investmentwatchblog--2020-09-27--Gallup: Americans Tend to Trust Only News That Confirms Their Beliefs Highly Educated Americans Are

Gallup: Americans Tend to Trust Only News That Confirms Their Beliefs Highly Educated Americans Are By Far The Most Closed-Minded Group

“ 69 % of Americans say they are more concerned about bias in the news other people consume than its presence in their own news ( 29 % ) .
” In other words : 69/29 , or 2.38 times , as many Americans are closed-minded ( prejudiced ) regarding information-sources which don ’ t fit their ideology , than are not .
Overwhelmingly in America , only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats , and only Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans .
Each side distrusts the other ’ s information-sources .
Gallup ’ s news-report aptly noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the political polarization in the U.S. national discourse.
” The more prejudiced a population are , the more polarized it will be .
Of course , one would expect this to be the case , but Gallup has now found striking new empirical evidence for it — that the public ’ s closed-mindedness is greatly increasing America ’ s political polarization .
Each side is craving propaganda instead of truth , but each side ’ s voters want only the type of propaganda that is funded by the billionaires who also fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that side ’ s ‘ news ’ media .
Consequently , not by the public in an actual democracy .
And each of these two herds is controlled by its shepherd , who are its billionaires .
( In other words : 69/29 , or 2.38 times , as many Americans are closed-minded ( prejudiced ) regarding information-sources which don ’ t fit their ideology , than are not .
Overwhelmingly in America , only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats , and only Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans .
Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gallup ’ s news-report aptly noted the important fact thatThe more prejudiced a population are , the more polarized it will be .
Of course , one would expect this to be the case , but Gallup has now found striking new empirical evidence for it — that the public ’ s closed-mindedness is greatly increasing America ’ s political polarization .
Each side is craving propaganda instead of truth , but each side ’ s voters want only theof propaganda that is funded by the billionaires who also fund that side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ‘ news ’ media .
Consequently , American politics is controlled by the conflict between liberal billionaires versus conservative billionaires — totally controlled by billionaires ( instead of by the public ) .
There is the liberal herd , and the conservative herd , but they ’ re both herds —by the public in an actual democracy .
And each of these two herds is controlled by its shepherd , who are its billionaires .
( Here is how that ’ s done . )
Billionaires control each Party and thereby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government ignores the preferences of America ’ s public .
As will be shown here , the September 11th Gallup findings help to explain how and why that results .
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can become exposed to the other side ’ s evidence and arguments unless they see those — the other side ’ s evidence and arguments , both for its own case and against the opposite side ’ s case ( i.e.
, against the case that oneself believes ) .
Not to see the opposite side ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and thus to become locked into whatever oneself believes .
This 69/29 is like a jury ’ s rendering its verdict and nearly three quarters of the jurors having not listened to — and thus not considered — the opposite side ’ s presentations .
That ’ s a frightening situation to exist in any court of law , and it is an equally frightening situation to exist in any nation ’ s electorate .
already believe , and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest to disconfirm their beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s highly vulnerable to being manipulated , by playing up to , and amplifying , the given Party ’ s propaganda , to which the given individual already subscribes .
Republican Party billionaires ( by their use of their conservative newsmedia and think tanks , etc.
, which they control ) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters , and Democratic Party billionaires can , likewise , easily manipulate Democratic Party voters , by their liberal media , think tanks , etc .
That ’ s billionaires , on each of the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parties ’ voters ; and , therefore , the nation is an aristocracy — a country which is controlled by its wealthiest few — instead of an authentic democracy ( which is controlled not by the numbers of dollars , but actually by the numbers of residents , each one of whom is independently and open-mindedly seeking for credibly documented facts ) .
An aristocracy rules any such land .
The public are not the rulers in such a nation .
It ’ s not a democracy ; it is a collective dictatorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Both of the two Parties ’ voters vote in accord with their billionaires ’ agenda , but especially in accord with whatever is on the agenda that ’ s shared by both liberal and conservative billionaires — , and thereby control both Parties .
Billionaires , in each Party , have their very golden , very heavy , thumbs , pressing down hard upon the scale of any such ‘ democracy ’ , such that regardless of which group of billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election , the public inevitably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really just a contest between billionaires , who are stage-managing the nation ’ s entire political proceedings .
This is like two boxers fighting in a ring , in which the selection-process which placed them there was corrupt ; and , so , even if the ultimate winner is not equally corruptly pre-determined , the final result has nonetheless already been rigged ( during the primaries ) .
When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process , the ultimate outcome can not be a democracy .
As a consequence of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s politics are , to a very large extent , driven more by prejudices than by the realities that the public are actually facing .
Individuals are seeking for sources that will likeliest confirm what theybelieve , and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest totheir beliefs .
This is consequently a population that ’ s highly vulnerable to being manipulated , by playing up to , and amplifying , the given Party ’ s propaganda , to which the given individual already subscribes .
Republican Party billionaires ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and think tanks , etc.
, which they control ) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters , and Democratic Party billionaires can , likewise , easily manipulate Democratic Party voters , by their liberal media , think tanks , etc .
That ’ s billionaires , onof the two sides , guiding each of the two Parties ’ voters ; and , therefore , the nationan— a country which isan authentic ( which is controlled not by the numbers of dollars , but actually by the numbers of residents , each one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibly documented facts ) .
An aristocracy rules any such land .
The public are not the rulers in such a nation .
It ’ s not a democracy ; it is a collective dictatorship , by its billionaires ( its aristocracy ) .
Both of the two Parties ’ voters vote in accord with their billionaires ’ agenda , but billionaires fund both of the national Parties : Democrats and Republicans , and thereby control both Parties .
Billionaires , in each Party , have their very golden , very heavy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale of any such ‘ democracy ’ , such that regardless of which group of billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election , the public inevitably will lose , because it ’ s really just a contest between billionaires , who are stage-managing the nation ’ s entire political proceedings .
This is like two boxers fighting in a ring , in which the selection-process which placed them there was corrupt ; and , so , even if the ultimate winner is not equally corruptly pre-determined , the final result has nonetheless already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process , the ultimate outcome can not be a democracy .
agreed-upon by both sides of the domestic American political spectrum — the sides that are funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires , and by the conservative billionaires .
The This happens not only regarding elections , but regarding particular issues .
For example , in 2002 and 2003 , “ regime-change in Iraq , ” and “ Saddam ’ s WMD , ” were just as much agendas of liberal billionaires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were of conservative billionaires ’ media and think tanks ( and were thoroughly based on lies ) ; so , a closed-minded public were actually trapped , into the lies that werebyof the domestic American political spectrum — the sides that are funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires , and by the conservative billionaires .
The nearly $ 2 trillion cost of the invasion and military occupation of that country , and the consequent destruction of that country , were done for America ’ s billionaires , and produced nothing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those injuries and deaths to America ’ s soldiers and to Iraqis .
And that ’ s typical , nowadays , in this ( just as in any ) aristocracy : the aristocracy are served ; the nation ’ s public serve to them .
( In the U.S. , this has caused “ U.S .
Satisfaction at 13 % , Lowest in Nine Years ” , as Gallup headlined on 4 August 2020 ; and it has caused Americas ’ satisfaction with their Government to have ranged from its all-time low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its all-time high of only 45 % at the very start of 2020 — well below 50 % , for as long as Gallup has surveyed this . )
Often , America ’ s bipartisan views are based upon lies that virtually all billionaires want the public to believe .
In such cases — and these instances are frequent — the truth is being simply ignored , or else outright denied , by both sides ( and by the media , for both sides ) .
Individuals ’ prejudices are thus being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the public see and hear in “ the news.
” Everyone has prejudices , and truth can predominate only if people are constantly skeptical of the sources that they are relying upon — constantly trying to root out and replace whatever false beliefs they have .
This is the essence of scientific method .
Democracy depends upon it .
Aristocracy requires the opposite .
America has the opposite .
“ Whereas 52 % of Americans with a high school education or less are more concerned about bias in others ’ news than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that minimally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased ] , the figure is 64 % among those with some college education and is even higher among college graduates ( 73 % ) and those with postgraduate education ( 77 % ) [ and only 22 % of that maximally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased ] .
” The most-educated Americans are the most-manipulable ( the most closed-minded ) Americans .
No finding in this Gallup report was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more highly educated an American is , the less open that person is likely to be to changing his or her mind ( outlook ) about the situation .
In other words : the more educated an American is , the more closed-minded that person tends to become .
Higher education in America increases , instead of decreases , an individual ’ s closed-mindedness .
However , other contrasts which were almost as extreme are : “ Those who identify as liberal ( 80 % ) are more concerned than conservatives ( 68 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) with other people ’ s media bias.
” In other words : liberals are 80/65 or 1.23 times as closed-minded as are moderates , and are 80/68 or 1.18 times as closed-minded as conservatives are .
“ While 58 % of Black adults are more concerned about bias in others ’ news than in their own , fully 73 % of Asian Americans and 72 % of White adults say the same.
” Thus , African-Americans are 58/72.5 or 80 % as closed-minded as are Euro-Americans and Asian-Americans .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a closed-minded population , which is especially closed-minded amongst its most educated segment .
The leading segment is also the most closed-minded segment .
These are crucial agents of the billionaires , and they crucially inculcate into the next generation of Americans the aristocracy ’ s values .
any sort of science , determines what individuals in such a country believe about politics .
In every aristocracy , this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general public who oppose themselves : they ’ re viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It ’ s the very essence of elitism — on both sides .
( For prominent examples of this : both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had contempt for each-others ’ voters — blotted them out . )
This means that the leaders keep themselves , conceptually , inside a cocoon .
They have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society , which is the less-educated members .
That enhances inequality of opportunity , throughout the society .
Since the most-highly-educated Americans are the group that are the most-closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own , it ’ s easy for the most-highly-educated Americans to view individuals who disagree with those persons ’ views as being simply a “ basket of deplorables.
” Their disagreement then becomes their contempt .
‘ Facts ’ about politics are — for those persons , highly educated persons — more derived from their values and priorities , than their values and priorities are derived from the political facts .
Scientific epistemology is being turned upside-down , regarding political issues , in such a country .
Overwhelmingly , some sort of faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what individuals in such a country believe about politics .
In every aristocracy , this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general public who oppose themselves : they ’ re viewed as being a “ basket of deplorables.
” It ’ s the very essence of elitism — on both sides .
( For prominent examples of this : both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had contempt for each-others ’ voters — blotted them out . )
claim to care the most about ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Fakery is built into each and every aristocracy .
Americans ’ strong tendency to be closed-minded causes the aristocratic con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth .
( Again : the “ WMD in Iraq ” con was a good example of this — the aristocracy ’ s media The leadership ’ s minimal contact with the public makes exceedingly unlikely the leadership ’ s compassion , concern about the sufferings that they , themselves , are causing down below .
Actually , though every aristocracy claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public , the reality is that whenever doing that would entail their own losing power , that claim becomes exposed to be sheer hypocrisy — a lie ; often a self-deception , and not merely a deception against the public .
Deceiving themselves about their own decency is easy , because they have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society , the very people whom theyto care the most about ( and to be working in politics to help ) .
Fakery is built into each and every aristocracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes the aristocratic con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth .
( Again : the “ WMD in Iraq ” con was a good example of this — the aristocracy ’ s media just blocked-out the reality . )
Scientific studies have even demonstrated that the wealthier a person is , the less compassion the individual tends to have for people who are suffering .
Furthermore , since the less-educated persons aspire to be more-educated , they are — even without knowing it — aspiring to become less open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become more open to such views .
One bad consequence of this is : it strangulates imaginativeness , openness , and creativity , in favor of being rote , rigid , and bureaucratic .
Another bad consequence of it is that the authority-figures , in such a society , are , in some important ways , actually inferior to the rest of the population .
Moreover , America ’ s colleges and universities are not increasing their students ’ open-mindedness ( as they should ) but the exact opposite — they are reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professors are teaching some truths , the professors are training their students to be authoritarian , instead of to be open to a more truthful , comprehensive , and deeper understanding , which encompasses those truths , but also many more — which the majority of professors either ignore or else deny , because such deeper understanding violates the existing Scripture , or standard viewpoint ( shaped by both sides ’ billionaires ) .
At least in the United States , this is now the normal situation .
That Gallup poll showed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderately , but extremely .
This is a perverse situation , which bodes ill for the future of the entire nation .
Any country which is like this is not only an aristocracy instead of a democracy , but it is greatly disadvantaged , going forward .
It will be disadvantaged both in the arts and in the sciences .
Its future will be stultifying , instead of dynamic .
Aristocracies tend to be this way .
Also , because it will remain highly polarized , its internal ideological frictions will waste a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts .
As a nation , its forward-motion , its progress , will thus largely be crippled , by its internal discord and distrust , between the two warring factions of its aristocracy — and friction between the respective followers on each side .
This describes a declining culture — a nation that is in decline .
That ’ s what this poll-report , from Gallup , indicates , as clearly as any poll-findings can .
It indicates a nation in decline .

