investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--How the State Spreads Mass Hysteria

How the State Spreads Mass Hysteria

The history of mass hysteria , or mass sociogenic illness is fascinating .
Cases of mass hysteria have been documented since the Middle Ages .
Let me just mention a few of the more recent cases .
When a radio play by Orson Welles , War of the Worlds , was broadcasted in 1938 shortly after the suspension of the Munich agreement , the play allegedly caused panic among listeners , who thought that they were under attack by Martians .
Another intriguing case is an episode of a Portuguese TV show called Strawberries with Sugar .
In the episode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life-threatening virus .
After the show , more than three hundred students reported similar symptoms as the ones experienced by the TV show characters such as rashes and difficulty breathing .
Some schools even closed .
The Portuguese National Institute for Medical Emergency concluded that the virus did not exist in reality and that the symptoms were caused by mass hysteria .
Similarly , on Emirates flight 203 in September 2018 , dozens of passengers started to believe they were sick after observing other passengers with flu-like symptoms .
As a consequence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantined .
In the end only a few passengers had a common cold or the seasonal flu .
It is well known that there exist nocebo effects , which are the opposite of placebo effects .
Due the placebo effect , a person recovers from an illness because she expects to do so .
When we suffer a nocebo effect , on the other hand , we get ill just because we expect to become ill.1 In a self-fulfilling prophecy , the expectation can cause the symptoms .
Anxiety and fear exacerbate this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have symptoms .
Moreover , hysteria , be it collective or not , makes people behave in ways that prudent persons not affected by the hysteria would likely consider absurd .
It is open for empirical research to investigate if and to what extent the world has been suffering from mass hysteria during the covid-19 epidemic.3 We all have seen people hoarding toilet paper , wearing masks while driving alone in cars , or have heard stories of people virtually not leaving their houses for months .
We also know people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own risk of death is minuscule .
While investigating the possibility of a corona mass hysteria is certainly interesting , I would like to focus here on a more fundamental question ; namely , the extent to which the existence of the state can exacerbate mass hysteria .
Certainly , there can be cases of mass hysteria in a free society , due to the negativity bias of the human brain .
We focus on negative news and suffer psychological stress when we think we are not in control .
This may happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news prevail .
Yet in a free society there exist certain self-corrective mechanisms and limits that make it more difficult for mass hysteria to spiral out of control .
As a corrective mechanism , there exist well-known strategies to reduce fear and anxiety .
In a free society people are free to make use of these strategies .
One can release tension from one ’ s body through sports and exercises .
Moreover , it is essential to find distractions from the negative news and socialize .
In a free society these distractions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lead people to inflict enormous harm on themselves and others .
Yet in a free society there exists an essential limit to the havoc caused by mass hysteria , and this limit is private property rights .
In a free society mass hysteria can not lead to a massive violation of private property rights by the state , simply because the state does not exist .
Moreover , while anyone in a health hysteria may voluntarily close his business , wear a mask , or stay at home , in a free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not succumb to the hysteria to close their businesses , wear masks , or quarantine .
A small minority who continue to live their normal lives and are free to do so can be a wake-up call to those who succumbed to the mass hysteria , especially the borderline cases .
Imagine that a small group of people continues to go shopping , to work , to breath freely , to meet with friends and family , and that they do not die .
Others may then follow their example and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction inflicted by mass hysteria is limited by private property rights in a free society , such limits do not exist when there is a state.4 Indeed , a well-organized group that has succumbed to mass hysteria may get control of the state apparatus and impose measures on the rest of the population and inflict untold harm .
The possibility of mass hysteria is an important reason why the institution of the state is so dangerous .
Moreover , while in a free society there are mechanisms that reduce mass panics , mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for several reasons : First , the state can and , as in the case of the covid-19 epidemic , does prohibit and diminish those activities that reduce fear and anxiety , such as sports and diversion .
The state actually fosters social isolation , contributing to anxiety and psychological strain , ingredients that spur mass hysteria .
Second , the state takes a centralized approach to dealing with the source of the hysteria , in our case the perceived threat of a virus .
The state imposes its solution , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimentation to solve the problem .
People who have not succumbed to the hysteria and oppose the state ’ s approach are suppressed .
They can not demonstrate alternative ways to confront the “ crisis , ” because these alternative ways are prohibited by the state .
As a consequence , groupthink increases and the hysteria feeds itself , as no alternatives are shown to people .
Third , in a state , the media is often politicized .
News outlets and social media platforms have close relationships with the state .
Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , as are public TV channels , they may need state licenses to operate , they may look for the goodwill of state agencies , or may simply be staffed with people who were educated in state schools .
These news agencies and social media platforms engage in massive negative news campaigns , intentionally scare people , and suppress alternative information .
If people listen to , watch , or read negative and one-sided stories all day , their psychological stress and anxiety increases .
Mass hysteria sponsored by a biased media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fourth , negative news from an authoritative source is especially harmful for psychological health and produces anxiety .
If there exists in society an institution of total power such as the state that intervenes in the lives of people from birth to death,5 the announcements of its representatives acquire weight .
Many people attach great authority to these representatives and to the warnings of state institutions .
So , when a doctor such as Anthony Fauci speaks in the name of the state and tells the people to worry and wear masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop than would be the case in a decentralized society .
