisitory method, South America deals with one of the worst drug problems globally, and armed forces and law enforcement organizations are inundated with violent gangs in several countries.
What do South American officials claim the general perception of gun possession to be?
In South America, possession of a gun equals violence, rather than the hand of a violent criminal who holds the gun.
This statement is just one of the many efforts made to minimize civilians owning guns. Law-abiding South American citizens are deterred from possessing a firearm for defense, hunting, or even practice target shooting.
Regular, non-violent citizens now generally associate guns with gangs, drugs, crime, and violence. Add to the general perception, media, movies, and lack of responsible education makes keeping these people unarmed that much easier.
Different world, different views
In other societies, people would be taught that the hand holding the gun holds power and needs to be worthy of that power and the responsibility that comes with it.
Self-responsibility in most South American societies is a loose concept, which, not surprisingly, leads to many problems in this part of the world. Police officers should be grateful to have decent citizens around them who legally carry a firearm. A decent citizen, who knows how to use a gun properly, could offer support in certain situations.
However, South America’s preference is to minimize a civilian defending himself or herself. Why? Money and control.
Gun laws of the six largest economies of South America
An article published by AS/COA in 2019 details gun-related legislation in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela. At the time of that publication, gun possession was legal for civilians. Recently, however, restrictions have become more strict. The only exception is Bolsonaro, the President of Brazil, who loosened the rules in 2019.
For the remaining 5, countries the permit standards for firearm possession require the following:
No criminal record
Psychiatric examination
Undergo firearm training
Show proof of income
Prospective owners must be fingerprinted
Argentina requests a justifiable reason for the need to carry a gun. A viable request, considering Argentina suffered the most volatile political situations on the continent for decades of the last 30 years and a severe economic crisis.
Restrictions are meant to diminish violence and get guns off the streets
Or so we are told.
Educating oneself on the judicial system will reveal that violence levels are due partially to corrupt judges releasing violent criminals for a fee.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
In many places in South America, a gangster caught with a gun won’t go to jail. Officers will confiscate the guns to later sell on the black market and pocket the money while allowing the gangster to go free. The odds of this happening in some countries may be less likely, but it happens. And will continue to happen.
Several countries will allow possession of a gun for self-defense inside a home. There are limitations set for carrying a firearm outside the home or from one place to another. The ratio of law enforcement officers per citizen is extremely low. Having a considerable amount of well-armed, well-educated, law-abiding citizens is not something (corrupt) officers want. After all, those citizens may become tired of the corruption and take matters into their own hands.
Brazil’s President recently made substantial changes in gun laws
Brazil is a very rich country with a well-developed industry. It is the only South American country that could, in the near future, rival the big boys up North. President Jair Bolsonaro has recently eased gun laws for the South American country that, in 2019, reportedly had more than 63,800 homicides and led the world in firearm-related deaths.
Justification for applying for a gun permit is necessary. Under President Bolsonaro’s relaxed licensing decree, justification can be living in an area with a high crime rate. Another change brought on by this decree: permits have now gone from five-year validity to 10. The amount of ammunition purchased at once has risen, and how many weapons an individual can own have risen.
Historically the right to bear arms was a necessity for years
In the USA, generations ago, carrying a means of defense was necessary. Wild animals, aggressive natives, bandoleers, etc. Back then, if you were to travel from one town to the next, it was best if you took something to defend yourself.
Since then, with each new decade came new rules that aimed to keep the bad guys under control. But, without getting too political, disarming the general population seemed to be many governments’ agendas.
South Americans believe that fewer guns in the hands of people are going to make their streets safer. Michele Bachelet did it in Chile, encouraging citizens to turn in their unregistered guns, which were then destroyed.
Colombia is a complex situation. With Pablo Escobar having put the country on the map for good, gun laws are quite restrictive. The government is the only one with the right to control the distribution, manufacturing, and licensing of firearms. The official position for Columbia’s gun law is to study every case before a permit is provided.
The internal conflict of Columbia has lasted for decades. Owning firearms is complicated for everyone there.
Meanwhile, in Venezuela
Regarding Venezuela, forget everything you have read about owning guns or buying ammo. A slow change began to occur in 2015. Ammo slowly stopped flowing the shops. Intentionally designed that way to pass unnoticed.
There is not one single gun shop left. Civilians can not legally buy firearms, nor can they purchase ammo.
However, the paramilitary gangs (called “colectivos”) sponsored by those sitting in the big chairs roam freely, armed to the teeth.
These policies have nothing to do with violence and crime. These policies have created an unarmed population that will easily be controlled. Bad people can and do get guns, with or without a permit. All that matters is control.