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture
“69% of Americans say they are more concerned about bias in the news other people consume than its presence in their own news (29%).” In other words: 69/29, or 2.38 times, as many Americans are closed-minded (prejudiced) regarding information-sources which don’t fit their ideology, than are not. Overwhelmingly in America, only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats, and only Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans. Each side distrusts the other’s information-sources. Gallup’s news-report aptly noted the important fact that “This plays into the political polarization in the U.S. national discourse.” The more prejudiced a population are, the more polarized it will be. Of course, one would expect this to be the case, but Gallup has now found striking new empirical evidence for it — that the public’s closed-mindedness is greatly increasing America’s political polarization. Each side is craving propaganda instead of truth, but each side’s voters want only the type of propaganda that is funded by the billionaires who also fund that side’s politicians and control that side’s ‘news’ media. Consequently, not by the public in an actual democracy. And each of these two herds is controlled by its shepherd, who are its billionaires. ( In other words: 69/29, or 2.38 times, as many Americans are closed-minded (prejudiced) regarding information-sources which don’t fit their ideology, than are not. Overwhelmingly in America, only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats, and only Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans. Each side distrusts the other’s information-sources. Gallup’s news-report aptly noted the important fact thatThe more prejudiced a population are, the more polarized it will be. Of course, one would expect this to be the case, but Gallup has now found striking new empirical evidence for it — that the public’s closed-mindedness is greatly increasing America’s political polarization. Each side is craving propaganda instead of truth, but each side’s voters want only theof propaganda that is funded by the billionaires who also fund that side’s politicians and control that side’s ‘news’ media. Consequently, American politics is controlled by the conflict between liberal billionaires versus conservative billionaires — totally controlled by billionaires (instead of by the public). There is the liberal herd, and the conservative herd, but they’re both herds —by the public in an actual democracy. And each of these two herds is controlled by its shepherd, who are its billionaires. ( Here is how that’s done. ) Billionaires control each Party and thereby control the Government. This is why the Government ignores the preferences of America’s public . As will be shown here, the September 11th Gallup findings help to explain how and why that results.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can become exposed to the other side’s evidence and arguments unless they see those — the other side’s evidence and arguments, both for its own case and against the opposite side’s case (i.e., against the case that oneself believes). Not to see the opposite side’s viewpoint is to be blind to it, and thus to become locked into whatever oneself believes. This 69/29 is like a jury’s rendering its verdict and nearly three quarters of the jurors having not listened to — and thus not considered — the opposite side’s presentations. That’s a frightening situation to exist in any court of law, and it is an equally frightening situation to exist in any nation’s electorate.
already believe, and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest to disconfirm their beliefs. This is consequently a population that’s highly vulnerable to being manipulated, by playing up to, and amplifying, the given Party’s propaganda, to which the given individual already subscribes. Republican Party billionaires (by their use of their conservative newsmedia and think tanks, etc., which they control) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters, and Democratic Party billionaires can, likewise, easily manipulate Democratic Party voters, by their liberal media, think tanks, etc. That’s billionaires, on each of the two sides, guiding each of the two Parties’ voters; and, therefore, the nation is an aristocracy — a country which is controlled by its wealthiest few — instead of an authentic democracy (which is controlled not by the numbers of dollars, but actually by the numbers of residents, each one of whom is independently and open-mindedly seeking for credibly documented facts). An aristocracy rules any such land. The public are not the rulers in such a nation. It’s not a democracy; it is a collective dictatorship, by its billionaires (its aristocracy). Both of the two Parties’ voters vote in accord with their billionaires’ agenda, but especially in accord with whatever is on the agenda that’s shared by both liberal and conservative billionaires — , and thereby control both Parties. Billionaires, in each Party, have their very golden, very heavy, thumbs, pressing down hard upon the scale of any such ‘democracy’, such that regardless of which group of billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election, the public inevitably will lose, because it’s really just a contest between billionaires, who are stage-managing the nation’s entire political proceedings. This is like two boxers fighting in a ring, in which the selection-process which placed them there was corrupt; and, so, even if the ultimate winner is not equally corruptly pre-determined, the final result has nonetheless already been rigged (during the primaries). When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process, the ultimate outcome cannot be a democracy. As a consequence of Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded, America’s politics are, to a very large extent, driven more by prejudices than by the realities that the public are actually facing. Individuals are seeking for sources that will likeliest confirm what theybelieve, and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest totheir beliefs. This is consequently a population that’s highly vulnerable to being manipulated, by playing up to, and amplifying, the given Party’s propaganda, to which the given individual already subscribes. Republican Party billionaires (by their use of their conservative newsmedia and think tanks, etc., which they control) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters, and Democratic Party billionaires can, likewise, easily manipulate Democratic Party voters, by their liberal media, think tanks, etc. That’s billionaires, onof the two sides, guiding each of the two Parties’ voters; and, therefore, the nationan— a country which isan authentic(which is controlled not by the numbers of dollars, but actually by the numbers of residents, each one of whom is independently and open-mindedly seeking for credibly documented facts). An aristocracy rules any such land. The public are not the rulers in such a nation. It’s not a democracy; it is a collective dictatorship, by its billionaires (its aristocracy). Both of the two Parties’ voters vote in accord with their billionaires’ agenda, but billionaires fund both of the national Parties: Democrats and Republicans , and thereby control both Parties. Billionaires, in each Party, have their very golden, very heavy, thumbs, pressing down hard upon the scale of any such ‘democracy’, such that regardless of which group of billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election, the public inevitably will lose, because it’s really just a contest between billionaires, who are stage-managing the nation’s entire political proceedings. This is like two boxers fighting in a ring, in which the selection-process which placed them there was corrupt; and, so, even if the ultimate winner is not equally corruptly pre-determined, the final result has nonetheless already been rigged (during the primaries). When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process, the ultimate outcome cannot be a democracy.
agreed-upon by both sides of the domestic American political spectrum — the sides that are funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires, and by the conservative billionaires. The This happens not only regarding elections, but regarding particular issues. For example, in 2002 and 2003, “regime-change in Iraq,” and “Saddam’s WMD,” were just as much agendas of liberal billionaires’ media and think tanks as they were of conservative billionaires’ media and think tanks (and were thoroughly based on lies ); so, a closed-minded public were actually trapped, into the lies that werebyof the domestic American political spectrum — the sides that are funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires, and by the conservative billionaires. The nearly $2 trillion cost of the invasion and military occupation of that country , and the consequent destruction of that country , were done for America’s billionaires, and produced nothing for the American people except that enormous public debt and those injuries and deaths to America’s soldiers and to Iraqis. And that’s typical, nowadays, in this (just as in any) aristocracy: the aristocracy are served; the nation’s public serve to them. (In the U.S., this has caused “U.S. Satisfaction at 13%, Lowest in Nine Years” , as Gallup headlined on 4 August 2020; and it has caused Americas’ satisfaction with their Government to have ranged from its all-time low of only 7% in 2008, to its all-time high of only 45% at the very start of 2020 — well below 50%, for as long as Gallup has surveyed this.)
all of the billionaires want is what the American public get as their Government. It’s bipartisanship amongst its billionaires. not open-minded — not each individual constantly seeking solid evidence to change one’s mind about how society works (what the reality in the nation actually is), so as for one’s view to become increasingly accurate over time. Instead, one’s myths are constantly being fed. Such a public, as this, are not individuals, in a democracy, but more like mobs, very manipulable. Whatis what the American publicas their Government. It’s bipartisanship amongst its billionaires. That’s what produces this Government’s policies. It’s what determines the Government that Americans get. However, what is basic in making it a dictatorship of the aristocracy-type (such as this America is) is that the population is very prejudiced,open-minded —each individual constantly seeking solid evidence to change one’s mind about how society works (what the reality in the nation actually is), so as for one’s view to become increasingly accurate over time. Instead, one’s myths are constantly being fed. Such a public, as this, are not individuals, in a democracy, but more like mobs,