Fifth , the state sometimes actively wants to instill fear in the population , thereby contributing to the making of mass hysteria .
In fact , during the first months of the corona epidemic , an internal paper of the German Department of the Interior was leaked to the public .
In the paper , the experts recommend that the German government instill fear in the German population .
The paper recommends increasing fear with three communication measures .
First , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covid-19 patients , because the human beings have a primordial fear of death by suffocation , which can easily trigger panic .
Second , fear should also be instilled in children .
Children could get infected easily when meeting with other children .
They should be told that when they in turn infect their parents and grandparents these could suffer a distressful death at home .
This measure intends to invoke feelings of guilt .
Third , authorities should mention the possibility of unknown long-term irreversible damage after a corona infection and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were infected .
All these measures were intended to increase fear in the population .
Fear , at the end , is the foundation of every government´s power .
As H.L .
Mencken put it : To sum up : mass hysteria is possible in a free society , but there are self-correcting mechanisms .
The harm such hysteria may inflict is limited by the enforcement of private property rights .
The state amplifies and exacerbates mass panics , causing tremendous havoc .
What are local , limited , and isolated outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state can convert into a global mass hysteria .
Unfortunately , there is no limit to the damage mass hysteria can do to life and liberty if it takes hold of the government , as the state does not respect private property .
The unscrupulous violation of basic liberties during the corona epidemic is a case in point .
The possibility of mass hysteria is another reason why the state is such a dangerous institution to have .
• 1.In a famous case a man tried to suicide himself .
He thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimental drug .
However , they were in reality placebos .
But he was thinking he would be killing himself .
He arrived at the hospital with extreme low blood pressure and other serios symptoms .
When the doctor of the medical trial arrived and told him that he had taken just placebos , the man recovered within fifteen minutes .
• 2.During the Spanish flu panic contributed to deaths that otherwise would not have occurred .
• 3.Keep in mind that the psychological strain on and the anxiety suffered by the population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4.For the psychology of masses and their irrationality see the classical work of Gustave Le Bon .
• 5.A related point regards the consequences that come with a population that stopped believing in God and started to believe in the state instead .
When people turn away from religion and stop believing in a life after death , they start to fear death more .
A strong fear of death is another factor contributing to panics , disorders , and mass hysteria .
As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has put it : “ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very pious .
It is difficult not to worship health if one fears death .
It is difficult to enforce general health without large scale state intervention and it is equally difficult to imagine increased state intervention without a loss of liberties.
” The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large ( Milkwaukee , WI : Bruce Publishing Company , 1943 ) , pp .
38–39 .
Philipp Bagus is professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos .
He is a Fellow of the Mises Institute , an IREF scholar , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense of DeflationandThe Tragedy of the Euro , and is coauthor of Blind Robbery !
, Small States .
Big Possibilities .
: Small States Are Simply Better !
, and Deep Freeze : Iceland ’ s Economic Collapse .

by Philipp Bagus via Mises
The history of mass hysteria, or mass sociogenic illness is fascinating. Cases of mass hysteria have been documented since the Middle Ages. Let me just mention a few of the more recent cases.
When a radio play by Orson Welles, War of the Worlds, was broadcasted in 1938 shortly after the suspension of the Munich agreement, the play allegedly caused panic among listeners, who thought that they were under attack by Martians.
Another intriguing case is an episode of a Portuguese TV show called Strawberries with Sugar. In the episode, the characters were infected by a life-threatening virus. After the show, more than three hundred students reported similar symptoms as the ones experienced by the TV show characters such as rashes and difficulty breathing. Some schools even closed. The Portuguese National Institute for Medical Emergency concluded that the virus did not exist in reality and that the symptoms were caused by mass hysteria.
Similarly, on Emirates flight 203 in September 2018, dozens of passengers started to believe they were sick after observing other passengers with flu-like symptoms. As a consequence of the panic, the whole flight was quarantined. In the end only a few passengers had a common cold or the seasonal flu.
It is well known that there exist nocebo effects, which are the opposite of placebo effects. Due the placebo effect, a person recovers from an illness because she expects to do so. When we suffer a nocebo effect, on the other hand, we get ill just because we expect to become ill.1 In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the expectation can cause the symptoms. Anxiety and fear exacerbate this process.2
Mass hysteria can cause people to have symptoms. Moreover, hysteria, be it collective or not, makes people behave in ways that prudent persons not affected by the hysteria would likely consider absurd. It is open for empirical research to investigate if and to what extent the world has been suffering from mass hysteria during the covid-19 epidemic.3 We all have seen people hoarding toilet paper, wearing masks while driving alone in cars, or have heard stories of people virtually not leaving their houses for months. We also know people who are scared by the virus even though their own risk of death is minuscule.
While investigating the possibility of a corona mass hysteria is certainly interesting, I would like to focus here on a more fundamental question; namely, the extent to which the existence of the state can exacerbate mass hysteria. Certainly, there can be cases of mass hysteria in a free society, due to the negativity bias of the human brain. We focus on negative news and suffer psychological stress when we think we are not in control. This may happen also in a free society when negative news prevail. Yet in a free society there exist certain self-corrective mechanisms and limits that make it more difficult for mass hysteria to spiral out of control.