Related Video Links for More information
Gun Control Law
Disarming Law
Laws Regarding Convicts
“Legal” Weapons, but Impossible Permits
About Jose
Jose is an upper middle class professional. He is a former worker of the oil state company with a Bachelor’s degree from one of the best national Universities. He has a small 4 members family, plus two cats and a dog. An old but in good shape SUV, a good 150 square meters house in a nice neighborhood, in a small but (formerly) prosperous city with two middle size malls. Jose is a prepper and shares his eyewitness accounts and survival stories from the collapse of his beloved Venezuela. Thanks to your help Jose has gotten his family out of Venezuela. They are currently setting up a new life in another country. Follow Jose on YouTube and gain access to his exclusive content on Patreon. Donations: paypal.me/JoseM151


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-12--Seattle voters unhappy with direction of city; guess how they voted to change sheriff’s office!

Earlier I told you how Seattle ( King County ) voters are unhappy with how the City Council is handling things and the direction of the city .
The majority of voters think things in Seattle “ have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track.
” So what ’ s a good way to fix some things in the city ?
Approve amendments that remove your power to vote for county sheriff and give the bureaucrats the ability to change the sheriff ’ s duties !
Yeah , makes sense if you are a democrat and want to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved by King County voters are Charter Amendment No .
5 – Appointed Sheriff ( approved 56 % ) and Charter Amendment No .
6 – Public Safety Department Structure ( approved 62 % ) .
Charter Amendment No .
5 allows the county executive to appoint the sheriff , with approval from the King County Council .
What ’ s even more mind-boggling is that Dow Constantine ( King County Executive & professional politician since 1997 ) told voters in September that he wanted to shift millions of dollars earmarked for law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into community-based racial justice programs .
Read about all of his proposed cuts ( he made known in advance ) here .
But don ’ t worry residents of King County !
Executive Constantine claims these amendments will “ boost accountability.
” He also said this of the approved changes : “ It ’ s going to involve police , yes , but also behavioral health professionals , human service professionals , the kinds of help that may be needed in order to defuse conflicts and prevent tragedies from happening.
” Seattle has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Increased homelessness , open drug use on the streets , repeat offenders held unaccountable for crimes , increased police response times ( if they even make it to your home ) , etc .
I don ’ t want to hear of some survey where King County/Seattle residents complain about the conditions of their city .
SEATTLEITES DESERVE ALL THAT COMES THEIR WAY .

by DCG
Earlier I told you how Seattle (King County) voters are unhappy with how the City Council is handling things and the direction of the city. The majority of voters think things in Seattle “have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track.”
So what’s a good way to fix some things in the city? Approve amendments that remove your power to vote for county sheriff and give the bureaucrats the ability to change the sheriff’s duties!
Yeah, makes sense if you are a democrat and want to give government more power.
The two charters approved by King County voters are Charter Amendment No. 5 – Appointed Sheriff (approved 56%) and Charter Amendment No. 6 – Public Safety Department Structure (approved 62%). Charter Amendment No. 5 allows the county executive to appoint the sheriff, with approval from the King County Council.
What’s even more mind-boggling is that Dow Constantine (King County Executive & professional politician since 1997) told voters in September that he wanted to shift millions of dollars earmarked for law enforcement and the traditional criminal justice system into community-based racial justice programs. Read about all of his proposed cuts (he made known in advance) here.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
But don’t worry residents of King County! Executive Constantine claims these amendments will “boost accountability.”
He also said this of the approved changes: “It’s going to involve police, yes, but also behavioral health professionals, human service professionals, the kinds of help that may be needed in order to defuse conflicts and prevent tragedies from happening.”
Seattle has become a sh*thole of a city: Increased homelessness, open drug use on the streets, repeat offenders held unaccountable for crimes, increased police response times (if they even make it to your home), etc.
I don’t want to hear of some survey where King County/Seattle residents complain about the conditions of their city. SEATTLEITES DESERVE ALL THAT COMES THEIR WAY.
DCG


investmentwatchblog--2020-11-11--Government’s Own Jobs Report for October 2020 Says About 32% of Americans Are Unemployed

The Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) released its report on the unemloyment situation for October recently .
I ’ ve long had a problem with the numbers this government agency puts out .
Over the years they have been brazenly manipulated and much of the data it purports to show isn ’ t much more than a glorified guess .
The report is made up of at least two elements ; first the household survey from which it gets the official unemployment rate ( 6.9 % for October ) and second a so-called establishment survey .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an in person or telephone survey of US households compiled to figure out what proportion of workers in the labor force are employed .