Often, America’s bipartisan views are based upon lies that virtually all billionaires want the public to believe. In such cases — and these instances are frequent — the truth is being simply ignored, or else outright denied, by both sides (and by the media, for both sides). Individuals’ prejudices are thus being increased, instead of reduced, by what the public see and hear in “the news.” Everyone has prejudices, and truth can predominate only if people are constantly skeptical of the sources that they are relying upon — constantly trying to root out and replace whatever false beliefs they have. This is the essence of scientific method. Democracy depends upon it. Aristocracy requires the opposite. America has the opposite.
both of America’s political sides, there needs to be far less trust of the Establishment (including its politicians, its media, its think tanks, etc.), in order for any real democracy to become able to exist. It’s not even able to exist now. And, therefore, Change away from this present situation, to a democracy, would be difficult. Onof America’s political sides, there needs to be far less trust of the Establishment (including its politicians, its media, its think tanks, etc.), in order for anydemocracy to become able to exist. It’s not even able to exist now. And, therefore, it does not exist
more depressing is that America’s educational system, most especially its colleges and universities, are encouraging, instead of discouraging, this situation, this closed-mindedness. The more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person becomes — as is further shown in But what is evendepressing is that America’s educational system, most especially its colleges and universities, are encouraging, instead of discouraging, this situation, this closed-mindedness. The more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person becomes — as is further shown in this same September 11th Gallup news-report
“Whereas 52% of Americans with a high school education or less are more concerned about bias in others’ news than in their own [and 45% of that minimally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased], the figure is 64% among those with some college education and is even higher among college graduates (73%) and those with postgraduate education (77%) [and only 22% of that maximally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased].” The most-educated Americans are the most-manipulable (the most closed-minded) Americans.
No finding in this Gallup report was as extreme as the finding that the more highly educated an American is, the less open that person is likely to be to changing his or her mind (outlook) about the situation. In other words: the more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person tends to become. Higher education in America increases, instead of decreases, an individual’s closed-mindedness. However, other contrasts which were almost as extreme are:
“Those who identify as liberal (80%) are more concerned than conservatives (68%) and moderates (65%) with other people’s media bias.” In other words: liberals are 80/65 or 1.23 times as closed-minded as are moderates, and are 80/68 or 1.18 times as closed-minded as conservatives are.
“While 58% of Black adults are more concerned about bias in others’ news than in their own, fully 73% of Asian Americans and 72% of White adults say the same.” Thus, African-Americans are 58/72.5 or 80% as closed-minded as are Euro-Americans and Asian-Americans.
This is the worst combination possible: it’s a closed-minded population, which is especially closed-minded amongst its most educated segment. The leading segment is also the most closed-minded segment. These are crucial agents of the billionaires, and they crucially inculcate into the next generation of Americans the aristocracy’s values.
any sort of science, determines what individuals in such a country believe about politics. In every aristocracy, this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general public who oppose themselves: they’re viewed as being a “basket of deplorables.” It’s the very essence of elitism — on both sides. (For prominent examples of this: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had contempt for each-others’ voters — blotted them out.) This means that the leaders keep themselves, conceptually, inside a cocoon. They have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, which is the less-educated members. That enhances inequality of opportunity, throughout the society. Since the most-highly-educated Americans are the group that are the most-closed to opinions which are contrary to their own, it’s easy for the most-highly-educated Americans to view individuals who disagree with those persons’ views as being simply a “basket of deplorables.” Their disagreement then becomes their contempt. ‘Facts’ about politics are — for those persons, highly educated persons — more derived from their values and priorities, than their values and priorities are derived from the political facts. Scientific epistemology is being turned upside-down, regarding political issues, in such a country. Overwhelmingly, some sort of faith, instead ofsort of science, determines what individuals in such a country believe about politics. In every aristocracy, this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general public who oppose themselves: they’re viewed as being a “basket of deplorables.” It’s the very essence of elitism — on both sides. (For prominent examples of this: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had contempt for each-others’ voters — blotted them out.)
claim to care the most about (and to be working in politics to help). Fakery is built into each and every aristocracy. Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded causes the aristocratic con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth. (Again: the “WMD in Iraq” con was a good example of this — the aristocracy’s media The leadership’s minimal contact with the public makes exceedingly unlikely the leadership’s compassion, concern about the sufferings that they, themselves, are causing down below. Actually, though every aristocracy claims to want to improve conditions for their public, the reality is that whenever doing that would entail their own losing power, that claim becomes exposed to be sheer hypocrisy — a lie; often a self-deception, and not merely a deception against the public. Deceiving themselves about their own decency is easy, because they have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, the very people whom theyto care the most about (and to be working in politics to help). Fakery is built into each and every aristocracy. Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded causes the aristocratic con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth. (Again: the “WMD in Iraq” con was a good example of this — the aristocracy’s media just blocked-out the reality .) Scientific studies have even demonstrated that the wealthier a person is, the less compassion the individual tends to have for people who are suffering.
Furthermore, since the less-educated persons aspire to be more-educated, they are — even without knowing it — aspiring to become less open to contrary views, instead of to become more open to such views. One bad consequence of this is: it strangulates imaginativeness, openness, and creativity, in favor of being rote, rigid, and bureaucratic. Another bad consequence of it is that the authority-figures, in such a society, are, in some important ways, actually inferior to the rest of the population. Moreover, America’s colleges and universities are not increasing their students’ open-mindedness (as they should) but the exact opposite — they are reducing their students’ open-mindedness. Even if professors are teaching some truths, the professors are training their students to be authoritarian, instead of to be open to a more truthful, comprehensive, and deeper understanding, which encompasses those truths, but also many more — which the majority of professors either ignore or else deny, because such deeper understanding violates the existing Scripture, or standard viewpoint (shaped by both sides’ billionaires). At least in the United States, this is now the normal situation. That Gallup poll showed it not merely weakly, nor even only moderately, but extremely.
This is a perverse situation, which bodes ill for the future of the entire nation. Any country which is like this is not only an aristocracy instead of a democracy, but it is greatly disadvantaged, going forward. It will be disadvantaged both in the arts and in the sciences. Its future will be stultifying, instead of dynamic. Aristocracies tend to be this way. Also, because it will remain highly polarized, its internal ideological frictions will waste a large proportion of the nation’s efforts. As a nation, its forward-motion, its progress, will thus largely be crippled, by its internal discord and distrust, between the two warring factions of its aristocracy — and friction between the respective followers on each side.
This describes a declining culture — a nation that is in decline.
That’s what this poll-report, from Gallup, indicates, as clearly as any poll-findings can.
It indicates a nation in decline.
During the Presidential primaries in the Democratic Party, a major point of difference between the two major candidates, Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders, was whether billionaires are bad for the country: Biden said no; Sanders said yes. (This was a major reason why the billionaires made sure that Sanders would lose .) In any country where wealth-inequality is so extreme, there can be no authentic democracy. America’s extreme inequality of wealth makes democracy impossible in this country. America’s other problems follow from that. In reality, it’s a one-party state, and that party is controlled not actually by the counts of voters, but by the counts of dollars. It is an aristocracy; and its decline — to what has been documented here — follows from that fact. Whatever democracy America might once have had is gone now. It has become replaced by a land of mass-deceptions, which are bought and sold.
—————