As a corrective mechanism, there exist well-known strategies to reduce fear and anxiety. In a free society people are free to make use of these strategies. One can release tension from one’s body through sports and exercises. Moreover, it is essential to find distractions from the negative news and socialize. In a free society these distractions abound.
It is true that hysteria can lead people to inflict enormous harm on themselves and others. Yet in a free society there exists an essential limit to the havoc caused by mass hysteria, and this limit is private property rights. In a free society mass hysteria cannot lead to a massive violation of private property rights by the state, simply because the state does not exist.
Moreover, while anyone in a health hysteria may voluntarily close his business, wear a mask, or stay at home, in a free society no one can force others who do not succumb to the hysteria to close their businesses, wear masks, or quarantine. A small minority who continue to live their normal lives and are free to do so can be a wake-up call to those who succumbed to the mass hysteria, especially the borderline cases. Imagine that a small group of people continues to go shopping, to work, to breath freely, to meet with friends and family, and that they do not die. Others may then follow their example and the group of hysterics shrinks.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
While the destruction inflicted by mass hysteria is limited by private property rights in a free society, such limits do not exist when there is a state.4 Indeed, a well-organized group that has succumbed to mass hysteria may get control of the state apparatus and impose measures on the rest of the population and inflict untold harm. The possibility of mass hysteria is an important reason why the institution of the state is so dangerous.
Moreover, while in a free society there are mechanisms that reduce mass panics, mass hysteria can be exacerbated by the state for several reasons:
First, the state can and, as in the case of the covid-19 epidemic, does prohibit and diminish those activities that reduce fear and anxiety, such as sports and diversion. The state actually fosters social isolation, contributing to anxiety and psychological strain, ingredients that spur mass hysteria.
Second, the state takes a centralized approach to dealing with the source of the hysteria, in our case the perceived threat of a virus. The state imposes its solution, and in consequence there is no or very reduced experimentation to solve the problem. People who have not succumbed to the hysteria and oppose the state’s approach are suppressed. They cannot demonstrate alternative ways to confront the “crisis,” because these alternative ways are prohibited by the state. As a consequence, groupthink increases and the hysteria feeds itself, as no alternatives are shown to people.
Third, in a state, the media is often politicized. News outlets and social media platforms have close relationships with the state. Media outlets may be directly owned by the state, as are public TV channels, they may need state licenses to operate, they may look for the goodwill of state agencies, or may simply be staffed with people who were educated in state schools. These news agencies and social media platforms engage in massive negative news campaigns, intentionally scare people, and suppress alternative information. If people listen to, watch, or read negative and one-sided stories all day, their psychological stress and anxiety increases. Mass hysteria sponsored by a biased media sector may run out of control.
Fourth, negative news from an authoritative source is especially harmful for psychological health and produces anxiety. If there exists in society an institution of total power such as the state that intervenes in the lives of people from birth to death,5 the announcements of its representatives acquire weight. Many people attach great authority to these representatives and to the warnings of state institutions. So, when a doctor such as Anthony Fauci speaks in the name of the state and tells the people to worry and wear masks, it becomes easier for mass hysteria to develop than would be the case in a decentralized society.
Fifth, the state sometimes actively wants to instill fear in the population, thereby contributing to the making of mass hysteria. In fact, during the first months of the corona epidemic, an internal paper of the German Department of the Interior was leaked to the public. In the paper, the experts recommend that the German government instill fear in the German population. The paper recommends increasing fear with three communication measures. First, the authorities should emphasize the breathing problems of covid-19 patients, because the human beings have a primordial fear of death by suffocation, which can easily trigger panic. Second, fear should also be instilled in children. Children could get infected easily when meeting with other children. They should be told that when they in turn infect their parents and grandparents these could suffer a distressful death at home. This measure intends to invoke feelings of guilt. Third, authorities should mention the possibility of unknown long-term irreversible damage after a corona infection and the possibility of the sudden deaths of people who were infected. All these measures were intended to increase fear in the population. Fear, at the end, is the foundation of every government´s power. As H.L. Mencken put it:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
To sum up: mass hysteria is possible in a free society, but there are self-correcting mechanisms. The harm such hysteria may inflict is limited by the enforcement of private property rights. The state amplifies and exacerbates mass panics, causing tremendous havoc. What are local, limited, and isolated outbreaks of mass hysteria in a free society the state can convert into a global mass hysteria. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the damage mass hysteria can do to life and liberty if it takes hold of the government, as the state does not respect private property. The unscrupulous violation of basic liberties during the corona epidemic is a case in point. The possibility of mass hysteria is another reason why the state is such a dangerous institution to have.
Author:
Contact Philipp Bagus
Philipp Bagus is professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. He is a Fellow of the Mises Institute, an IREF scholar, and the author of numerous books including In Defense of DeflationandThe Tragedy of the Euro, and is coauthor of Blind Robbery!, Small States. Big Possibilities.: Small States Are Simply Better!, and Deep Freeze: Iceland’s Economic Collapse.


investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--HAWLEY HAS A KNACK FOR CLARITY: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) succinctly explains why people who worry abo

HAWLEY HAS A KNACK FOR CLARITY: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) succinctly explains why people who worry about voting fraud are not going to shut up any time soon.

