investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power

The system is rigged , the government is corrupt , and “ we the people ” continue to waste our strength by fighting each other rather than standing against the tyrant in our midst .
Because the system is rigged , because the government is corrupt , and because “ we the people ” remain polarized and divided , the police state will keep winning and “ we the people ” will keep losing .
Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “ people ’ s court ” —has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintainer of the status quo , there will be little if no consequences for the cops who brutalize and no justice for the victims of police brutality .
Because the system is rigged , there will be no consequences for police who destroyed a private home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades during a SWAT team raid gone awry , or for the cop who mistakenly shot a 10-year-old boy after aiming for and missing the non-threatening family dog , or for the arresting officer who sicced a police dog on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how unarmed Americans keep dying at the hands of militarized police .
By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct , the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state , ‘ we the people ’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat , what constitutes resistance , and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power .
Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated , convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity , which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits , but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system , ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose .
How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time : it ’ s a setup for failure .
Do you know how many different ways a cop can kill , maim , torture and abuse someone without being held liable ?
The cops know : in large part due to training classes that drill them on the art of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment , which protects us from being bullied , badgered , beaten , broken and spied on by government agents .
This is how “ we the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Harlow v. Fitzgerald ( 1982 ) that suing government officials for monetary damages is “ the only realistic avenue ” of holding them accountable for abusing their offices and violating the Constitution , it has ostensibly given the police and other government agents a green light to shoot first and ask questions later , as well as to probe , poke , pinch , taser , search , seize , strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance , all with the general blessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s police officers breaking through people ’ s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road , these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand , no matter how unjust , no matter how in opposition to the Constitution .
Make no mistake about it : this is what constitutes “ law and order ” in the American police state .
These are the hallmarks of a police state : where police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people entrusted with keeping the peace , are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled , under control , and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens .
Unfortunately , we ’ ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now .
A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades , including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court , reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class , and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution .
Indeed , as Reuters reports , qualified immunity “ has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.
” Worse , as Reuters concluded , “ the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.
” Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches .
In Anderson v. Creighton , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement agents were entitled to qualified immunity protections after they were sued for raiding a private home without a warrant and holding family members at gunpoint , all in a search for a suspected bank robber who was not in the house .
Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion .
In Hunter v. Bryant , the Court ruled that police acted reasonably in arresting James Bryant without a warrant in order to protect the president .
Bryant had allegedly written a letter that referenced a third-party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but police had no proof that he intended to harm Reagan beyond a mere suspicion .
The charges against Bryant were eventually dropped .
Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters .
In Saucier v. Katz , the Court ruled in favor of federal law enforcement agents who forcefully tackled a protester as he attempted to unfurl a banner at Vice President Gore ’ s political rally .
The Court reasoned that the officers acted reasonably given the urgency of protecting the vice president .
Police can claim qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the back .
In Brosseau v. Haugen , the Court dismissed a lawsuit against a police officer who shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he entered his car in order to flee from police .
The Court ruled that in light of existing case law , the cop ’ s conduct fell in the “ hazy border between excessive and acceptable force ” and so she did not violate clearly established law .
Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person .
In City of San Francisco v. Sheehan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police who repeatedly shot Teresa Sheehan during the course of a mental health welfare check .
The Court ruled that it was not unreasonable for police to pepper spray and shoot Sheehan multiple times after entering her room without a warrant and encountering her holding a knife .
Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits .
In Plumhoff v. Rickard , the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit .
The officers were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car , killing both individuals .
Police can stop , arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause .
In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff , the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police the go-ahead to embark on a fishing expedition of one ’ s person and property , rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat .
Police officers can stop cars based on “ anonymous ” tips or for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reclined car seat or driving too carefully .
In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers , under the guise of “ reasonable suspicion , ” can stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips , no matter how dubious , and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior .
Then in State v. Howard , the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police renders one ’ s car a Constitution-free zone .
Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint , although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment ( Birchfield v. North Dakota ) .
Police can also conduct sobriety and “ information-seeking ” checkpoints ( Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep ’ t of State Police v. Sitz ) .
Police can forcibly take your DNA , whether or not you ’ ve been convicted of a crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA .
Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “ serious ” offenses .
The end result of the ruling paves the way for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling .
Police can use the “ fear for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for shooting unarmed individuals .
Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident , an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car , mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun .
A report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “ shot because the officer saw something ( like a cellphone ) or some action ( like a person pulling at the waist of their pants ) and misidentified it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use drug-sniffing dogs as “ search warrants on leashes.
” In Florida v. Harris , a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops .
The ruling turns man ’ s best friend into an extension of the police state , provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a reasonable amount of time ( Rodriguez v. United States ) .
Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity , but police dogs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing .
Police can subject Americans to strip searches , no matter the “ offense.
” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches .
In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington , the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his or her offense ( i.e.
, they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense ) , can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials , which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks .
This “ license to probe ” is now being extended to roadside stops , as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant .
Police can break into homes without a warrant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King , the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers , rather than in the dictates of the Constitution , when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant .
Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect , invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state , the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid , leaving Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all manner of abuses by police .
Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment .
Aggressive “ knock and talk ” practices have become thinly veiled , warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “ talking ” with heavily armed police who “ knock ” on their doors in the middle of the night .
Andrew Scott didn ’ t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police who pounded aggressively on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to identify themselves as police , and then repeatedly shot and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense .
Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous .
Police can perform a “ no-knock ” raid as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence , under the particular circumstances , would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime ( Richards v. Wisconsin ) .
Legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify a no-knock raid by police ( Quinn v. Texas ) .
For instance , a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock , SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household .
The homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed bedroom door .
Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “ armed.
” Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken tail light merely for telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter .
A unanimous Supreme Court declared in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple had been sleeping because the grabbed his BB gun in defense , fearing they were being attacked .
Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid , even if the owner gives their consent to enter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Supreme Court provided cover to police after they smashed the windows of Shaniz West ’ s home , punched holes in her walls and ceilings , and bombed the house with so much tear gas that it was uninhabitable for two months .
All of this despite the fact that the suspect they were pursuing was not in the house and West , the homeowner , agreed to allow police to search the home to confirm that .
Police can suffocate someone , deliberately or inadvertently , in the process of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t breathe ” has become a rallying cry following the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd , both of whom died after being placed in a chokehold by police .
Dozens more have died in similar circumstances at the hands of police who have faced little repercussions for these deaths .
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People , we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforming a system that is clearly self-serving and corrupt ?
Abolishing the police is not the answer : that will inevitably lead to outright anarchy , which will give the police state and those law-and-order zealots all the incentive it needs to declare martial law .
Looting and violence are not the answer : As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized , “ A riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt.
” Using the looting and riots as justification for supporting police brutality is also not the answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not enough … to condemn riots… without , at the same time , condemning the contingent , intolerable conditions that exist in our society .
These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention .
And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard .
And what is it America has failed to hear ?
It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met .
And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
” Police reform is necessary and unavoidable if we are to have any hope of living in an America in which freedom means something more than the right to stay alive , but how we reform the system is just as important as getting it done .
We don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ruling aristocracy who primarily come from privileged backgrounds and who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to fix what ’ s broken in America .
Nor do we need to wait for 535 highly paid politicians to do something about these injustices only when it suits their political ambitions And we certainly don ’ t need to wait for a president with a taste for totalitarian tactics to throw a few crumbs our way .
This is as much a local problem as it is a national one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ relentless in your pursuit of justice for all .
Let ’ s get it done .