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-28--Project Veritas: Ilhan Omar connected Ballot Harvester in cash-for-ballots scheme: “Car is full” of

Project Veritas: Ilhan Omar connected Ballot Harvester in cash-for-ballots scheme: “Car is full” of absentee ballots

BREAKING : @ IlhanOmar connected cash-for-ballots harvesting scheme “ Money is the king of everything ” boasts harvesting HUNDREDS of @ @ @ @ @ “ Numbers do not lie…these here are all absentee ballots…my car is full… ” ; @ @ @ @ @ elderly '' pic.twitter.com/DvM3PiSIsJ

BREAKING: @IlhanOmar connected cash-for-ballots harvesting scheme “Money is the king of everything” boasts harvesting HUNDREDS of 2020 absentee ballots ILLEGALLY! “Numbers do not lie…these here are all absentee ballots…my car is full…”; "Ballots taken away from elderly" pic.twitter.com/DvM3PiSIsJ
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 28, 2020


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-28--Biggest experiment in monetary history is being continued.

Biggest experiment in monetary history is being continued .
What we are looking for is the point at which confidence @ @ @ @ @ because they have printed too much money .
SNB 's balance sheet now accounts for @ @ @ @ @ 's GDP , BoJ 's at almost 140 % .
pic.twitter.com/zfs3yV6HeY

Biggest experiment in monetary history is being continued. What we are looking for is the point at which confidence in the central banks collapses because they have printed too much money. SNB's balance sheet now accounts for over 150% of Switzerland's GDP, BoJ's at almost 140%. pic.twitter.com/zfs3yV6HeY
— Holger Zschaepitz (@Schuldensuehner) September 27, 2020


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-28--QQQ fund flows – Even if this looks like a huge rebalance.. this is the biggest weekly flow since 20

QQQ fund flows – Even if this looks like a huge rebalance.. this is the biggest weekly flow since 2000

Even if this looks like a huge rebalance.. this is the biggest weekly flow since 2000 pic.twitter.com/1wlKS6mFWZ Why is # @ @ @ @ @ The index is in double ZZ , ( A ) is done , and ( @ @ @ @ @ ending this week .
Wave ( C ) is steep and A would take index @ @ @ @ @ ( C ) will land at 1800 .
This is what I think , what @ @ @ @

Even if this looks like a huge rebalance.. this is the biggest weekly flow since 2000 pic.twitter.com/1wlKS6mFWZ
Why is #SP500 heading to 1800?
The index is in double ZZ, (A) is done, and (B) is playing and ending this week. Wave (C) is steep and A would take index to 2777 and C of (C) will land at 1800.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Agree = Like
Disagree = Retweet pic.twitter.com/iWLpjIEceI
— SP500 (@DrForecast) September 27, 2020


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-28--Goodbye To All That: Are Our Rituals of “Prosperity” Increasingly Meaningless?