A new dollar is going to emerge out of a crisis of the debt which people have no idea how @ @ @ @ @ get .

PAUL BEDARD: Perdue and Loeffler edge into lead in Georgia, ‘should’ win both. Don’t get cocky.
Related, from Erick Erickson: Republicans in Georgia Are Turning Out.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
h/t Mark


investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--Cabal Clerk in the Supreme Court

Cabal Clerk in the Supreme Court

They were submitted electronically Saturday morning and all copies hand-delivered and fees paid .
# SupremeCourt clerk refused to give @ @ @ @ @ phone calls !
!
What is going on ?
?
Unprecedented lack of professionalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scavino45 pic.twitter.com/NE5gwpjfzT

They were submitted electronically Saturday morning and all copies hand-delivered and fees paid. #SupremeCourt clerk refused to give reason and will not return phone calls!!
What is going on??
Unprecedented lack of professionalism @realDonaldTrump @GenFlynn @POTUS @Scavino45 pic.twitter.com/NE5gwpjfzT
— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) December 17, 2020


investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--It’s Not Often I Get to Proclaim “THE FED IS DEAD” Then Watch the Fed Put on the Toe Tag!

The following article comes with a surprising revelation — possibly an alarming revelation — at the end .
Something big is happening at the Fed — the largest movement of “ cash ” in history .
I don ’ t know what to make of it , because the Fed has been completely silent about it , and the mainstream financial press has missed it entirely .
Crickets .
I published this article as a Patron Post exclusively for those who kindly support me at the $ 5 level or above before I knew anything about the big money moves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I found those moves right after researching for this article .
Because they prove the article ’ s theme , I added them after publication .
( Patrons may want to make sure they ’ ve read the latest additions . )
Because these addenda may have great importance , given the scale of monetary change and the total quite on the Fed ’ s part about it , I promised all readers I ’ d share this article later with everyone for free and write another Patron Post just for patrons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others because they support this site .
I am , however , about helping as many people as possible , so here it is .
I ’ ve left the article below unchanged in substance , except for the updates at the end , but you ’ ll grasp the importance better if you don ’ t jump to the ending : When I proclaimed last spring “ The Fed is Dead , ” I clarified , of course , that the Fed is dead in terms of its ability to single-handedly raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In October , a former Fed head agreed : That is exactly what I stated last spring when I was probably the first to starkly state “ the Fed is dead ” while everyone else continued to believe the Fed could still single-handedly lift stocks and stimulate the economy .
A few months later , ZH joined me in laying out how dead the Fed was .
Now , I ’ m joined by a former Fed head .
That is why we have , ever since , seen the Fed dithering about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation with the US government .
Simply put , the Fed is not leaping at the opportunity to prove , as it demonstrated last March , that in can no longer lift the stock market in any sustainable way on its own .
The path is now more difficult because the Fed must convince congress to take action by holding itself out of the game until congress does add its own force .
This , we are seeing again , as the Fed remains aloof while congress now dithers over whether to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the bailout bills that were first passed during the Great Recession .
As I noted from the start of the Fed ’ s efforts , over which I began this blog , and as ZH says it also noted back then … David Stockman has also long said that for the next go-around , which is now this go-around , the Fed is out of dry powder .
Dudley lays out why that is in specific detail : Even Dudley now gets how doing all of that over the past ten years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that we don ’ t have any buying power left now that we have hit a true crisis : I always said the Fed would learn that lesson too late .
That ’ s why I ’ ve written my blog all these years to keep making it clear that this could be seen coming for the day when it finally got here .
My hope has been that the Fed won ’ t get away with saying , “ No one could have seen this coming.
” Rather , everyone should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use up all your stimulus powder pulling future buying power into the present to goose the present even when you are claiming the economy is basically strong , you have no reserve capacity left when you really need it .
Dudley even states that it is now inevitable that future returns on stocks will be lower , not higher , because there is no push or pull left to get the prices up .
That doesn ’ t mean there won ’ t be some temporary goosing that gives the market a nudge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the economy will not rise to support such valuations for years , and the free money from the Fed to keep squeezing things upward along a climbing path is increasingly is not easily doable now that it requires getting Republicans and Democrats to agree on stimulus and has some serious downside effects at this point in the diminishing-returns curve , which I can lay out in very simple , easy-to-understand terms below .
In terms of the agreement problem , if Democrats take the senate in January , there could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the government will become unrestrained in adding its full fiscal muscle to all the Fed can do .
The problem with the diminishing-returns curve , however , was already laid in and is essentially now unsolvable because the Fed made sure the economy and stock market are both fully addicted to full-on Fed stimulus all the time , as even Dudly now says : Save ?
How do you do that when savings offer zero interest ?
You longer you save , the more you lose … just to inflation .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but now it is caught in a trap because , as I also noted this year , we are finally entering a time when inflation could go up .
For years , I ’ ve completely avoided saying inflation was any risk for the year on this blog , always maintaining inflation would go nowhere each .
year because money was not circulating in the mainstream economy .
This year , however , I moved off of that position because getting the government involved means finally pushing money into the hands of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflation .
So long as the government only pushes enough mass money to replace what people are not making due to unemployment , inflation may not be a problem ; but if they yield to the new realization of their powers too far in the present environment , it will quickly become a problem because COVID shuts down a lot of production and transportation and even retail , resulting in too much money chasing too few goods , which is the classic formula for high general inflation .
The alternative way of looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed and government both realize this , the inflation problem curtails how much support they can and will give , which can leave the utterly dependent stock market flailing and the economy stuck in the mire .
In that case , you get moderate stagflation as the government tries not to spin the tires while powering through the mud , getting occasional tire spin ( which is the inflation-no-growth part ) .
Dudley seems to recognize that his savings plan can not possibly work because the Fed has cut itself off for good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest rates where they need to be in order to keep ahead of inflation : This brings us into exactly the catch-22 situation I ’ ve said throughout writing my blog the Fed ’ s solution to the Great Recession would lead to .
I ’ ve noted from the outset , the Fed ’ s Great Recovery program was an “ unsustainable ” program , so it ultimately does not lead to real recovery , but only to eternal dependence .
You can not lower interest rates forever ; but the catch-22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy that is dependent on low interest because raising interest will crash businesses and individuals under all the debt your years of low interest enticed them into , then you have to keep going with low interest .
You have to starve savers who need to save because low interest no longer is enough even to support overinflated stock prices .
The Fed , I always said , was boxing itself ( and the nation and the world with it ) into a corner .
With that , Dudley ( as I predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case ) cries out to congress to supply the additional fire power necessary to sustain this Ponzi scheme a little longer : Therefore , as the Fed sits this week to decide what on earth to do , you can expect its actions , besides holding the present line of continued support forever , will be something that comes in cooperation with federal government support .
With the additional muscle of nearly a trillion dollars in government support being co-concidered this week , the joint action of Fed and feds can move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the point of cooperating , which I think they will realize they must do .
Without that combined force , any Fed action is likely to effect only a brief market bump , and then the next big market move will most likely be the Santa Claws plunge that claws back the November rally and the bump .
With joint action , Santa may be all cherry-nosed one more time .
We are past the days when the Fed can move mountains on its own and achieve anything more than a reflexive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new paradigm to understand — the new financial environment for which the groundwork was laid throughout the Great Recovery .
UPDATE 1 : Something is seriously wrong at the Fed .
Do you want some SOLID PROOF of just HOW DEAD THE FED IS ?
HERE IT IS : The Fed and/or its members banks MASSIVELY increased cash money supply ( M1 ) in the last two weeks of November , and you probably didn ’ t even know it happened !
No one even noticed .
And what did stocks do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same ceiling throughout the time of this monetary mainlining .
Expanding that graph out , it looks like this with the last two weeks being the final almost-straight leap at the end , steeper than ever seen : That is a massive amount of new cash money — historically massive — done almost covertly in the quickest burst ever — and yet it did not even cause the stock market to blink !
The value of the dollar barely changed its slow decent ( so far ) , and bonds barely budged .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ did from the time when M1 money supply skyrocketed : You ’ ve seen graphs of the Fed ’ s increase in its balance sheet over the years with its huge jolts of QE .
The graph above ( and especially the one below ) of actual M1 money supply are a little different .
They show how little all of that QE actually impacted total “ cash ” money ( M1 money supply ) — the stuff that actually circulates on Main Street and in your home — over those same years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no big jolts from QE .
That , as I pointed out all along the way , was because much of the Fed ’ s new money creation was locked in reserves or just circulated in financial assets .
Because it never moved into the general economy it created no inflation .
All of that changed with COVID .
The government finally stepped in because the Fed was unable to accomplish anything for weeks in March , as the article I referenced in my lead laid out .
With the government finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money supply skyrocketed ( the first big surge in the graphs above ) because the government put the money directly into consumer ’ s pockets and into business payrolls .
Still no inflation because they were mostly making up for money lost due to unemployment .
The graphs , however , make it clear why inflation under the new regime could become a much more serious problem than the limp moves seen over all the years of the Great Recovery , the difference being how fast the Fed ’ s QE is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bills , checking accounts and other demand deposits that can be immediately spent ) — the most liquid form of money : You can see the balance sheet over that same time period ( the differences made by QE ) and can see no big difference has happened in the last month : Why have stocks not skyrocketed during this latest huge cash expansion ?
It may in part be because the federal government has not yet joined the Fed in the stimulus effort as it did when it added its muscle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when stocks soared .
All market eyes are on what the government is going to do this week , proof the Fed is now impotent in the stock market , until the government adds its muscle .
More importantly , why did such an enormous surge in money supply happen in the last two weeks of November with no financial articles being written about it and no statements from the Fed about it ?
What is going on behind the scenes at the Fed and/or US treasury right now ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like something serious is breaking down behind the scenes .
Maybe it is just due to the Fed implementing policy approved last spring with funds that remained unspent , but it all happened without a sound .
The Fed ’ s policy notice subsequent to its November meeting contains no explanation , and the Fed likes to claim transparency .
The Fed did not increase QE or cut interest rates at its November meeting .
Powell mentioned no policy changes at all in his presser .
Yet , the burst in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unprecedented .
Such a big rise in M1 without any increase in QE or cut in interest rates would indicate existing less-liquid money was suddenly turned into cash , but M2 didn ’ t change much .