by John W. Whitehead
“What’s been most striking to me is just how one-sided the rules are when Americans take on their own government…. It has been dismaying to learn the extent to which rules and laws shield the government from accountability for its abuses—or even lawbreaking…. It’s been a long and frightening lesson…. The rules seem rigged to protect government lawlessness, and the playing field is uneven. Too many processes favor the government. The deck is still stacked.” — Journalist Sharyl Attkisson
The system is rigged.
The system is rigged, the government is corrupt, and “we the people” continue to waste our strength by fighting each other rather than standing against the tyrant in our midst.
Because the system is rigged, because the government is corrupt, and because “we the people” remain polarized and divided, the police state will keep winning and “we the people” will keep losing.
Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “people’s court”—has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo, there will be little if no consequences for the cops who brutalize and no justice for the victims of police brutality.
Because the system is rigged, there will be no consequences for police who destroyed a private home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades during a SWAT team raid gone awry, or for the cop who mistakenly shot a 10-year-old boy after aiming for and missing the non-threatening family dog, or for the arresting officer who sicced a police dog on a suspect who had already surrendered.
This is how unarmed Americans keep dying at the hands of militarized police.
By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”
This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power.
Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.
How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time: it’s a setup for failure.
Do you know how many different ways a cop can kill, maim, torture and abuse someone without being held liable?
The cops know: in large part due to training classes that drill them on the art of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents.
This is how “we the people” keep losing.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) that suing government officials for monetary damages is “the only realistic avenue” of holding them accountable for abusing their offices and violating the Constitution, it has ostensibly given the police and other government agents a green light to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.
These are the hallmarks of a police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.
Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.
A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.” Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”
The system is rigged.
Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. In Anderson v. Creighton, the Supreme Court ruled that FBI and state law enforcement agents were entitled to qualified immunity protections after they were sued for raiding a private home without a warrant and holding family members at gunpoint, all in a search for a suspected bank robber who was not in the house.
Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. In Hunter v. Bryant, the Court ruled that police acted reasonably in arresting James Bryant without a warrant in order to protect the president. Bryant had allegedly written a letter that referenced a third-party plot to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, but police had no proof that he intended to harm Reagan beyond a mere suspicion. The charges against Bryant were eventually dropped.
Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. In Saucier v. Katz, the Court ruled in favor of federal law enforcement agents who forcefully tackled a protester as he attempted to unfurl a banner at Vice President Gore’s political rally. The Court reasoned that the officers acted reasonably given the urgency of protecting the vice president.
Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. In Brosseau v. Haugen, the Court dismissed a lawsuit against a police officer who shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he entered his car in order to flee from police. The Court ruled that in light of existing case law, the cop’s conduct fell in the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force” and so she did not violate clearly established law.
Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. In City of San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Court ruled in favor of police who repeatedly shot Teresa Sheehan during the course of a mental health welfare check. The Court ruled that it was not unreasonable for police to pepper spray and shoot Sheehan multiple times after entering her room without a warrant and encountering her holding a knife.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.
Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police the go-ahead to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.
Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” can stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. Then in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.
Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).
Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. The end result of the ruling paves the way for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.
Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun. A report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”
Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).
Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.
Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington, the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.
Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.
Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night. Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police who pounded aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 a.m., failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.
Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police (Quinn v. Texas). For instance, a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. The homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed bedroom door.
Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken tail light merely for telling police he had a conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter. A unanimous Supreme Court declared in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple had been sleeping because the grabbed his BB gun in defense, fearing they were being attacked.
Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. In West v. Winfield, the Supreme Court provided cover to police after they smashed the windows of Shaniz West’s home, punched holes in her walls and ceilings, and bombed the house with so much tear gas that it was uninhabitable for two months. All of this despite the fact that the suspect they were pursuing was not in the house and West, the homeowner, agreed to allow police to search the home to confirm that.
Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them. “I can’t breathe” has become a rallying cry following the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd, both of whom died after being placed in a chokehold by police. Dozens more have died in similar circumstances at the hands of police who have faced little repercussions for these deaths.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat.
So what’s the answer to reforming a system that is clearly self-serving and corrupt?
Abolishing the police is not the answer: that will inevitably lead to outright anarchy, which will give the police state and those law-and-order zealots all the incentive it needs to declare martial law.
Looting and violence are not the answer: As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized, “A riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt.” Using the looting and riots as justification for supporting police brutality is also not the answer: As King recognized, “It is not enough … to condemn riots… without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
Police reform is necessary and unavoidable if we are to have any hope of living in an America in which freedom means something more than the right to stay alive, but how we reform the system is just as important as getting it done.
We don’t need to wait for nine members of a ruling aristocracy who primarily come from privileged backgrounds and who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to fix what’s broken in America.
Nor do we need to wait for 535 highly paid politicians to do something about these injustices only when it suits their political ambitions
And we certainly don’t need to wait for a president with a taste for totalitarian tactics to throw a few crumbs our way.
This is as much a local problem as it is a national one.
Be fair. Be nonviolent. Be relentless in your pursuit of justice for all.
Let’s get it done.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--Jim Jordan accuses big tech of censoring, ‘shadow banning’ conservatives

DOJ Plans To Roll Back Tech Monopoly Legal Protections .
“ Proposes ” ?
“ Makes recommendations ” 🙄 Just @ @ @ @ @ the sternly worded letters and endless idle threats .
DO SOMETHING FOR GODSSAKE .

DOJ Plans To Roll Back Tech Monopoly Legal Protections. “Proposes”? “Makes recommendations” 🙄 Just do it. Enough with the sternly worded letters and endless idle threats.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
DO SOMETHING FOR GODSSAKE.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--Coronavirus Fallout: Is Commercial Real Estate The Next Black Swan?

by Jason Burack of Wall St For Main St The cash flow problem in the real economy threatens holders of @ @ @ @ @ the overwhelming majority of that real estate was purchased with massive amounts of debt to @ @ @ @ @ tipping us monthly for our hard work creating high level , thought provoking content that @ @ @ @ @ , analysis and short videos about investing and the economy patreon.com/wallstformainst

by Jason Burack of Wall St For Main St
The cash flow problem in the real economy threatens holders of US commercial real estate as the overwhelming majority of that real estate was purchased with massive amounts of debt to increase investment returns
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
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 patreon.com/wallstformainst
FULL SHOW NOTES AND LINKS HERE


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--Bank EFP (Ab)Use Falls Sharply