The heretical truth is that many of the “ consumption rituals ” that signified “ prosperity ” for decades are either meaningless , unaffordable or require way more effort than the meager payoff is worth .
Of all the economic heresies imaginable , perhaps the most heretical is to recognize what we label “ prosperity ” as increasingly meaningless rituals more akin with Soviet-era staged parades than actual well-being .
This is the most dangerous heresy because it breaks the link between consumption–the core activity of our economy–and human happiness .
If conspicuous / surplus consumption is ritualistic rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our well-being ) , then it becomes meaningless or even corrosive .
The focus them shifts to the negative consequences of consumption , i.e .
how the rituals of consumption are eroding / disrupting our well-being .
Rituals are satisfying because the performance of the ritual is itself the source of our satisfaction .
Belief or enjoyment isn ’ t necessary ; completion of the ritual is its own reward .
But once we pull away from the rituals , the emptiness of the performance becomes clear and we start asking , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expense and effort ?
These questions arise because many conventional consumption rituals have become prohibitively expensive and troublesome and others demand major amounts of time with very little payoff .
Consider the ritual of passively consuming sports .
The ratings of televised games were falling before the pandemic , and by some measures appear to be in free-fall .
It ’ s not hard to discern potential reasons : Millennials never formed the habit/ritual of spending hours watching a game , or attending games ; despite the protests from die-hard fans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as are the players , as pro and college sports have become homogenized in many ways .
As with many other consumption rituals , those performing the rituals rarely stopped to ask themselves if the ritual was actually improving their well-being , or if it had slowly morphed into a colossal waste of time and money .
Many activities of discretionary consumption are in large part rituals : going on vacations , taking cruises , shopping , dining out , and so on .
While many will miss the performance of these rituals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really miss them .
Some will feel immense relief that they no longer have to put up a facade of enjoying the tiresome , meaningless rituals .
The enormous expense of once-affordable rituals such as dining out means many will give up these consumption rituals because they can no longer afford it .
Two sandwiches and two drinks , sales tax and a tip is now routinely $ 50 or more .
( Note to wealthy readers : in the real world , it ’ s pretty difficult to earn $ 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing business . )
Other consumption rituals were embedded in modes of work that are dissolving because they ’ re no longer financially viable .
The rituals of business travel and attending conferences paid by employers are dying because the luxury of these consumption rituals is no longer affordable to employers whose revenues and profits are in terminal decline .
Every manager pounding the table for a return of all employees to the central office has yet to discover what happens when the corporation reports a staggering loss and refuses to provide forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to retain their job , their task will be to eliminate all offices and digitize and/or automate every function to cut costs .
The many rituals of a central office–the endless meetings , the petty arguments , the smoking breaks , going out for lunch–goodbye to all that .
A couple of quarters of steep losses in revenues will push every company and agency to strip away all the rituals of consumption that are no longer affordable .
Did all that enormous expense of time and money really make us happy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motions ?
Even those who were so anxious to resume the performance of these consumption rituals may find that the performance leaves them with a nagging sense of ennui and hollowness , as if something is missing , despite the perfect repetition of the ritual .
Some will blame the pandemic , but this is not the real source of their dissatisfaction .
The heretical truth is that many of the consumption rituals that signified “ prosperity ” for decades are either meaningless , unaffordable or require way more effort than the meager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is playing on the TV but nobody ’ s watching .
The news is playing on another TV , but nobody ’ s watching that , either .
A disembodied stock market pundit declares a new Bull market but nobody ’ s listening .
The social media feed is scrolling by in a mad fury on a smartphone but nobody ’ s clicking on any of it .
It ’ s all pointless , hollow , tiresome , for the completion of the ritual is no longer enough .
The meaningless of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now so obvious that the desperation of the purveyors to get everyone back on board adds an exclamation point to the emptiness of their offerings .
Here ’ s why addressing this is heresy : what props up the economy once all the consumption rituals fall out of favor or are no longer affordable ?
The answer is of course nothing .
My new book is available !
A Hacker ’ s Teleology : Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet 20 % and 15 % discounts end September 30 ( Kindle $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excerpts of the book for free ( PDF ) .
The Story Behind the Book and the Introduction .
A Hacker ’ s Teleology : Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet ( Kindle $ 8.95 , print $ 20 , audiobook coming soon ) Read the first section for free ( PDF ) .
Will You Be Richer or Poorer ?
: Profit , Power , and AI in a Traumatized World ( Kindle $ 5 , print $ 10 , audiobook ) Read the first section for free ( PDF ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ( $ 5 ( Kindle ) , $ 10 ( print ) , ( audiobook ) : Read the first section for free ( PDF ) .
The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher : The Disappearance of Drake $ 1.29 ( Kindle ) , $ 8.95 ( print ) ; read the first chapters for free ( PDF ) Money and Work Unchained $ 6.95 ( Kindle ) , $ 15 ( print ) Read the first section for free ( PDF ) .
If you found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me in seeking solutions by becoming a $ 1/month patron of my work via patreon.com .

by Charles Hugh-Smith
The heretical truth is that many of the “consumption rituals” that signified “prosperity” for decades are either meaningless, unaffordable or require way more effort than the meager payoff is worth.
Of all the economic heresies imaginable, perhaps the most heretical is to recognize what we label “prosperity” as increasingly meaningless rituals more akin with Soviet-era staged parades than actual well-being.
This is the most dangerous heresy because it breaks the link between consumption–the core activity of our economy–and human happiness. If conspicuous / surplus consumption is ritualistic rather than fulfilling (i.e. it adds to our well-being), then it becomes meaningless or even corrosive.
The focus them shifts to the negative consequences of consumption, i.e. how the rituals of consumption are eroding / disrupting our well-being.
Rituals are satisfying because the performance of the ritual is itself the source of our satisfaction. Belief or enjoyment isn’t necessary; completion of the ritual is its own reward.
But once we pull away from the rituals, the emptiness of the performance becomes clear and we start asking, what am I getting out of this for the expense and effort?
These questions arise because many conventional consumption rituals have become prohibitively expensive and troublesome and others demand major amounts of time with very little payoff.
Consider the ritual of passively consuming sports. The ratings of televised games were falling before the pandemic, and by some measures appear to be in free-fall. It’s not hard to discern potential reasons: Millennials never formed the habit/ritual of spending hours watching a game, or attending games; despite the protests from die-hard fans, most of the games are interchangeable, as are the players, as pro and college sports have become homogenized in many ways.
As with many other consumption rituals, those performing the rituals rarely stopped to ask themselves if the ritual was actually improving their well-being, or if it had slowly morphed into a colossal waste of time and money.
Many activities of discretionary consumption are in large part rituals: going on vacations, taking cruises, shopping, dining out, and so on. While many will miss the performance of these rituals, others will realize they don’t really miss them. Some will feel immense relief that they no longer have to put up a facade of enjoying the tiresome, meaningless rituals.
The enormous expense of once-affordable rituals such as dining out means many will give up these consumption rituals because they can no longer afford it. Two sandwiches and two drinks, sales tax and a tip is now routinely $50 or more. (Note to wealthy readers: in the real world, it’s pretty difficult to earn $50 net of taxes and the cost of doing business.)
Other consumption rituals were embedded in modes of work that are dissolving because they’re no longer financially viable. The rituals of business travel and attending conferences paid by employers are dying because the luxury of these consumption rituals is no longer affordable to employers whose revenues and profits are in terminal decline.
Every manager pounding the table for a return of all employees to the central office has yet to discover what happens when the corporation reports a staggering loss and refuses to provide forward guidance. If the manager is fortunate enough to retain their job, their task will be to eliminate all offices and digitize and/or automate every function to cut costs.
The many rituals of a central office–the endless meetings, the petty arguments, the smoking breaks, going out for lunch–goodbye to all that. A couple of quarters of steep losses in revenues will push every company and agency to strip away all the rituals of consumption that are no longer affordable.
Did all that enormous expense of time and money really make us happy, or were we just going through the motions? Even those who were so anxious to resume the performance of these consumption rituals may find that the performance leaves them with a nagging sense of ennui and hollowness, as if something is missing, despite the perfect repetition of the ritual.
Some will blame the pandemic, but this is not the real source of their dissatisfaction. The heretical truth is that many of the consumption rituals that signified “prosperity” for decades are either meaningless, unaffordable or require way more effort than the meager payoff is worth.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
So the game is playing on the TV but nobody’s watching. The news is playing on another TV, but nobody’s watching that, either. A disembodied stock market pundit declares a new Bull market but nobody’s listening. The social media feed is scrolling by in a mad fury on a smartphone but nobody’s clicking on any of it. It’s all pointless, hollow, tiresome, for the completion of the ritual is no longer enough.
The meaningless of the engagement rituals and the consumption rituals is now so obvious that the desperation of the purveyors to get everyone back on board adds an exclamation point to the emptiness of their offerings.
Here’s why addressing this is heresy: what props up the economy once all the consumption rituals fall out of favor or are no longer affordable? The answer is of course nothing.
My new book is available! A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet 20% and 15% discounts end September 30 (Kindle $7, print $17)
Read excerpts of the book for free (PDF).
The Story Behind the Book and the Introduction.
Recent Podcasts:
AxisOfEasy Salon #23: Lords of the Algos (1 hr)
My COVID-19 Pandemic Posts
My recent books:
A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook coming soon) Read the first section for free (PDF).
Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World
(Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).
The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-28--Michael Pento: The coming asset crash will “wipe out investors” … Rick Rule: Gold will rise regardle

Michael Pento : The coming asset crash will “ wipe out investors ” … Rick Rule : Gold will rise @ @ @ @ @ … Alasdair Macleod : Silver ’ s role as money in our future … Glen @ @ @ @ @ contempt for Joe Rogan ?
… Chris Martenson : Get ready for inflation good and @ @ @ @

BY JOHN RUBINO
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Michael Pento: The coming asset crash will “wipe out investors” … Rick Rule: Gold will rise regardless of the election outcome … Alasdair Macleod: Silver’s role as money in our future … Glen Greenwald: What explains elite contempt for Joe Rogan? … Chris Martenson: Get ready for inflation good and hard in 2021 …


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-29--Jordan Roy-Byrne: What to do During Corrections/Consolidations

The precious metals sector is now confirmed to be in correction and consolidation mode .
This started about a month @ @ @ @ @ In the big picture , these periods are choppy .
My thinking could change but @ @ @ @ @ sector will consolidate for the remainder of this year .
Maybe the larger consolidation will @ @ @ @ @ Jordan Roy-Byrne , CMT is a Chartered Market Technician and member of the Market Technicians @ @ @ @ @ and editor of TheDailyGold Premium , a publication which emphasizes market timing and stock selection @ @ @ @ @ as well as TheDailyGold Global , an add-on service for subscribers which covers global capital @ @

The Daily Gold, Released on 9/28/20
The precious metals sector is now confirmed to be in correction and consolidation mode. This started about a month and a half ago. In the big picture, these periods are choppy. My thinking could change but it appears to me the sector will consolidate for the remainder of this year. Maybe the larger consolidation will end around the holidays.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Jordan Roy-Byrne, CMT is a Chartered Market Technician and member of the Market Technicians Association.. He is the publisher and editor of TheDailyGold Premium, a publication which emphasizes market timing and stock selection for the sophisticated investor, as well as TheDailyGold Global, an add-on service for subscribers which covers global capital markets.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-29--Dude, Where’s My Inflation?