Was cash jolt for emergency reasons ?
The Fed completely eliminated reserve requirements back in March as a COVID response , allowing banks to use reserves at will for emergency cash management , which is why the Fed requires banks hold reserves … so they can be deployed during dire times .
( See : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) So , my first thought was that banks suddenly had have a massive need for emergency cash and moved money from reserves into circulation , but the Fed ’ s graphs indicate reserves plunged earlier in the year when the reserve ratio was eliminated , but that they have started recovering since then : I ’ ve consulted economic discussions to see if I can find anything about this rapid increase in M1 , and I have written to other financial writers , but I have found nothing but guesses .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ M1 money supply shot up without the velocity of money rising .
That , too , is a bit odd , but it indicates the money is being parked away somewhere where it is not circulating , except that stock and bond prices have barely budged , so it ’ s not going there .
They would have to change a lot in order to absorb so much money and remove it from circulation by keeping it in financial circles .
Plus buying stocks just makes the cash money someone else ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock asset , and the cash you traded for it sits until someone else figures out what to do with it .
I ’ m still trying to dig out what is happening ; but , as I say , I can ’ t find any reportage on it other than the data/graph that shows it happened .
I ’ ve put in an information request with the Fed to find out how they explain this large anomaly , and I ’ ll let you know if I hear anything useful back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it did nothing this week — nothing that lifted the market , no change of substance in any of its policies .
It did as I thought it would and continued to wait until the federal government does something because The knows but does not want to prove it can not move markets or the economy without the government ’ s muscle working alongside of it , just as I and ZH and Dudley have said .
So , it sat on its hands at the last two meetings , waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The market barely budged in response to Fed insignificant actions , but that is big response of its own .
Over the past decade , the market has been extremely attentive to the Fed and always slavering for more support .
The fact that it barely moved , closing almost flat with its opening , is yet another indicator the Fed is losing its mojo .
( Fed and feds when they apply their muscle synchronously , however , remain a strong force for the time being . )
Since the last update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on other Fed programs , but there is no explanation for the big shift in money supply in those numerous programs either : The Fed ’ s Special Purpose Vehicles are just idling on standby .
Five of them go out of existence at the end of the year thanks to US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , who says they are not needed anymore ( the PMCCF , SMCCF , MLF , MSLP , and TALF programs ) .
Fed corporate bond purchases are almost dead ( down in hundreds of millions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corporate bond ETFs have been out completely since July .
All Fed Repos have been cleared off the balance sheet — as in zilch .
That , too , happened back in July and has remained near zero since .
Central-bank liquidity swaps have drained to almost nothing .
Those exchanged liquid dollars to foreign central banks for their US treasuries .
They are down to less than $ 10 billion per month — small potatoes on the Fed ’ s multi-trillion-dollar balance sheet .
And , as shown in the graph above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t changed since its first expansion at the start of the pandemic ( $ 80 billions in US treasuries per month plus $ 40 billion in those dastardly mortgage-backed securities — a QE rate 50 % higher than QE3 ) .
In fact , I think it backed off on its MBS purchases .
The only change the Fed made in its December meeting this week was to clarify its present QE rate will continue until inflation hits and holds at the Fed ’ s target and the unemployment gets back down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also said that amount of QE could go up if needed , but that is not something the Fed sees happening unless the pandemic becomes much worse .
So , where has all the money gone ?
Looking over the Fed ’ s balance sheet , I could see no moves that cone close to that amount in those weeks .
Be vigilant for inflation because big shifts into money ’ s most liquid form can create huge inflation IF we wind up with too much money in the hands of actual consumers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods .
The cash is there , but where is there ?
I ’ m still looking for it .

by David Haggith
The following article comes with a surprising revelation — possibly an alarming revelation — at the end. Something big is happening at the Fed — the largest movement of “cash” in history. I don’t know what to make of it, because the Fed has been completely silent about it, and the mainstream financial press has missed it entirely. Crickets.
I published this article as a Patron Post exclusively for those who kindly support me at the $5 level or above before I knew anything about the big money moves that suddenly appeared in Fed data. I found those moves right after researching for this article. Because they prove the article’s theme, I added them after publication. (Patrons may want to make sure they’ve read the latest additions.)
Because these addenda may have great importance, given the scale of monetary change and the total quite on the Fed’s part about it, I promised all readers I’d share this article later with everyone for free and write another Patron Post just for patrons, but they got it days ahead of others because they support this site. I am, however, about helping as many people as possible, so here it is.