Bank EFP (Ab)Use Falls Sharply

At Eric Sprott ’ s urging , we ’ ve been monitoring the daily abuse of the Exchange For Physical process since late 2017 .
However , since late March , the daily totals have fallen off dramatically .
Why ?
Again , the “ Exchange For Physical ” process is an arcane feature of the COMEX futures market that allows a party to exchange a contract for “ physical metal ” off-exchange , usually in London .
Abuse of this process accelerated in 2017 , and we ’ ve been documenting the absurd totals for nearly three years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous articles on this subject : From that third link posted in December of last year , note this key passage on the enormous volume of these transactions : And EFP abuse actually accelerated in the first three months of 2020 .
In fact , the first fifteen trading days of March alone saw a total of 290,847 COMEX contracts shifted off-exchange and “ exchanged for physical ” .
That ’ s an average of nearly 20,000 contracts per day and more than 29,000,000 total ounces or over NINE HUNDRED METRIC TONNES in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one day alone—March 12—saw 38,469 COMEX contracts “ settled ” this way .
But something has since changed .
When The U.S. Fed announced QE∞ on March 23 , it appeared to momentarily break the COMEX market .
The spread between spot and futures exploded to nearly $ 100 , and many bullion banks have since reported extreme losses in trading that day .
The most notable is HSBC , which is said to have lost as much as $ 200,000,000 .
See this link : uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hsbc-gold-filing… And now , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total volume of EFPs has been just 182,798 .
That ’ s an average of just 3,500 contracts per day…a drop of over 80 % .
In fact , on May 29 , only 789 EFPs were posted .
Again , compare that total to the 38,469 on just March 12 !
So what ’ s going on here ?
Well , it ’ s clear that the bullion banks were abusing this process to make a steady , simple , and relatively risk-free profit each day by arbitraging the price fluctuations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essence , buying or selling a COMEX futures contract in New York and then selling or buying a spot contract for delivery in London and capturing the spread between the two .
If you ’ re HSBC and doing this with 10,000 contracts , a simple $ 2 spread nets you a tidy $ 2,000,000 profit .
Good work if you can get it .
All is well and fine for this trade so long as there ’ s physical metal to deliver versus your spot sale—and this is where the entire machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mints , mines , and refineries were closed due to Covid-19 , and the supply chain of physical metal to the highly leveraged global gold market broke down in spectacular fashion .
Without physical metal to deliver , the bullion banks playing the EFP game were forced to close positions in a true short squeeze .
The result ?
It wasn ’ t just HSBC that ( literally ) took it in the shorts .
See this regarding CIBC : www.reuters.com/article/us-cibc-gold/canad… And now there are multiple reports of bullion banks closing up shop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations to London and elsewhere .
Did this collapse of the easy money COMEX EFP trade facilitate these moves ?
So what does this imply for the highly levered derivative contracts of the COMEX ?
In March , the CME Group was quick to rush a new contract into existence designed to satisfy delivery demands with fractional ownership of London Good Delivery bars .
So far , however , demand for this contract has been abysmal , with only a paltry twenty-five contracts currently being issued and held .
Thus , are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in maintaining the fractional reserve and digital derivative pricing scheme coming to an end ?
Maybe .
Perhaps almost certainly if the global supply of gold doesn ’ t increase , which might allow for a return of counter-party confidence across the exchange .
In the meantime , perhaps a different exchange will soon offer a competing futures contract to rival the COMEX ?
From the Reuters article linked above : Whether or not a new/different futures exchange moves to the forefront , the bullion banking system has certainly received a shock and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future of their business .
To wit , if The Banks continue to maintain their levered short positions , they can expect even more massive losses in the future when physical demand finally imposes a deleveraging upon the system .
The carnage of March 23 appears to have set a process of change into motion .
It will be great fun to witness how this plays out in the months ahead .

by Craig Hemke via Sprott Money News
June 16, 2020
At Eric Sprott’s urging, we’ve been monitoring the daily abuse of the Exchange For Physical process since late 2017. However, since late March, the daily totals have fallen off dramatically. Why?
Again, the “Exchange For Physical” process is an arcane feature of the COMEX futures market that allows a party to exchange a contract for “physical metal” off-exchange, usually in London. Abuse of this process accelerated in 2017, and we’ve been documenting the absurd totals for nearly three years. Below are just a few links to previous articles on this subject:
From that third link posted in December of last year, note this key passage on the enormous volume of these transactions:
And EFP abuse actually accelerated in the first three months of 2020. In fact, the first fifteen trading days of March alone saw a total of 290,847 COMEX contracts shifted off-exchange and “exchanged for physical”. That’s an average of nearly 20,000 contracts per day and more than 29,000,000 total ounces or over NINE HUNDRED METRIC TONNES in just fifteen days! In fact, just one day alone—March 12—saw 38,469 COMEX contracts “settled” this way.
But something has since changed. When The U.S. Fed announced QE∞ on March 23, it appeared to momentarily break the COMEX market. The spread between spot and futures exploded to nearly $100, and many bullion banks have since reported extreme losses in trading that day. The most notable is HSBC, which is said to have lost as much as $200,000,000. See this link: uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hsbc-gold-filing…
And now, in the fifty-two trading days since April 1, the total volume of EFPs has been just 182,798. That’s an average of just 3,500 contracts per day…a drop of over 80%. In fact, on May 29, only 789 EFPs were posted. Again, compare that total to the 38,469 on just March 12!
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
So what’s going on here?
Well, it’s clear that the bullion banks were abusing this process to make a steady, simple, and relatively risk-free profit each day by arbitraging the price fluctuations between New York and London. In essence, buying or selling a COMEX futures contract in New York and then selling or buying a spot contract for delivery in London and capturing the spread between the two. If you’re HSBC and doing this with 10,000 contracts, a simple $2 spread nets you a tidy $2,000,000 profit. Good work if you can get it.
All is well and fine for this trade so long as there’s physical metal to deliver versus your spot sale—and this is where the entire machine fell apart in late March. Many mints, mines, and refineries were closed due to Covid-19, and the supply chain of physical metal to the highly leveraged global gold market broke down in spectacular fashion. Without physical metal to deliver, the bullion banks playing the EFP game were forced to close positions in a true short squeeze. The result? It wasn’t just HSBC that (literally) took it in the shorts. See this regarding CIBC: www.reuters.com/article/us-cibc-gold/canad…
And now there are multiple reports of bullion banks closing up shop in New York and moving their trading operations to London and elsewhere. Did this collapse of the easy money COMEX EFP trade facilitate these moves?
So what does this imply for the highly levered derivative contracts of the COMEX? In March, the CME Group was quick to rush a new contract into existence designed to satisfy delivery demands with fractional ownership of London Good Delivery bars. So far, however, demand for this contract has been abysmal, with only a paltry twenty-five contracts currently being issued and held.
Thus, are the days of the COMEX’s role in maintaining the fractional reserve and digital derivative pricing scheme coming to an end? Maybe. Perhaps almost certainly if the global supply of gold doesn’t increase, which might allow for a return of counter-party confidence across the exchange. In the meantime, perhaps a different exchange will soon offer a competing futures contract to rival the COMEX? From the Reuters article linked above:
Whether or not a new/different futures exchange moves to the forefront, the bullion banking system has certainly received a shock and a warning shot across their bows for the future of their business. To wit, if The Banks continue to maintain their levered short positions, they can expect even more massive losses in the future when physical demand finally imposes a deleveraging upon the system. The carnage of March 23 appears to have set a process of change into motion. It will be great fun to witness how this plays out in the months ahead.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--Senator Josh Hawley Takes on The GOP Political Establishment – The Fraud of “The Conservative Bargai

Senator Josh Hawley Takes on The GOP Political Establishment – The Fraud of “The Conservative Bargain”…

U.S .
Senator Josh Hawley delivered a speech on the floor of the senate that deserves some attention .
The @ @ @ @ @ Halwey surrounds the recent Supreme Court Bowstock decision authored by Justice Gorsuch .
However , @ @ @ @ @ , Hawley hits on the central issue he calls the “ conservative bargain.
” The @ @ @ @ @ to , as the senator encapsulates many of the frustrations within the recent decision ; @ @ @ @ @ cuts to the heart of the distinction between MAGA-Trump republicanism and the pathetic GOPe wing @ @ @ @ @ .
We have previously called this “ The Decepticon ” WATCH :

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley delivered a speech on the floor of the senate that deserves some attention. The larger issue outlined by Senator Halwey surrounds the recent Supreme Court Bowstock decision authored by Justice Gorsuch. However, in overlaying the judicial outcome, Hawley hits on the central issue he calls the “conservative bargain.”
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
The entire speech is worth listening to, as the senator encapsulates many of the frustrations within the recent decision; but the segment at 07:15 cuts to the heart of the distinction between MAGA-Trump republicanism and the pathetic GOPe wing of the Mitch McConnell UniParty. We have previously called this “The Decepticon” WATCH:


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--The Next Iteration. What is Yield Curve Control?