By contrast the establishment survey is a combination survey and guesstimate .
The first element surveys about 144,000 business establishments and government agencies out of the about 32,500,000 businesses that used to be estimated to exist in the US ; collecting data on numbers of workers at each firm , their hours worked and earnings .
The second element is essentially a fancy formula used to guess at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed in the unsurveyed segment of the economy .
( Note : It is likely the number of surveyed firms has declined with the downturn . )
From here the BLS comes up with an average number of jobs created or destroyed with all these firms , giving us by far the biggest part of this figure in the report ( +638,000 for October ) .
With last month ’ s supposed job gains being made up largely by positions in the leisure and hospitality sector ( +271,000 ) then professional and business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade { +108,000 } among others .
However when you take into account the methodology just described and the fact that about half the positions in the former two categories are in fields with only temporary staying power ( eateries and bars and temporary help services ) we see that even these paper gains are at best transitory .
There are other reasons this report doesn ’ t capture the whole picture .
First because the household survey only calculates its data based on the number of workers considered in the labor force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a few purposefully exludes workers who ’ s jobless benefits have run out .
This of course affects the overall laborforce participation rate ( +0.3 % at 61.7 % in October ) .
Second all data in this report is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED ; which sounds like a means to take seasonal factors into account when calculating these figures , but ts really a practice by which long-run averages are created to compare current data to .
In these comparisons any deviation above the average is thus considered growth while any deviation below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So for example , say the economy ’ s been in a slump for a prolonged period and the average of jobs lost each month is -300,000 .
Then any number above -300,000 , even if still negative at say -100,000 , because it ’ s above the long-run average is still counted as a positive number with 200,000 jobs created in this scenario .
While if the number were really -400,000 for a given month it would be ADJUSTED to a loss of merely -100,000 .
The same goes for positive numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a month any number above that , say +400,000 , is ADJUSTED to show a positive 100,000 , while anything below that is considered negative .
For example +200,000 jobs a month is actually ADJUSTED TO A -100,000 .
The same sort of averaging also applies to the unemployment rate and all other economic date from the government .
So we can see how unreliable much of this is .
Additionally ” [ s ] ince March , household survey interviewers have been instructed to classify employed persons absent from work due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as unemployed on temporary layoff .
BLS and Census Bureau analyses of the underlying data suggest there still may be some workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff .
However , the share of responses that may have been misclassified was highest in the early months of the pandemic and has been considerably lower in recent month.
” “ For March through September , BLS published an estimate of what the unemployment rate would have been had misclassified workers been included among the unemployed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ October unemployment rate would have been 0.3 percentage point higher than reported .
However , this represents the upper bound of our estimate of misclassification and probably overstates the size of the misclassification error .
” ( October BLS Report pg .
6 ) A better if still imperfect measure of the current jobs situation can be found in the BLS ’ Employment-Population Ratio .
This number , if still seasonally adjusted , tries to compare the actual number of people with a job to the entire working age population of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into account the number of say stay at home mothers , who actually are not in the labor force , but in our modern world this is such a rarity that statistically it shouldn ’ t impact the overall data too much .
However neither does it take into account the number of retirees .
This is easily corrected by finding what percent of the population is retired and subtracting it from the remaining number of people without a job .
In this month ’ s BLS report the EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIO IS A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
THAT MEANS 42.8 % OF PEOPLE 22 AND OLDER IN THE UNITED STATES ARE WITHOUT A JOB .
IF WE SUBTRACT THE ABOUT 14 % OF THE POPULATION THAT RECEIVES SOCIAL SECURITY WE GET A RATE OF JOBLESSNESS AT 28.8 % .
Though this figure isn ’ t modified to count disabled adults who ’ d like to work , elder workers collecting Social Security but who still have to work , or people who really aren ’ t disabled but added to the Social Security rolls during the Great Recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures .
WHEN WE CONSIDER ALL THESE PEOPLE THE ACTUAL REMAINDER FROM THE EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIO IS PROBABLY NEARER 31.8 .
THAT IS TO SAY ABOUT 32 % OF WORKING AGE AMERICANS ARE WITHOUT A JOB .
This is a far cry from the 6.9 % unemployment rate reported by the government .
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Disclaimer : This information is only for educational purposes .
Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article .
Do you own due diligence or consult your financial professional before making any investment decision .

by Aegidius25
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the unemloyment situation for October recently. I’ve long had a problem with the numbers this government agency puts out. Over the years they have been brazenly manipulated and much of the data it purports to show isn’t much more than a glorified guess. The report is made up of at least two elements; first the household survey from which it gets the official unemployment rate (6.9% for October) and second a so-called establishment survey.