Dude, Where’s My Inflation?

From time to time , Austrian economists , goldbugs , and other economists on the saner end of the spectrum warn of the inflationary dangers of modern central bank policies .
The most famous case of this was Bob Murphy ’ s bet with David Henderson that the Federal Reserve ’ s policies after the financial crisis of 2008 would result in high , i.e.
, double digit inflation .
Unfortunately for Murphy , he lost this bet , and , more generally , the much-dreaded ( or in the case of central banks , much-hoped-for ) inflation has so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true both when one looks at the official inflation measures and even when one consults alternatives such as shadowstats .
What explains this apparent failure of Austrian commentators ?
In order to understand the problem , it is necessary to get clear on the basics of the discussion .
The Austrian point is that increases in the money supply—the old definition of inflation—must eventually result in a rise in the prices of all goods , what is nowadays meant by inflation .
However , most official inflation measures , notably the Consumer Price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while alternative measures usually show a higher rate of increase , even these are far from proportional to the increase in the money supply .
Now , while the construction of any index measuring the change in consumer prices is arbitrary ( as explained by Dr. Karl-Friedrich Israel here ) , it is surely not completely out of line with everyday experience ; while prices on consumer goods do generally go up , it is usually not by more than a few percentage points per year .
Monetary experts counter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that increases in the money supply will necessarily result in inflation by arguing that this is not necessarily so ; reverting to the equation of exchange , MV=PT , they say that an increase in the money supply need not be inflationary if it simply counters a decline in velocity—indeed , if the increase does not completely make up for the decline in velocity , they will even claim that an expansionary monetary policy increasing the supply of money in existence , is in fact a tight monetary policy since total spending in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a twofold problem before us : Why is expansionary monetary policy not reflected in increasing price inflation ?
And is it true to say that money is tight if an increase in M does not completely offset a decline in V ?
We will answer the second question first .
What Causes a Collapse in Velocity ?
Why does the velocity of circulation change and suddenly decline , as it for instance did in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis ?
While the equation of exchange is a poor stand-in for monetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other , more able economists have done so here and here ) , it does point at a real phenomenon .
That is to say , velocity is simply the variable introduced to equate the money supply with total spending .
Therefore , if V declines while the money supply stays the same or increases , logically this must mean that total spending in the economy declines .
The real question therefore is , why does total spending decline , and is it necessary to offset the fall in nominal spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
A fall in nominal spending occurs when people decide to spend less of their incomes than previously .
That is , a fall in nominal spending is simply the simultaneous consequence of an increase in the demand for money .
During crises and recessions , acting individuals experience greater uncertainty and therefore naturally postpone and restrict their purchases .
Since they don ’ t know what the immediate future will bring , they lay more money aside for emergencies , as ready cash , apart from during hyperinflation , is considered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
When the crisis has passed , people will gradually draw down their cash balances , as these will then be too large for their requirements .
It is clear that an increase in the demand for money to hold will result in lower prices and is in this sense deflationary .
But that does not mean that money is tight or that it is necessary to replace the fall in spending with newly printed money .
It is true that having to adjust prices downward will be painful for businesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wages must not , under any circumstances , fall has been preached for generations .
Yet falling prices are precisely what is necessary to get the economy back on track after a depression : the weakest businesses are purged and productive assets are made cheaply available for entrepreneurs , who expect to profit by buying factories , machines , and so on at low prices , hire laborers at lower wages , and restart production in profitable sectors of the economy .
There is nothing in this process that requires the injection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the contrary , such injections can only frustrate the attempts of capitalists and entrepreneurs to readjust the production structure to the real conditions of the market and the real demands of consumers .
A decline in velocity therefore reflects a crisis in the economy ; it does not mean that money is tight but rather that people have stopped spending as much of their incomes as they used to .
It also means that even very substantial increases in the money supply do not lead to price inflation , as central banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new money , or to take out new bank loans .
Only when people are again willing to increase their spending will increases in the money supply result in higher prices .
That increases in the money supply during a crisis do not result in price inflation is thus easily explained by an increase in the demand to hold money , but this does not explain the general failure of central banks in generating inflation .
The rate of growth in the money supply has almost always outpaced the rate of growth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean that , whatever other evils we may claim follow from central bank interventions , the dangers of inflation are significantly overstated ?
The confusion arises from ignoring the entry point of the new money into the economy .
The new money does not instantaneously spread throughout the economy and prices do not immediately adjust .
Rather , the new money goes to a few recipients first , who then spend it on goods and services , bidding up prices , and the next recipients then spend it , again bidding up prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , until the money has been distributed and the whole price structure has been changed by the infusion .
This is what is known as the Cantillon effect .
Hayek in a famous image compared it to the pouring of honey on a surface : the honey does not immediately spread out across the surface but forms a mound at the point where it is poured out and only slowly spreads from there.1 Modern central banks , however , don ’ t pour money on consumers .
Rather , they produce new money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Federal Reserve buys US Treasurys and other financial assets from banks with new money , and the banks then spend the new money during their normal business operations .
What we therefore have is a system of financial inflation : the prices of bonds and other financial instruments are bid up , leading to ever-lower rates of interest on loans , real estate prices are bid up , as it is now cheaper to finance mortgages , and only much later does the new money filter down to normal consumer goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a shadow of the distortive effects brought about by the increase in the money supply .
This does not mean that central banks would be able to cause inflation even were they to give the new money directly to consumers , for they can not force each individual to spend the money on consumption .
We saw an example of this recently when the US government distributed the CARES Act stimulus checks , the so-called Trumpbucks .
I previously suggested that this kind of inflationary spending might quickly result in high inflation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assuming that the money would be spent on consumption ; most Trumpbucks seem to have been used to either increase savings or reduce debt .
Thus the inflationary impact has been redirected or absorbed into financial markets or higher cash balances .
( It is even possible that it has been neutralized to the extent that individuals have reduced or paid off their bank loans—if the banks have neglected to offer new loans in order to solidify their own position . )
Does this mean that the Federal Reserve is powerless to cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if their goal truly is to cause consumer price inflation , most recently stated in the form of “ flexible average inflation targeting ” ( meaning , in effect , higher inflation ) , they have chosen a very roundabout way to do it .
During normal times , “ helicopter money ” handed out to the population as described by former Fed chief Bernanke is a better way to stoke inflation than is pumping money into financial markets , and an even surer way is to simply finance government expenditures by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t do this suggests that their primary objective is not really to increase inflation , but rather to support financial markets and players in the style to which they have become accustomed .
This is even official central-bank ideology these days , as they assume the mantle of “ market-maker of last resort.
” • 1.Friedrich August von Hayek , “ Three Elucidations of the Ricardo Effect , ” Journal of Political Economy 77 , no .
2 ( 1969 ) , p. 281 , doi.org/10.1086/259514 .
Kristoffer Mousten Hansen is a PhD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Mises Institute Research Fellow .