The next iteration of monetary policy may well be “ yield curve ” control ?
Debt and interest rates have become the predominant driving force of our economy .
Unfortunately , a majority of the debt is unproductive , resulting in declining long-run economic and productivity growth rates .
In the 1950s , each dollar of debt drove nearly 70 cents of economic growth .
It has fallen ever since .
Recently , each dollar of debt bought less than 30 cents of growth .
That number has deteriorated further in the last few months .
The Fed , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy to either encourage long term prosperity or shorter-term economic activity .
They have chosen the latter and , as a result , have dug themselves into quite a hole .
Each dollar of debt drives less growth than the prior dollar of debt , thus requiring even more debt .
This article explores Yield Curve Control ( YCC ) , a policy tool at the Fed ’ s disposal to keep digging even deeper into the hole .
Government and corporate debt levels are currently increasing at unprecedented rates .
Total non-financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first quarter .
The amount will surely be much higher when second-quarter data is released .
The federal deficit in the current fiscal year is expected to top $ 4 trillion .
To put that in context , it took 192 years between 1789 and 1981 , for America to amass its first $ 1 trillion of debt .
Only halfway through the year , corporations exceeded $ 1 trillion of issuance , putting them on par with annual totals from the prior few years .
The graph below shows the ratio of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GDP .
They both sit at record levels and will rise rapidly when second-quarter GDP is released .
As the ratio of debt to GDP increases , even more debt is needed tomorrow just to maintain current economic activity .
For a Fed overly concerned about short-term economic activity , this dilemma creates a self-reinforcing problem .
The situation is akin to a Ponzi scheme that needs constant feeding .
Given the Fed ’ s desire to avoid the slightest economic setback , surging debt levels means the Fed will have to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest rates .
Are they prepared to impose negative interest rates on U.S. society ?
Although that tactic has been remarkably unproductive in Europe and Japan , the Fed has not formally ruled out negative rates .
Fed Funds are at zero , and the Fed has not committed to negative interest rates .
What else can the Fed do to keep debt flowing ?
The Fed sets short term rates but can only indirectly influence long-term rates .
Longer-term rates spanning from two-year maturities out to thirty years drive borrowing and consumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced in 2008 when the Fed Funds rate hit zero .
QE allows the Fed to purchase bonds in an effort to lower interest rates for longer-term maturities .
During QE 1 , 2 , and 3 , they bought Treasuries , mortgages , and agency bonds .
Despite what one would think , on each occasion , longer-term rates rose .
In the last month , they expanded their reach to include large-scale purchases of municipal bonds , corporate debt , and even junk-rated corporate bonds and ETFs .
Steering rates and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question for the Fed is , how can they control interest rates for longer-term securities ?
QE 1 , 2 , and 3 ran systematically .
The Fed set a predetermined amount and timing of QE in which to operate .
It was useful in reducing the supply of Treasuries available and forcing investors into riskier assets like junk bonds and stocks .
However , it did not allow the Fed to explicitly control the level of interest rates .
The Fed is now considering an enhancement to the way it manages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called yield curve control ( YCC ) .
YCC essentially allows the Fed to do unlimited amounts of QE with no time restraints .
Embedded in YCC is the specific goal of targeting particular interest rates across the entire yield curve .
For example , assume the Fed set a 0.75 % target yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note .
They can then employ QE in any amount needed to buy 10-year notes when the rate exceeds that level .
If successful , the rate would never exceed 0.75 % as traders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is essential to be clear about the definition of YCC .
The Fed represents it as an option for helping them manage the economy through the difficulties the country currently faces .
However , YCC is a euphemism for price controls .
Price controls are government interference and regulation , establishing prices for specified goods and services .
In this instance , we are talking about the most fundamental component of any economic system , the price of money .
Historically , in every case , the implications of price controls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price controls leap out from recent history : • Those imposed on gasoline during the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and 1974 that created long lines of cars waiting to fill up at gas stations • Those set on electricity in the state of California , which contributed to rolling blackouts It is called yield curve control because the central bank effectively manages the shape of the yield curve .
A steeper yield curve benefits the banks as they tend to borrow short term and lend long term .
Larger profit margins increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt-driven economic activity .
Conversely , a flatter or inverted yield curve inhibits lending due to narrower bank profit margins , and consequently , it curtails debt issuance and economic activity .
The problem for the Fed is how they can steepen the yield curve to stimulate lending without letting longer-term rates rise too much ?
Under YCC , they may squirm out of one trap only to find themselves in a bigger trap .
The Fed would not break new ground with YCC .
In fact , they would be reinitiating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1950 , the Fed targeted rates to help manage funding costs for WWII .
If you are interested in reading more on the U.S. experience with YCC , we suggest the following article from the Federal Reserve : How the Fed Managed the Treasury Yield Curve in the 1940s .
It is worth pointing out that after WWII ended , inflation spiked to double digits , yet the Fed held interest rates at artificially low levels .
While bondholders may not have lost money on the bonds per se , they did lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown below .
More recently , in 2016 , Japan set a 0 % yield target on its ten-year note .
Currently , the bank of Australia is now targeting 0.25 % for its three-year bond .
Federal Reserve Bank of New York President John Williams says that policymakers are “ thinking very hard ” about targeting specific yields on Treasury securities .
Given what we have observed , it seems likely they will implement YCC and , in doing so , choose to keep digging and try to push problems out further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these actions is they engender anemic rates of economic growth .
Equally concerning , they directly contribute to income inequality , a driving force for social unrest .
The policies the Fed staunchly defends are adverse to the healthy economic and social environment the country so desperately needs .
While in crisis mode , investors will cheer them on unaware of the adverse effects it will have on the economy .
As they say , there is no such thing as a free lunch .