I’ve left the article below unchanged in substance, except for the updates at the end, but you’ll grasp the importance better if you don’t jump to the ending:
When I proclaimed last spring “The Fed is Dead,” I clarified, of course, that the Fed is dead in terms of its ability to single-handedly raise the stock market or the economy. In October, a former Fed head agreed:
While not nearly as provocative as his mid-2019 op-ed, in which former NY Fed president and Goldman partner Bill Dudley urged the Fed to crash the market to prevent a Trump re-election, which had the dramatic effect of a loud fart in a crowded room as countless “serious” pundits did everything they could to avoid discussing the fact that a former Fed official admitted that the central bank is i) more powerful than the president and ii) can arbitrarily manipulate markets at will … Bill Dudley took to his favorite media outlet … and in a Bloomberg op-ed … was forced to “explain” that the Fed is not bluffing when it begs Congress to inject trillions into the economy because – you see – after a decade of the Fed doing just that and enabling the terminal political dysfunction and polarity observed in US politics, the Fed no longer can do it. As Dudley puts it, while no “central bank wants to admit that it’s out of firepower… unfortunately, the U.S. Federal Reserve is very near that point. This means America’s future prosperity depends more than ever on the government’s spending plans — something the president and Congress must recognize.” Zero Hedge
That is exactly what I stated last spring when I was probably the first to starkly state “the Fed is dead” while everyone else continued to believe the Fed could still single-handedly lift stocks and stimulate the economy. A few months later, ZH joined me in laying out how dead the Fed was. Now, I’m joined by a former Fed head.
That is why we have, ever since, seen the Fed dithering about doing anything apart from a joint fiscal operation with the US government. Simply put, the Fed is not leaping at the opportunity to prove, as it demonstrated last March, that in can no longer lift the stock market in any sustainable way on its own.
After all, every time the US economy needed a quick sugar high, it was not Congress but the Fed that stepped in to inject trillions in liquidity, or cut rates, or both, and since this calmed markets, it remove all political incentive and desire to take the difficult and in most cases, unpopular political decisions that would have created a Congressional tradition of passing fiscal stimulus when the need arose, in the process helping the economy not the markets.
The path is now more difficult because the Fed must convince congress to take action by holding itself out of the game until congress does add its own force. This, we are seeing again, as the Fed remains aloof while congress now dithers over whether to pass another stimulus bill, same in size as the bailout bills that were first passed during the Great Recession.
As I noted from the start of the Fed’s efforts, over which I began this blog, and as ZH says it also noted back then …
While Dudley will never admit any of this, he at least concedes something else we have said for the past 11 years: by pulling demand from the future by cutting rates and injecting liquidity, the Fed has merely doomed the economy to even more pain in the future. Note – not the market, which is at all time highs – but the economy, as even Dudley admits. This is how Dudley hopes to convince Congress that after doing everything to push stocks up, even if it meant zero impact for the economy, it no longer can do even that:
Dudley states without equivocation,
There’s always something more that the Fed can do. It can push down longer-term interest rates by buying more Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, or by committing to keep buying for a longer period of time. It can…. But this misses a crucial point. Even if the Fed did more — much more — it would not provide much additional support to the economy.
David Stockman has also long said that for the next go-around, which is now this go-around, the Fed is out of dry powder. Dudley lays out why that is in specific detail:
Interest rates are already about as low as they can go, and financial conditions are extremely accommodative. Stock prices are high, investors are demanding very little added yield to take on credit risk, and a weak dollar is supporting U.S. exports. The rate on a 30-year mortgage stands at about 3%. If the Fed managed to push that down by another 0.5 percentage point, what difference would it make? Hardly any. The housing market is already doing very well.
Even Dudley now gets how doing all of that over the past ten years just pulled our future buying power forward so that we don’t have any buying power left now that we have hit a true crisis:
… the stimulus provided by lower interest rates inevitably wears off. Cutting interest rates boosts the economy by bringing future activity into the present: Easy money encourages people to buy houses and appliances now rather than later. But when the future arrives, that activity is missing. The only way to keep things going is to lower interest rates further — until, that is, they hit their lower bound, which in the U.S. is zero.
I always said the Fed would learn that lesson too late. That’s why I’ve written my blog all these years to keep making it clear that this could be seen coming for the day when it finally got here. My hope has been that the Fed won’t get away with saying, “No one could have seen this coming.”
Rather, everyone should have seen it coming. If you use up all your stimulus powder pulling future buying power into the present to goose the present even when you are claiming the economy is basically strong, you have no reserve capacity left when you really need it.
Dudley even states that it is now inevitable that future returns on stocks will be lower, not higher, because there is no push or pull left to get the prices up.
In other words, in a world in which stocks must rise every year to boost the net worth of the average (if not median) American, the Fed has set the seeds for the next market crash.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be some temporary goosing that gives the market a nudge up here or there by extraordinary means, but the economy will not rise to support such valuations for years, and the free money from the Fed to keep squeezing things upward along a climbing path is increasingly is not easily doable now that it requires getting Republicans and Democrats to agree on stimulus and has some serious downside effects at this point in the diminishing-returns curve, which I can lay out in very simple, easy-to-understand terms below.
In terms of the agreement problem, if Democrats take the senate in January, there could be one more partial year of successful goosing because the government will become unrestrained in adding its full fiscal muscle to all the Fed can do.
The problem with the diminishing-returns curve, however, was already laid in and is essentially now unsolvable because the Fed made sure the economy and stock market are both fully addicted to full-on Fed stimulus all the time, as even Dudly now says:
When interest rates stay low for long enough, the policy can even become counterproductive. In the U.S., monetary stimulus has already pushed bond and stock prices to such high levels that future returns will necessarily be lower…. As a result, people will have to save more to reach their objectives, be they a secure retirement or sending their kids to college. That leaves less money to spend.