by Kristoffer Mousten Hansen via Mises
From time to time, Austrian economists, goldbugs, and other economists on the saner end of the spectrum warn of the inflationary dangers of modern central bank policies. The most famous case of this was Bob Murphy’s bet with David Henderson that the Federal Reserve’s policies after the financial crisis of 2008 would result in high, i.e., double digit inflation. Unfortunately for Murphy, he lost this bet, and, more generally, the much-dreaded (or in the case of central banks, much-hoped-for) inflation has so far failed to materialize. This is true both when one looks at the official inflation measures and even when one consults alternatives such as shadowstats. What explains this apparent failure of Austrian commentators?
The Basics
In order to understand the problem, it is necessary to get clear on the basics of the discussion. The Austrian point is that increases in the money supply—the old definition of inflation—must eventually result in a rise in the prices of all goods, what is nowadays meant by inflation. However, most official inflation measures, notably the Consumer Price Index, show only a slight increase. And while alternative measures usually show a higher rate of increase, even these are far from proportional to the increase in the money supply. Now, while the construction of any index measuring the change in consumer prices is arbitrary (as explained by Dr. Karl-Friedrich Israel here), it is surely not completely out of line with everyday experience; while prices on consumer goods do generally go up, it is usually not by more than a few percentage points per year.
Monetary experts counter the claims of those of us who think that increases in the money supply will necessarily result in inflation by arguing that this is not necessarily so; reverting to the equation of exchange, MV=PT, they say that an increase in the money supply need not be inflationary if it simply counters a decline in velocity—indeed, if the increase does not completely make up for the decline in velocity, they will even claim that an expansionary monetary policy increasing the supply of money in existence, is in fact a tight monetary policy since total spending in the economy declines.
We thus have a twofold problem before us: Why is expansionary monetary policy not reflected in increasing price inflation? And is it true to say that money is tight if an increase in M does not completely offset a decline in V? We will answer the second question first.
What Causes a Collapse in Velocity?
Why does the velocity of circulation change and suddenly decline, as it for instance did in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis? While the equation of exchange is a poor stand-in for monetary theory (I have criticized it here, and other, more able economists have done so here and here), it does point at a real phenomenon. That is to say, velocity is simply the variable introduced to equate the money supply with total spending. Therefore, if V declines while the money supply stays the same or increases, logically this must mean that total spending in the economy declines. The real question therefore is, why does total spending decline, and is it necessary to offset the fall in nominal spending by an increase in the money supply?
A fall in nominal spending occurs when people decide to spend less of their incomes than previously. That is, a fall in nominal spending is simply the simultaneous consequence of an increase in the demand for money. During crises and recessions, acting individuals experience greater uncertainty and therefore naturally postpone and restrict their purchases. Since they don’t know what the immediate future will bring, they lay more money aside for emergencies, as ready cash, apart from during hyperinflation, is considered the safest asset to possess in the short term. When the crisis has passed, people will gradually draw down their cash balances, as these will then be too large for their requirements.
It is clear that an increase in the demand for money to hold will result in lower prices and is in this sense deflationary. But that does not mean that money is tight or that it is necessary to replace the fall in spending with newly printed money. It is true that having to adjust prices downward will be painful for businesses and workers, especially since the official dogma that wages must not, under any circumstances, fall has been preached for generations. Yet falling prices are precisely what is necessary to get the economy back on track after a depression: the weakest businesses are purged and productive assets are made cheaply available for entrepreneurs, who expect to profit by buying factories, machines, and so on at low prices, hire laborers at lower wages, and restart production in profitable sectors of the economy. There is nothing in this process that requires the injection of new money into the economy; on the contrary, such injections can only frustrate the attempts of capitalists and entrepreneurs to readjust the production structure to the real conditions of the market and the real demands of consumers.
A decline in velocity therefore reflects a crisis in the economy; it does not mean that money is tight but rather that people have stopped spending as much of their incomes as they used to. It also means that even very substantial increases in the money supply do not lead to price inflation, as central banks cannot force people to spend the new money, or to take out new bank loans. Only when people are again willing to increase their spending will increases in the money supply result in higher prices.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
What about inflation?
That increases in the money supply during a crisis do not result in price inflation is thus easily explained by an increase in the demand to hold money, but this does not explain the general failure of central banks in generating inflation. The rate of growth in the money supply has almost always outpaced the rate of growth in consumer price inflation. Does this not mean that, whatever other evils we may claim follow from central bank interventions, the dangers of inflation are significantly overstated?
No.
The confusion arises from ignoring the entry point of the new money into the economy. The new money does not instantaneously spread throughout the economy and prices do not immediately adjust. Rather, the new money goes to a few recipients first, who then spend it on goods and services, bidding up prices, and the next recipients then spend it, again bidding up prices, and so on and so forth, until the money has been distributed and the whole price structure has been changed by the infusion. This is what is known as the Cantillon effect. Hayek in a famous image compared it to the pouring of honey on a surface: the honey does not immediately spread out across the surface but forms a mound at the point where it is poured out and only slowly spreads from there.1
Modern central banks, however, don’t pour money on consumers. Rather, they produce new money by injecting it into the financial system. The Federal Reserve buys US Treasurys and other financial assets from banks with new money, and the banks then spend the new money during their normal business operations. What we therefore have is a system of financial inflation: the prices of bonds and other financial instruments are bid up, leading to ever-lower rates of interest on loans, real estate prices are bid up, as it is now cheaper to finance mortgages, and only much later does the new money filter down to normal consumer goods. The rise in CPI is thus only a shadow of the distortive effects brought about by the increase in the money supply.
This does not mean that central banks would be able to cause inflation even were they to give the new money directly to consumers, for they cannot force each individual to spend the money on consumption. We saw an example of this recently when the US government distributed the CARES Act stimulus checks, the so-called Trumpbucks. I previously suggested that this kind of inflationary spending might quickly result in high inflation. However, I was mistaken in assuming that the money would be spent on consumption; most Trumpbucks seem to have been used to either increase savings or reduce debt. Thus the inflationary impact has been redirected or absorbed into financial markets or higher cash balances. (It is even possible that it has been neutralized to the extent that individuals have reduced or paid off their bank loans—if the banks have neglected to offer new loans in order to solidify their own position.)
Conclusion
Does this mean that the Federal Reserve is powerless to cause inflation? Not at all; but if their goal truly is to cause consumer price inflation, most recently stated in the form of “flexible average inflation targeting” (meaning, in effect, higher inflation), they have chosen a very roundabout way to do it. During normal times, “helicopter money” handed out to the population as described by former Fed chief Bernanke is a better way to stoke inflation than is pumping money into financial markets, and an even surer way is to simply finance government expenditures by the printing press. That they don’t do this suggests that their primary objective is not really to increase inflation, but rather to support financial markets and players in the style to which they have become accustomed. This is even official central-bank ideology these days, as they assume the mantle of “market-maker of last resort.”
1.Friedrich August von Hayek, “Three Elucidations of the Ricardo Effect,” Journal of Political Economy 77, no. 2 (1969), p. 281, doi.org/10.1086/259514.
Author:
Kristoffer Mousten Hansen
Kristoffer Mousten Hansen is a PhD candidate at the University of Angers and a Mises Institute Research Fellow.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-29--Any Gold Dip Is “Aggressive Buying Opportunity”, Says Analyst