by Michael Lebowitz and Jack Scott
The next iteration of monetary policy may well be “yield curve” control?
Debt and interest rates have become the predominant driving force of our economy. Unfortunately, a majority of the debt is unproductive, resulting in declining long-run economic and productivity growth rates.
In the 1950s, each dollar of debt drove nearly 70 cents of economic growth. It has fallen ever since. Recently, each dollar of debt bought less than 30 cents of growth. That number has deteriorated further in the last few months.
The Fed, as manager of monetary policy, can use policy to either encourage long term prosperity or shorter-term economic activity. They have chosen the latter and, as a result, have dug themselves into quite a hole. Each dollar of debt drives less growth than the prior dollar of debt, thus requiring even more debt.
This article explores Yield Curve Control (YCC), a policy tool at the Fed’s disposal to keep digging even deeper into the hole.
The Hole
Government and corporate debt levels are currently increasing at unprecedented rates. Total non-financial debt rose nearly 12% in the first quarter. The amount will surely be much higher when second-quarter data is released.
The federal deficit in the current fiscal year is expected to top $4 trillion. To put that in context, it took 192 years between 1789 and 1981, for America to amass its first $1 trillion of debt.
Only halfway through the year, corporations exceeded $1 trillion of issuance, putting them on par with annual totals from the prior few years.
The graph below shows the ratio of non-financial corporate debt and federal debt to GDP. They both sit at record levels and will rise rapidly when second-quarter GDP is released.
As the ratio of debt to GDP increases, even more debt is needed tomorrow just to maintain current economic activity. For a Fed overly concerned about short-term economic activity, this dilemma creates a self-reinforcing problem. The situation is akin to a Ponzi scheme that needs constant feeding.
Given the Fed’s desire to avoid the slightest economic setback, surging debt levels means the Fed will have to become even more creative and active in managing interest rates. Are they prepared to impose negative interest rates on U.S. society? Although that tactic has been remarkably unproductive in Europe and Japan, the Fed has not formally ruled out negative rates.
Keep Digging
Fed Funds are at zero, and the Fed has not committed to negative interest rates. What else can the Fed do to keep debt flowing?
The Fed sets short term rates but can only indirectly influence long-term rates. Longer-term rates spanning from two-year maturities out to thirty years drive borrowing and consumption.
Quantitative Easing (QE) was introduced in 2008 when the Fed Funds rate hit zero. QE allows the Fed to purchase bonds in an effort to lower interest rates for longer-term maturities. During QE 1, 2, and 3, they bought Treasuries, mortgages, and agency bonds. Despite what one would think, on each occasion, longer-term rates rose. In the last month, they expanded their reach to include large-scale purchases of municipal bonds, corporate debt, and even junk-rated corporate bonds and ETFs.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Steering rates and setting rates are not the same. The question for the Fed is, how can they control interest rates for longer-term securities?
Yield Curve Control – A Bigger Shovel
QE 1, 2, and 3 ran systematically. The Fed set a predetermined amount and timing of QE in which to operate. It was useful in reducing the supply of Treasuries available and forcing investors into riskier assets like junk bonds and stocks. However, it did not allow the Fed to explicitly control the level of interest rates.
The Fed is now considering an enhancement to the way it manages QE. The “upgrade” is called yield curve control (YCC). YCC essentially allows the Fed to do unlimited amounts of QE with no time restraints. Embedded in YCC is the specific goal of targeting particular interest rates across the entire yield curve.
For example, assume the Fed set a 0.75% target yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note. They can then employ QE in any amount needed to buy 10-year notes when the rate exceeds that level. If successful, the rate would never exceed 0.75% as traders would learn not to fight the Fed.
It is essential to be clear about the definition of YCC. The Fed represents it as an option for helping them manage the economy through the difficulties the country currently faces. However, YCC is a euphemism for price controls. Price controls are government interference and regulation, establishing prices for specified goods and services.
In this instance, we are talking about the most fundamental component of any economic system, the price of money. Historically, in every case, the implications of price controls have been unfortunate.
Two examples of price controls leap out from recent history:
Those imposed on gasoline during the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and 1974 that created long lines of cars waiting to fill up at gas stations
Those set on electricity in the state of California, which contributed to rolling blackouts
Managing the Yield Curve
It is called yield curve control because the central bank effectively manages the shape of the yield curve. A steeper yield curve benefits the banks as they tend to borrow short term and lend long term. Larger profit margins increase their desire to lend and therefore stimulate debt-driven economic activity. Conversely, a flatter or inverted yield curve inhibits lending due to narrower bank profit margins, and consequently, it curtails debt issuance and economic activity.
The problem for the Fed is how they can steepen the yield curve to stimulate lending without letting longer-term rates rise too much? Under YCC, they may squirm out of one trap only to find themselves in a bigger trap.
History
The Fed would not break new ground with YCC. In fact, they would be reinitiating a previously used tactic. From 1942 to 1950, the Fed targeted rates to help manage funding costs for WWII. If you are interested in reading more on the U.S. experience with YCC, we suggest the following article from the Federal Reserve: How the Fed Managed the Treasury Yield Curve in the 1940s.
It is worth pointing out that after WWII ended, inflation spiked to double digits, yet the Fed held interest rates at artificially low levels. While bondholders may not have lost money on the bonds per se, they did lose dearly in their purchasing power, as shown below.
More recently, in 2016, Japan set a 0% yield target on its ten-year note. Currently, the bank of Australia is now targeting 0.25% for its three-year bond.
Summary
Federal Reserve Bank of New York President John Williams says that policymakers are “thinking very hard” about targeting specific yields on Treasury securities. Given what we have observed, it seems likely they will implement YCC and, in doing so, choose to keep digging and try to push problems out further into the future.
The problem with these actions is they engender anemic rates of economic growth. Equally concerning, they directly contribute to income inequality, a driving force for social unrest.
The policies the Fed staunchly defends are adverse to the healthy economic and social environment the country so desperately needs. While in crisis mode, investors will cheer them on unaware of the adverse effects it will have on the economy. As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--Keith McCullough: Will Fed Intervention Turn U.S. Economy Into Japan?

In light of the Fed ’ s unprecedented intervention into U.S markets and the economy , a viewer asked an @ @ @ @ @ Show .
Are these recent developments effectively turning the U.S. economy into something resembling Japan @ @ @ @ @ CEO Keith McCullough ’ s response in the clip above .
Mr. Keith R. McCullough @ @ @ @ @ of Hedgeye Risk Management LLC .
He covers the strategy sector at the firm .
@ @ @ @ @ , Mr. McCullough was a Partner , Portfolio Manager , and Managing Director at the @ @ @ @ @ Prior to that , he was a Portfolio Manager at Magnetar Capital ; a Founder @ @ @ @ @ Manager at Falconhenge Partners , LLC ; and Partner , Executive Vice President and Portfolio @ @ @ @ @ Management .
Mr. McCullough got his start as an Institutional Equity Sales Analyst at Credit @ @ @ @ @ is currently co-chair of the NYC Bipartisan Policy Center ; he writes regularly for Fortune @ @ @ @ @ author of the popular book , Diary of a Hedge Fund Manager .

Hedgeye, Released on 6/16/20
In light of the Fed’s unprecedented intervention into U.S markets and the economy, a viewer asked an interesting question on The Macro Show.
Are these recent developments effectively turning the U.S. economy into something resembling Japan’s?
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Watch Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough’s response in the clip above.
Mr. Keith R. McCullough is the Founder and CEO of Hedgeye Risk Management LLC. He covers the strategy sector at the firm. Prior to founding the firm, Mr. McCullough was a Partner, Portfolio Manager, and Managing Director at the Carlyle-Bluewave Partners hedge fund. Prior to that, he was a Portfolio Manager at Magnetar Capital; a Founder, Managing Partner and Co-Portfolio Manager at Falconhenge Partners, LLC; and Partner, Executive Vice President and Portfolio Manager at Dawson Herman Capital Management. Mr. McCullough got his start as an Institutional Equity Sales Analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston. He is currently co-chair of the NYC Bipartisan Policy Center; he writes regularly for Fortune and Forbes and is the author of the popular book, Diary of a Hedge Fund Manager.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--A Dangerous Gap Has Opened Up For U.S. Equities

It should come as no surprise to most investors that U.S. stocks have dramatically outperformed the rest of the world over the past decade .
People have come up with tons of stats demonstrating the extremes that our stock market has reached in this regard .
For example , the combined market capitalization of just Apple and Microsoft is now larger than that of the entire German stock market .
But it might behoove investors to try to understand why U.S. equities have been relatively attractive to overseas equities for so long .
One reason ( among several ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher rates of return than similar overseas assets .
A good example of this is the difference in yield between the 10-year treasury note and the 10-year bund .
Since 2009 , the spread between the two has consistently grown as bunds yields have fallen and treasury notes have not kept up with the pace of the decline .
The result was treasury notes ( and other securities like dividend-paying stocks ) became more and more of a relative bargain .
It ’ s important to note , though , that this relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To demonstrate this I would simply note that the correlation between the yield spread noted above and the relative performance of U.S. stocks versus the rest of the world over the ten years prior to 2020 has been a very high 94 % .
But as you can see in the chart below a dramatic divergence has opened up recently .
While spreads between U.S. and German yields have narrowed dramatically over the past year , U.S. stocks have dramatically increased their outperformance of their overseas counterparts at the same time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves is this : ‘ Is this divergence sustainable or are U.S. stocks due to give back a good deal of their significant outperformance now that U.S. assets are no longer a relative bargain ?
’ Further , ‘ If they are to give back a big chunk of that outperformance will it come from underperforming on the upside or underperforming to the downside ?
’ Considering U.S. stocks now trade at record high valuations , my guess would be the latter .

by jessefelder
It should come as no surprise to most investors that U.S. stocks have dramatically outperformed the rest of the world over the past decade. People have come up with tons of stats demonstrating the extremes that our stock market has reached in this regard. For example, the combined market capitalization of just Apple and Microsoft is now larger than that of the entire German stock market.
But it might behoove investors to try to understand why U.S. equities have been relatively attractive to overseas equities for so long. One reason (among several) is simply that U.S. assets have consistently offered higher rates of return than similar overseas assets. A good example of this is the difference in yield between the 10-year treasury note and the 10-year bund. Since 2009, the spread between the two has consistently grown as bunds yields have fallen and treasury notes have not kept up with the pace of the decline. The result was treasury notes (and other securities like dividend-paying stocks) became more and more of a relative bargain.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
It’s important to note, though, that this relationship is merely representative of a larger dynamic. To demonstrate this I would simply note that the correlation between the yield spread noted above and the relative performance of U.S. stocks versus the rest of the world over the ten years prior to 2020 has been a very high 94%. But as you can see in the chart below a dramatic divergence has opened up recently. While spreads between U.S. and German yields have narrowed dramatically over the past year, U.S. stocks have dramatically increased their outperformance of their overseas counterparts at the same time.
The question investors should thus be asking themselves is this: ‘Is this divergence sustainable or are U.S. stocks due to give back a good deal of their significant outperformance now that U.S. assets are no longer a relative bargain?’ Further, ‘If they are to give back a big chunk of that outperformance will it come from underperforming on the upside or underperforming to the downside?’ Considering U.S. stocks now trade at record high valuations, my guess would be the latter.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--When Will Life Return to Normal?