The first is just what it sounds like, an in person or telephone survey of US households compiled to figure out what proportion of workers in the labor force are employed. By contrast the establishment survey is a combination survey and guesstimate. The first element surveys about 144,000 business establishments and government agencies out of the about 32,500,000 businesses that used to be estimated to exist in the US; collecting data on numbers of workers at each firm, their hours worked and earnings. The second element is essentially a fancy formula used to guess at the number of new business establishments created or destroyed in the unsurveyed segment of the economy. (Note: It is likely the number of surveyed firms has declined with the downturn.)
From here the BLS comes up with an average number of jobs created or destroyed with all these firms, giving us by far the biggest part of this figure in the report (+638,000 for October). With last month’s supposed job gains being made up largely by positions in the leisure and hospitality sector (+271,000) then professional and business services (+208,000) and the retail trade {+108,000}among others. However when you take into account the methodology just described and the fact that about half the positions in the former two categories are in fields with only temporary staying power (eateries and bars and temporary help services) we see that even these paper gains are at best transitory.
There are other reasons this report doesn’t capture the whole picture. First because the household survey only calculates its data based on the number of workers considered in the labor force, which thanks to the bureaucratic machinations of a few purposefully exludes workers who’s jobless benefits have run out. This of course affects the overall laborforce participation rate (+0.3% at 61.7% in October).
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Second all data in this report is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED; which sounds like a means to take seasonal factors into account when calculating these figures, but ts really a practice by which long-run averages are created to compare current data to. In these comparisons any deviation above the average is thus considered growth while any deviation below it is considered a contraction. . So for example, say the economy’s been in a slump for a prolonged period and the average of jobs lost each month is -300,000. Then any number above -300,000, even if still negative at say -100,000, because it’s above the long-run average is still counted as a positive number with 200,000 jobs created in this scenario. While if the number were really -400,000 for a given month it would be ADJUSTED to a loss of merely -100,000. The same goes for positive numbers; with an average of +300,000 jobs a month any number above that, say +400,000, is ADJUSTED to show a positive 100,000, while anything below that is considered negative. For example +200,000 jobs a month is actually ADJUSTED TO A -100,000. The same sort of averaging also applies to the unemployment rate and all other economic date from the government. So we can see how unreliable much of this is.
Additionally ”[s]ince March, household survey interviewers have been instructed to classify employed persons absent from work due to temporary, coronavirus-related business closures or cutbacks as unemployed on temporary layoff. BLS and Census Bureau analyses of the underlying data suggest there still may be some workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, the share of responses that may have been misclassified was highest in the early months of the pandemic and has been considerably lower in recent month.”
“For March through September, BLS published an estimate of what the unemployment rate would have been had misclassified workers been included among the unemployed. Repeating this same approach, the overall October unemployment rate would have been 0.3 percentage point higher than reported. However, this represents the upper bound of our estimate of misclassification and probably overstates the size of the misclassification error. ” (October BLS Report pg. 6)
A better if still imperfect measure of the current jobs situation can be found in the BLS’ Employment-Population Ratio. This number, if still seasonally adjusted, tries to compare the actual number of people with a job to the entire working age population of the United States. Unfortunately it fails to take into account the number of say stay at home mothers, who actually are not in the labor force, but in our modern world this is such a rarity that statistically it shouldn’t impact the overall data too much. However neither does it take into account the number of retirees. This is easily corrected by finding what percent of the population is retired and subtracting it from the remaining number of people without a job. In this month’s BLS report the EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIO IS A SEASONALLY ADJUSTED 57.4 (+0.8 in October). THAT MEANS 42.8% OF PEOPLE 22 AND OLDER IN THE UNITED STATES ARE WITHOUT A JOB. IF WE SUBTRACT THE ABOUT 14% OF THE POPULATION THAT RECEIVES SOCIAL SECURITY WE GET A RATE OF JOBLESSNESS AT 28.8%. Though this figure isn’t modified to count disabled adults who’d like to work, elder workers collecting Social Security but who still have to work, or people who really aren’t disabled but added to the Social Security rolls during the Great Recession to keep them out of the unemployment figures. WHEN WE CONSIDER ALL THESE PEOPLE THE ACTUAL REMAINDER FROM THE EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIO IS PROBABLY NEARER 31.8. THAT IS TO SAY ABOUT 32% OF WORKING AGE AMERICANS ARE WITHOUT A JOB. This is a far cry from the 6.9% unemployment rate reported by the government. www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Disclaimer: This information is only for educational purposes. Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article. Do you own due diligence or consult your financial professional before making any investment decision.