This week , Your News to Know rounds up the latest top stories involving gold and the overall economy .
Stories include : Gold ’ s price weakness should be met with aggressive buying , why you shouldn ’ t wait to invest in silver , and a newfound correlation between gold and Bitcoin .
Amid talks of gold ’ s recent pullback below the $ 1,900 level , Leigh Goehring , managing partner at Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates , urged investors not to focus too much on the metal ’ s short-term .
Like other analysts , Goehring doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falling further before the end of the year .
The fall could happen due to a seeming reversal of the factors that have powered gold ’ s run in 2020 .
Goehring cites a lessening of coronavirus-related concerns that could propel an economic recovery , a smooth-sailing U.S. presidential election and a temporary stagnation of the Federal Reserve ’ s balance sheet expansion as some of the factors that could apply downwards pressure on gold .
To be sure , these are all optimistic scenarios , yet Goehring doesn ’ t find them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gold could see a bout of selling that could bring it to its 200-day moving average of $ 1,720 before the end of the year .
Yet such a dip should be met with heavy buying , as Goehring believes that gold is on a long-term upwards spiral that will bring the metal ’ s price to $ 10,000 by the end of this decade .
As Goehring notes , gold has only begun rolling into a prolonged bull market .
“ The first leg of the gold market has been driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their resulting economic dislocations such as massive expansions of global central bank balance sheets , ” Goehring explained .
“ The weakness in the gold price that we expect this fall should be used as an aggressive buying opportunity … We are firm believers that the second leg of the gold bull market will be driven by inflation that will emerge as the world undergoes an economic boom caused by rapidly receding COVID-19 fears , and excess fiscal and monetary liquidity caused by governments and global central banks.
” A signal is telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy silver As DailyWealth ’ s Bill Shaw notes , precious metals are built for times of crisis .
And , dating back to the 1980 bull market in gold , it would be difficult to point to a crisis of similar magnitude to the one the world currently finds itself in .
Even in a best-case scenario , the after-effects of this crisis on the global economy are likely to bring forth a years-long precious metals bull market .
There is , however , a distinction to be made in regards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Long before the crisis , numerous pundits were pointing out that the gold-to-silver ratio is historically askew at 80 , and that each of the three instances of the ratio climbing so high since 1980 resulted in an explosive rise in silver prices .
It climbed to an astounding 125 in March , but has since steadily lowered and currently oscillates between 71 and 80 .
While gold hit a new all-time high in August , silver ’ s massive price gains still left it considerably far off from its all-time high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lessening of the gold-to-silver ratio signals the much-awaited normalization , and a fourth bout of silver ’ s price multiplying .
When the bull market in gold was winding down in 2011 , the ratio sat at 35 .
During a stronger bull market in 1980 , the ratio normalized to 14 .
Based on gold ’ s current price of around $ 1,900 , this would translate to a silver price of $ 54 and $ 135 , respectively .
But since many believe that the bull market in gold is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one over the past century , the fourth instance of silver price normalization might turn out to be one for the history books .
The correlation between gold and Bitcoin is reaching new heights Not too long ago , the average individual investor might have viewed Bitcoin as a risky play with possibly great returns and gold as a safe play with modest ones .
Institutions have mostly opted for stocks over the former and bonds over the latter .
But now , in the face of heavy uncertainty and unprecedented turmoil in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With the persistence of the pandemic , hedges and safe-havens are few and far between at a time when they are most desired .
The steadily-depreciating bond market has all but turned negative , prompting money managers to look elsewhere to fill a role in their portfolios .
And while gold comes off as a clear-cut choice , the decision to treat Bitcoin as a hedge might come off as surprising due to its well-known volatility .
Yet the growing influence that institutions are now exerting on the crypto market could do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bitcoin in a wholly different place .
With a more stable price , Bitcoin has now assumed a role closer to gold , one of an exceptionally resilient hedge .
This has been exemplified by gold and Bitcoin increasingly moving together to reach an all-time high one-month correlation of 76.3 % on September 19 .
The rapid climb reflects the desire of both individual and institutional investors to shield themselves from inflation and economic downturns .
In Bitcoin ’ s case , this correlation should serve to make the asset appealing to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growth of the industry .
While gold will remain steady in its traditional role , estimations that trillions of dollars will be poured into the gold market by institutions create a decidedly optimistic price view .

From Birch Gold Group
This week, Your News to Know rounds up the latest top stories involving gold and the overall economy. Stories include: Gold’s price weakness should be met with aggressive buying, why you shouldn’t wait to invest in silver, and a newfound correlation between gold and Bitcoin.
Gold’s dip is a massive buying opportunity
Amid talks of gold’s recent pullback below the $1,900 level, Leigh Goehring, managing partner at Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates, urged investors not to focus too much on the metal’s short-term. Like other analysts, Goehring doesn’t discount the possibility of gold falling further before the end of the year.
The fall could happen due to a seeming reversal of the factors that have powered gold’s run in 2020. Goehring cites a lessening of coronavirus-related concerns that could propel an economic recovery, a smooth-sailing U.S. presidential election and a temporary stagnation of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expansion as some of the factors that could apply downwards pressure on gold.
To be sure, these are all optimistic scenarios, yet Goehring doesn’t find them implausible. Should they materialize in succession, gold could see a bout of selling that could bring it to its 200-day moving average of $1,720 before the end of the year. Yet such a dip should be met with heavy buying, as Goehring believes that gold is on a long-term upwards spiral that will bring the metal’s price to $10,000 by the end of this decade. As Goehring notes, gold has only begun rolling into a prolonged bull market.
“The first leg of the gold market has been driven by COVID-19 global ‘lock-downs’ and their resulting economic dislocations such as massive expansions of global central bank balance sheets,” Goehring explained. “The weakness in the gold price that we expect this fall should be used as an aggressive buying opportunity … We are firm believers that the second leg of the gold bull market will be driven by inflation that will emerge as the world undergoes an economic boom caused by rapidly receding COVID-19 fears, and excess fiscal and monetary liquidity caused by governments and global central banks.”
A signal is telling investors that now is the time to buy silver
As DailyWealth’s Bill Shaw notes, precious metals are built for times of crisis. And, dating back to the 1980 bull market in gold, it would be difficult to point to a crisis of similar magnitude to the one the world currently finds itself in. Even in a best-case scenario, the after-effects of this crisis on the global economy are likely to bring forth a years-long precious metals bull market.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
There is, however, a distinction to be made in regards to gold and silver and their respective performances. Long before the crisis, numerous pundits were pointing out that the gold-to-silver ratio is historically askew at 80, and that each of the three instances of the ratio climbing so high since 1980 resulted in an explosive rise in silver prices.
It climbed to an astounding 125 in March, but has since steadily lowered and currently oscillates between 71 and 80. While gold hit a new all-time high in August, silver’s massive price gains still left it considerably far off from its all-time high of $50. To Shaw, the lessening of the gold-to-silver ratio signals the much-awaited normalization, and a fourth bout of silver’s price multiplying.
When the bull market in gold was winding down in 2011, the ratio sat at 35. During a stronger bull market in 1980, the ratio normalized to 14. Based on gold’s current price of around $1,900, this would translate to a silver price of $54 and $135, respectively. But since many believe that the bull market in gold is just beginning and could be the strongest one over the past century, the fourth instance of silver price normalization might turn out to be one for the history books.
The correlation between gold and Bitcoin is reaching new heights
Not too long ago, the average individual investor might have viewed Bitcoin as a risky play with possibly great returns and gold as a safe play with modest ones. Institutions have mostly opted for stocks over the former and bonds over the latter. But now, in the face of heavy uncertainty and unprecedented turmoil in the global economy, perceptions are shifting.
With the persistence of the pandemic, hedges and safe-havens are few and far between at a time when they are most desired. The steadily-depreciating bond market has all but turned negative, prompting money managers to look elsewhere to fill a role in their portfolios. And while gold comes off as a clear-cut choice, the decision to treat Bitcoin as a hedge might come off as surprising due to its well-known volatility.
Yet the growing influence that institutions are now exerting on the crypto market could do away with massive price dips, leaving Bitcoin in a wholly different place. With a more stable price, Bitcoin has now assumed a role closer to gold, one of an exceptionally resilient hedge.
This has been exemplified by gold and Bitcoin increasingly moving together to reach an all-time high one-month correlation of 76.3% on September 19. The rapid climb reflects the desire of both individual and institutional investors to shield themselves from inflation and economic downturns. In Bitcoin’s case, this correlation should serve to make the asset appealing to a broader range of investors and perhaps expedite the growth of the industry. While gold will remain steady in its traditional role, estimations that trillions of dollars will be poured into the gold market by institutions create a decidedly optimistic price view.


investmentwatchblog--2020-09-29--Big Banks Have Knowingly Laundered Trillions For Criminals For Decades

by Jason Burack of Wall St For Main St About a week ago BuzzFeed News supposedly broke a story about @ @ @ @ @ Bank and Deutsche Bank have been knowingly laundering potentially trillions for drug cartels , organized @ @ @ @ @ decades .
However , this has been well known for well over a decade by @ @ @ @ @ in the financial industry and by many people here in the DC metro area who @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t throw any senior level banksters into prison anymore .
There are lots @ @ @ @ @ but none of them are being enforced properly .
Commit to tipping us monthly for @ @ @ @ @ level , thought provoking content that includes interviews with top experts , analysis and short @ @ @ @ @ economy www.patreon.com/wallstformainst

by Jason Burack of Wall St For Main St
About a week ago BuzzFeed News supposedly broke a story about how large banks like HSBC Bank and Deutsche Bank have been knowingly laundering potentially trillions for drug cartels, organized crime and terrorist organizations for decades.
However, this has been well known for well over a decade by anyone paying attention to news in the financial industry and by many people here in the DC metro area who only fine the banks and don’t throw any senior level banksters into prison anymore. There are lots of laws on the books but none of them are being enforced properly.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
FULL SHOW NOTES AND LINKS HERE
Commit to tipping us monthly for our hard work creating high level, thought provoking content that includes interviews with top experts, analysis and short videos about investing and the economy www.patreon.com/wallstformainst