When Will Life Return to Normal?

From battles on the front lines to social distancing from friends and family , COVID-19 has caused a massive shake-up of our daily lives .
After second-guessing everything from hugging our loved ones to delaying travel , there is one big question that everyone is likely thinking about : will we ever get back to the status quo ?
The answer may not be very clear-cut .
Today ’ s graphic uses data from New York Times ’ interviews of 511 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists from the U.S. and Canada , and visualizes their opinions on when they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities .
Life in the Near Future , According to Experts Specifically , this group of epidemiologists were asked when they might personally begin engaging in 20 common daily activities again .
The responses , based on the latest publicly available and scientifically-backed data , varied based on assumptions around local pandemic response plans .
The experts also noted that their answers would change depending on potential treatments and testing rates in their local areas .
Here are the activities that a majority of professionals see starting up as soon as this summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time : The urge to be outdoors is pretty clear , with 56 % of those surveyed hoping to take a road trip before the summer is over .
Meanwhile , 31 % felt that they would be able to go hiking or have a picnic with friends this summer , citing the need for “ fresh air , sun , socialization and a healthy activity ” to help keep on top of their physical and mental health during this time .
Public transport and travel of any form is one aspect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s by plane , train , or automobile .
Many of the surveyed epidemiologists also lamented the strain the pandemic has had on relationships , as evidenced by the social situations they hope to restart sooner rather than later .
On the other hand , there are certain activities that they considered too risky to engage in for the time-being .
A large share are putting off attending celebrations such as weddings or concerts for at least a year or more , out of perceived social responsibility .
Perhaps the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiologists do not expect to ever hug or shake hands as a post-pandemic greeting .
On top of this , over half consider masks necessary for at least the next year .
Of course , these estimates are not meant to represent every situation .
The experts also practically considered whether certain activities were avoidable or not—such as one ’ s occupation—which affects individual risk levels .
While many places are trickling out of lockdown and re-opening to support the economy , some officials are still warning against prematurely lifting restrictions before we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its spread .

by visualcapitalist
From battles on the front lines to social distancing from friends and family, COVID-19 has caused a massive shake-up of our daily lives.
After second-guessing everything from hugging our loved ones to delaying travel, there is one big question that everyone is likely thinking about: will we ever get back to the status quo? The answer may not be very clear-cut.
Today’s graphic uses data from New York Times’ interviews of 511 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists from the U.S. and Canada, and visualizes their opinions on when they might expect to resume a range of typical activities.
Life in the Near Future, According to Experts
Specifically, this group of epidemiologists were asked when they might personally begin engaging in 20 common daily activities again.
The responses, based on the latest publicly available and scientifically-backed data, varied based on assumptions around local pandemic response plans. The experts also noted that their answers would change depending on potential treatments and testing rates in their local areas.
Here are the activities that a majority of professionals see starting up as soon as this summer, or within a year’s time:
The urge to be outdoors is pretty clear, with 56% of those surveyed hoping to take a road trip before the summer is over. Meanwhile, 31% felt that they would be able to go hiking or have a picnic with friends this summer, citing the need for “fresh air, sun, socialization and a healthy activity” to help keep on top of their physical and mental health during this time.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Public transport and travel of any form is one aspect that has been put on hold, whether it’s by plane, train, or automobile. Many of the surveyed epidemiologists also lamented the strain the pandemic has had on relationships, as evidenced by the social situations they hope to restart sooner rather than later.
The worst casualty of the epidemic is the loss of human contact.
—Eduardo Franco, McGill University
On the other hand, there are certain activities that they considered too risky to engage in for the time-being. A large share are putting off attending celebrations such as weddings or concerts for at least a year or more, out of perceived social responsibility.
This summer 3-12 months +1 year Never again 👰⚰ Attend a wedding or a funeral 17% 41% 42% <1% 🤗🤝 Hug or shake hands when greeting a friend 14% 39% 42% 6% 💞 Go out with someone you don’t know well 14% 42% 42% 2% 🛐 Attend a church or other religious service 13% 43% 43% 2% 😷 Stop routinely wearing a face covering 7% 40% 52% 1% 🎫 Attend a sporting event, concert, or play 3% 32% 64% 1%
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that 6% of epidemiologists do not expect to ever hug or shake hands as a post-pandemic greeting. On top of this, over half consider masks necessary for at least the next year.
The Virus Sets the Timeline
Of course, these estimates are not meant to represent every situation. The experts also practically considered whether certain activities were avoidable or not—such as one’s occupation—which affects individual risk levels.
The answers [about resuming these activities] have nothing to do with calendar time.
—Kristi McClamroch, University at Albany
While many places are trickling out of lockdown and re-opening to support the economy, some officials are still warning against prematurely lifting restrictions before we fully have a handle on the virus and its spread.


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--History Tells Us To Own Gold When Central Banks Run Out Of Control

“ Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ” happen with regular intervals as Charles Mackay wrote about .
It seems that the world experiences more delusions and madness than truth and sanity .
The pattern is always the same .
The economy is never in equilibrium but moves in cycles of boom and bust .
If these cycles were allowed to take their natural course , they would move up and down in a steady rhythm without reaching extremes at the top or bottom .
GOVERNMENTS ’ PRIME OBJECTIVE IS TO BE REELECTED BY BUYING VOTES But human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural cycles from taking place .
Most leaders , whether they are kings or presidents , all have fear of failure combined with illusions of grandeur .
As the economy peaks and the good times come to an end , they know that the best chance of not being ejected is for the good times to continue .
Today ’ s leaders ’ primary objective is to hang on to power by buying votes .
And how can they buy votes when the economy is turning down and the coffers are empty ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thin air , as I discussed in my article a couple of weeks ago .
The Romans did it , and so did the French , the Brits , Germans , Argentinians , and everyone else .
PRICES DON ’ T GO UP – VALUE OF MONEY GOES DOWN Initially , when a country prints money to extend the prosperity , nobody notices that it is fake .
After all , they are still called dollars or pounds .
But gradually things become more expensive .
The popular interpretation of increasing prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notices or understands that it is not prices going up but the value of the money going down as more and more which has zero value is issued .
The current crisis started its acute phase back in August 2019 .
That ’ s when the Fed and the ECB started to panic .
Since then they have flooded markets with trillions of dollars and euros and still , the problems are not going away .
But how can you solve a debt problem with more debt ?
I considered the Central Banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an extremely critical moment and as important as Nixon closing the gold window in Aug 1971 .
I wrote back then that the “ world is now standing before a seminal moment and virtually nobody can see it.
” The US and the world are now entering the end of the end of 50 years ’ destruction of the world economy and the financial system .
So it has taken half a century to reach the end game but this is like a blink of an eyelid in the history of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world economy into a total breakdown of not just the financial system but also of trade and social structures .
And still nobody can see it .
Stock markets are near the all-time highs and the high-end residential property market is booming in and around several capital cities .
The US has all the ingredients that lead to the destruction of an empire : Deficits , debts , excessive military spending , debasement of the currency , breakdown of trade , plague , the collapse of law and order and riots .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture namely wars , and hyperinflation .
Sadly both these factors are likely to occur in the coming years .
1971 marked the beginning of the end of the US Empire Since 1971 the dollar has collapsed , deficits and debts exploded and social structures including law and order are breaking down .
Like all empires , the US had the seeds of its own destruction within it .
This is how they achieved it : 1 .
Spend more than you earn and PRINT , PRINT , PRINT The US has skilfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every single year since that time , US Federal debt has increased .
Few people realise that the surpluses in the Clinton years were fake since debt continued to go up .
US federal debt in 1971 was $ 400B and today it is $ 26 trillion a 65x explosion .
I produced the debt chart below the first time at the end of 2017 when Trump was elected president .
I forecast then that US debt would reach $ 28 trillion by 2021 and double by 2025 to $ 40 trillion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time .
But very few people study history and learn from the past .
Since 1981 US Federal debt has on average doubled every 8 years , without fail .
Obama doubled debt during his reign from $ 10 to $ 20 trillion .
Thus , it was totally in line with the history that the US debt would be $ 40 trillion 8 years later , in 2025 .
When I made this forecast I assumed that we would see a breakdown of the financial system starting in the 2020s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the world than any economist or other forecaster ever understands .
The US debt is now at $ 26T and is very likely to reach more than $ 28T by the end of the calendar year and $ 40T by 2025 .
The projections of the Congressional Budget Office ( CRB ) and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ( CRFB ) also confirm that these debt levels are not unlikely .
If we get a real crisis in the economy and the financial system , we could be looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than you export Since 1974 , the US has had a balance of trade deficit every year .
As the graph below shows , the deficit has grown exponentially .
In this century it has been running between $ 20B and $ 65B monthly and is currently running at $ 50B .
Half a century of every year importing more than you export is only possible with the assistance of the printing press combined with constant credit expansion .
No fiat currency has survived in history .
There have been periods when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silver .
This stops governments from spending what they haven ’ t got .
That was the dilemma Nixon had .
After many years of the costly Vietnam war in the 1960s , President de Gaulle saw where America was heading and asked the US for payment of their debts to France in gold .
Gold backing of the currency prevents countries from spending money they haven ’ t got .
Every time a nation has dropped the gold or silver standard , it has led to a destruction of the currency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US would have run out of gold and Nixon had no intention to balance the budget by cutting expenses .
Much easier than to close the gold window and open the printing press which he did on 15 August 1971 .
And that was the beginning of the end of the US empire and the global currency system .
After Nixon ’ s fatal decision , The People ’ s Daily in China wrote : “ These unpopular measures reflect the seriousness of the US economic crisis and the decay and decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper went on : “ mark the collapse of the capitalist monetary system with the US dollar as its prop ” … .
“ Nixon ’ s new economic policy can not extricate the US from financial and economic crisis.
” The Chinese saw the consequences of the US actions already 50 years ago and the whilst the rest of the world is about to find out soon .
Since 1971 , the dollar and all major currencies have fallen 97-99 % in real terms .
Real terms means measured in gold which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not possible to have chronic debts and deficits for half a century without total manipulation of all markets .
The US government and the Fed have skilfully intervened in all financial markets be it stocks , bonds , interest rates currencies , derivatives or gold and silver .
The result of this is that there are no real markets today and no real prices .
It is a casino in which the government with the assistance of the Fed and their banker friends control virtually all trading and prices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is a perfect example of false markets .
In a market governed by supply and demand , the gap between interest and debt in the chart above would not exist .
High demand for debt would automatically push the cost of debt up .
But the laws of nature have temporarily been suspended by the Fed and the US government .
Since they can create an unlimited supply of fake money , they can simultaneously set the cost of this money at zero .
And as the money is worth nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost nothing to borrow .
But what most people don ’ t understand is that most assets they buy with the fake money has very little intrinsic value , whether it is stocks , bonds or property .
In the coming collapse of the Everything Bubble investors will have a very rude awakening as all these bubble assets decline 90-100 % in real terms .
Stocks are showing the normal high volatility before the next crash which is imminent .
The coming secular bear market will shock the world .
The LBMA ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published an article in the Alchemist by my good friend Charlie Morris .
Charlie makes a very credible case for $ 7,000 gold by 2030 .
The only point I would raise regarding his forecast is if it will really take 10 years to reach that level .
I doubt it myself .
In the next few years , the world will learn that the printing of money can never create prosperity .
That is the time when the masses will turn to gold and silver .
At that point , there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy at any price .
History tells us that it is imperative to own gold when central banks run out of control .
The few who will be lucky enough to find some gold and silver then will need to pay multiples of current prices .
“ The desire of gold is not for gold .
It is for the means of freedom and benefit.
” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” happen with regular intervals as Charles Mackay wrote about. It seems that the world experiences more delusions and madness than truth and sanity.
The pattern is always the same. The economy is never in equilibrium but moves in cycles of boom and bust. If these cycles were allowed to take their natural course, they would move up and down in a steady rhythm without reaching extremes at the top or bottom.
GOVERNMENTS’ PRIME OBJECTIVE IS TO BE REELECTED BY BUYING VOTES
But human psychology and hunger for power prevent these natural cycles from taking place. Most leaders, whether they are kings or presidents, all have fear of failure combined with illusions of grandeur. As the economy peaks and the good times come to an end, they know that the best chance of not being ejected is for the good times to continue. Today’s leaders’ primary objective is to hang on to power by buying votes.
And how can they buy votes when the economy is turning down and the coffers are empty? Easy! You just print money out of thin air, as I discussed in my article a couple of weeks ago. The Romans did it, and so did the French, the Brits, Germans, Argentinians, and everyone else.
PRICES DON’T GO UP – VALUE OF MONEY GOES DOWN
Initially, when a country prints money to extend the prosperity, nobody notices that it is fake. After all, they are still called dollars or pounds. But gradually things become more expensive. The popular interpretation of increasing prices is calling it inflation. Nobody actually notices or understands that it is not prices going up but the value of the money going down as more and more which has zero value is issued.
THE LATEST PANIC STARTED IN AUGUST 2019
The current crisis started its acute phase back in August 2019. That’s when the Fed and the ECB started to panic.
Since then they have flooded markets with trillions of dollars and euros and still, the problems are not going away. But how can you solve a debt problem with more debt? I considered the Central Banks panic statements and actions back in August as an extremely critical moment and as important as Nixon closing the gold window in Aug 1971. I wrote back then that the “world is now standing before a seminal moment and virtually nobody can see it.”
THE END GAME IS STARTING
The US and the world are now entering the end of the end of 50 years’ destruction of the world economy and the financial system. So it has taken half a century to reach the end game but this is like a blink of an eyelid in the history of the world.
The US is now leading the world economy into a total breakdown of not just the financial system but also of trade and social structures. And still nobody can see it. Stock markets are near the all-time highs and the high-end residential property market is booming in and around several capital cities.
The US has all the ingredients that lead to the destruction of an empire: Deficits, debts, excessive military spending, debasement of the currency, breakdown of trade, plague, the collapse of law and order and riots. Two things are missing to complete the picture namely wars, and hyperinflation. Sadly both these factors are likely to occur in the coming years.
1971 marked the beginning of the end of the US Empire
Since 1971 the dollar has collapsed, deficits and debts exploded and social structures including law and order are breaking down. Like all empires, the US had the seeds of its own destruction within it.
This is how they achieved it:
1. Spend more than you earn and PRINT, PRINT, PRINT
The US has skilfully done this since the early 1960s. Every single year since that time, US Federal debt has increased. Few people realise that the surpluses in the Clinton years were fake since debt continued to go up.
US federal debt in 1971 was $400B and today it is $26 trillion a 65x explosion.
I produced the debt chart below the first time at the end of 2017 when Trump was elected president. I forecast then that US debt would reach $28 trillion by 2021 and double by 2025 to $40 trillion. These massive debt increases seemed incredible at the time. But very few people study history and learn from the past.
Since 1981 US Federal debt has on average doubled every 8 years, without fail. Obama doubled debt during his reign from $10 to $20 trillion. Thus, it was totally in line with the history that the US debt would be $40 trillion 8 years later, in 2025.
When I made this forecast I assumed that we would see a breakdown of the financial system starting in the 2020s. So history teaches us a lot more about the world than any economist or other forecaster ever understands.
The US debt is now at $26T and is very likely to reach more than $28T by the end of the calendar year and $40T by 2025. The projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CRB) and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) also confirm that these debt levels are not unlikely.
If we get a real crisis in the economy and the financial system, we could be looking at much higher figures.
2. Import more than you export
Since 1974, the US has had a balance of trade deficit every year. As the graph below shows, the deficit has grown exponentially. In this century it has been running between $20B and $65B monthly and is currently running at $50B.
Half a century of every year importing more than you export is only possible with the assistance of the printing press combined with constant credit expansion.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
3. Make the currency worthless
No fiat currency has survived in history. There have been periods when various currencies were backed by gold or silver. This stops governments from spending what they haven’t got. That was the dilemma Nixon had. After many years of the costly Vietnam war in the 1960s, President de Gaulle saw where America was heading and asked the US for payment of their debts to France in gold.
Gold backing of the currency prevents countries from spending money they haven’t got. Every time a nation has dropped the gold or silver standard, it has led to a destruction of the currency.
With deficits and debts rising fast, the US would have run out of gold and Nixon had no intention to balance the budget by cutting expenses. Much easier than to close the gold window and open the printing press which he did on 15 August 1971. And that was the beginning of the end of the US empire and the global currency system.
After Nixon’s fatal decision, The People’s Daily in China wrote:
“These unpopular measures reflect the seriousness of the US economic crisis and the decay and decline of the entire capitalist system.”
The paper went on:
“mark the collapse of the capitalist monetary system with the US dollar as its prop”…. “Nixon’s new economic policy cannot extricate the US from financial and economic crisis.”
The Chinese saw the consequences of the US actions already 50 years ago and the whilst the rest of the world is about to find out soon.
Since 1971, the dollar and all major currencies have fallen 97-99% in real terms.
Real terms means measured in gold which is the only stable currency in history.
4. Manipulate all markets
It is not possible to have chronic debts and deficits for half a century without total manipulation of all markets. The US government and the Fed have skilfully intervened in all financial markets be it stocks, bonds, interest rates currencies, derivatives or gold and silver.
The result of this is that there are no real markets today and no real prices. It is a casino in which the government with the assistance of the Fed and their banker friends control virtually all trading and prices.
If we just look at interest rates, it is a perfect example of false markets.
In a market governed by supply and demand, the gap between interest and debt in the chart above would not exist. High demand for debt would automatically push the cost of debt up. But the laws of nature have temporarily been suspended by the Fed and the US government. Since they can create an unlimited supply of fake money, they can simultaneously set the cost of this money at zero. And as the money is worth nothing, it is self-evident that it should cost nothing to borrow.
But what most people don’t understand is that most assets they buy with the fake money has very little intrinsic value, whether it is stocks, bonds or property. In the coming collapse of the Everything Bubble investors will have a very rude awakening as all these bubble assets decline 90-100% in real terms.
MARKETS
Stocks are showing the normal high volatility before the next crash which is imminent. The coming secular bear market will shock the world.
Gold & Silver
The LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) has just published an article in the Alchemist by my good friend Charlie Morris. Charlie makes a very credible case for $7,000 gold by 2030.
The only point I would raise regarding his forecast is if it will really take 10 years to reach that level. I doubt it myself.
In the next few years, the world will learn that the printing of money can never create prosperity. That is the time when the masses will turn to gold and silver. At that point, there will be virtually no physical precious metals to buy at any price.
History tells us that it is imperative to own gold when central banks run out of control.
The few who will be lucky enough to find some gold and silver then will need to pay multiples of current prices.
“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson


investmentwatchblog--2020-06-17--They Wanted Their Own Country, They Got It: Police, Fire Reportedly Refused To Respond To Crime In P

They Wanted Their Own Country, They Got It: Police, Fire Reportedly Refused To Respond To Crime In Progress In Seattle’s Breakaway Chop.

Police , Fire Reportedly Refused to Respond to Crime in Progress in Seattle ’ s Breakaway CHOP .
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s “ summer of love ” turned into a summer of crime earlier today , and the NY Post reports that the police and fire department did not respond effectively .
Not sure why they would .
CHOP may have changed its name but it ’ s still a secessionist enclave with its own border and warlord , despite the fact that its activists don ’ t believe in borders and demand the police be defunded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he initially tried to detain a protester Sunday night who stole cash and set a fire in his Car Tender business on the edge of the so-called “ Capital Hill Autonomous Zone.
” His son , Mason McDermott , helped tackle the suspect who “ tried to cut me with a box cutter , ” he told the station , showing large slits in his jeans close to his crotch .
Other protesters soon arrived — and video on social media shows the mob eventually knocking over a section of fencing , running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand the return of the original suspect .
McDermott told the station he repeatedly dialed 911 for both police and fire crews .
“ All told 19 times , ” he said .
He was “ heartbroken ” when they “ finally said that they weren ’ t going to send somebody , ” he said .
“ I mean , they are the cavalry , ” he told the station .
‘ NO IDEA WHAT ’ S NEXT : ’ Moving out of Seattle ’ s occupied protest zone .
“ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know cops won ’ t come , I know fire trucks can ’ t come in .
No government has even contacted any residents , ’ he said….
’ Even if I want to move out , I can ’ t move out because I can ’ t even bring a moving truck there , ’ said the neighbor , who told us he knows a couple of friends living inside the protest zone who are also now sleeping elsewhere .
‘ Hence why I moved to a hotel yesterday ; I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week but I have no idea what ’ s next.
’ ” Related : Seattle ’ s Liberal Elite Cheer Anti-Police Protesters Then Hire Their Own Private Security .

Police, Fire Reportedly Refused to Respond to Crime in Progress in Seattle’s Breakaway CHOP.
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s “summer of love” turned into a summer of crime earlier today, and the NY Post reports that the police and fire department did not respond effectively.
Not sure why they would. CHOP may have changed its name but it’s still a secessionist enclave with its own border and police
John McDermott told KIRO 7 News that he initially tried to detain a protester Sunday night who stole cash and set a fire in his Car Tender business on the edge of the so-called “Capital Hill Autonomous Zone.” His son, Mason McDermott, helped tackle the suspect who “tried to cut me with a box cutter,” he told the station, showing large slits in his jeans close to his crotch. Other protesters soon arrived — and video on social media shows the mob eventually knocking over a section of fencing, running in to confront the owners and angrily demand the return of the original suspect. McDermott told the station he repeatedly dialed 911 for both police and fire crews. “All told 19 times,” he said. He was “heartbroken” when they “finally said that they weren’t going to send somebody,” he said. “I mean, they are the cavalry,” he told the station.
warlord , despite the fact that its activists don’t believe in borders and demand the police be defunded.
…
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
…
‘NO IDEA WHAT’S NEXT:’ Moving out of Seattle’s occupied protest zone. “‘I’m mainly scared because I know cops won’t come, I know fire trucks can’t come in. No government has even contacted any residents,’ he said….’Even if I want to move out, I can’t move out because I can’t even bring a moving truck there,’ said the neighbor, who told us he knows a couple of friends living inside the protest zone who are also now sleeping elsewhere. ‘Hence why I moved to a hotel yesterday; I’ll be staying there for at least a week but I have no idea what’s next.’”
Related: Seattle’s Liberal Elite Cheer Anti-Police Protesters Then Hire Their Own Private Security.
h/t SG