Save? How do you do that when savings offer zero interest? You longer you save, the more you lose … just to inflation. The Fed has made certain of that; but now it is caught in a trap because, as I also noted this year, we are finally entering a time when inflation could go up.
For years, I’ve completely avoided saying inflation was any risk for the year on this blog, always maintaining inflation would go nowhere each. year because money was not circulating in the mainstream economy. This year, however, I moved off of that position because getting the government involved means finally pushing money into the hands of the masses where it can rapidly cause general inflation.
So long as the government only pushes enough mass money to replace what people are not making due to unemployment, inflation may not be a problem; but if they yield to the new realization of their powers too far in the present environment, it will quickly become a problem because COVID shuts down a lot of production and transportation and even retail, resulting in too much money chasing too few goods, which is the classic formula for high general inflation.
The alternative way of looking at that is that, if the Fed and government both realize this, the inflation problem curtails how much support they can and will give, which can leave the utterly dependent stock market flailing and the economy stuck in the mire. In that case, you get moderate stagflation as the government tries not to spin the tires while powering through the mud, getting occasional tire spin (which is the inflation-no-growth part).
Dudley seems to recognize that his savings plan cannot possibly work because the Fed has cut itself off for good from the option to return to taking interest rates where they need to be in order to keep ahead of inflation:
Low returns will eventually take a toll. State and local pension funds, for example, will fall even shorter of what’s need [sic.] to cover their obligations. To make up the difference, officials will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits for pensioners. Either action will leave people poorer, depressing consumer spending and economic growth.
This brings us into exactly the catch-22 situation I’ve said throughout writing my blog the Fed’s solution to the Great Recession would lead to. I’ve noted from the outset, the Fed’s Great Recovery program was an “unsustainable” program, so it ultimately does not lead to real recovery, but only to eternal dependence.
You cannot lower interest rates forever; but the catch-22 is that, once you create an economy that is dependent on low interest because raising interest will crash businesses and individuals under all the debt your years of low interest enticed them into, then you have to keep going with low interest. You have to starve savers who need to save because low interest no longer is enough even to support overinflated stock prices. The Fed, I always said, was boxing itself (and the nation and the world with it) into a corner.
With that, Dudley (as I predicted last spring you would find to be the case) cries out to congress to supply the additional fire power necessary to sustain this Ponzi scheme a little longer:
What to do? No doubt, Fed officials should still commit to using all their tools to the fullest. But they should also make it abundantly clear that monetary policy can provide only limited additional support to the economy. It’s up to legislators and the White House to give the economy what it needs — and right now, that means considerably greater fiscal stimulus.
Therefore, as the Fed sits this week to decide what on earth to do, you can expect its actions, besides holding the present line of continued support forever, will be something that comes in cooperation with federal government support. With the additional muscle of nearly a trillion dollars in government support being co-concidered this week, the joint action of Fed and feds can move the market again if they can get to the point of cooperating, which I think they will realize they must do.
Without that combined force, any Fed action is likely to effect only a brief market bump, and then the next big market move will most likely be the Santa Claws plunge that claws back the November rally and the bump. With joint action, Santa may be all cherry-nosed one more time.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
We are past the days when the Fed can move mountains on its own and achieve anything more than a reflexive bump — if that. That is the new paradigm to understand — the new financial environment for which the groundwork was laid throughout the Great Recovery.
UPDATE 1: Something is seriously wrong at the Fed. Do you want some SOLID PROOF of just HOW DEAD THE FED IS?
HERE IT IS:
The Fed and/or its members banks MASSIVELY increased cash money supply (M1) in the last two weeks of November, and you probably didn’t even know it happened! No one even noticed. And what did stocks do? They essentially held flat along the same ceiling throughout the time of this monetary mainlining.
Expanding that graph out, it looks like this with the last two weeks being the final almost-straight leap at the end, steeper than ever seen:
That is a massive amount of new cash money — historically massive — done almost covertly in the quickest burst ever — and yet it did not even cause the stock market to blink! The value of the dollar barely changed its slow decent (so far), and bonds barely budged.
Here is what the US stock market did from the time when M1 money supply skyrocketed:
You’ve seen graphs of the Fed’s increase in its balance sheet over the years with its huge jolts of QE. The graph above (and especially the one below) of actual M1 money supply are a little different. They show how little all of that QE actually impacted total “cash” money (M1 money supply) — the stuff that actually circulates on Main Street and in your home — over those same years. You see only a steady rise, no big jolts from QE.
That, as I pointed out all along the way, was because much of the Fed’s new money creation was locked in reserves or just circulated in financial assets. Because it never moved into the general economy it created no inflation.
All of that changed with COVID. The government finally stepped in because the Fed was unable to accomplish anything for weeks in March, as the article I referenced in my lead laid out. With the government finally joining in, M1 (cash) money supply skyrocketed (the first big surge in the graphs above) because the government put the money directly into consumer’s pockets and into business payrolls. Still no inflation because they were mostly making up for money lost due to unemployment.
The graphs, however, make it clear why inflation under the new regime could become a much more serious problem than the limp moves seen over all the years of the Great Recovery, the difference being how fast the Fed’s QE is now converting into cash (which means coins, bills, checking accounts and other demand deposits that can be immediately spent) — the most liquid form of money:
You can see the balance sheet over that same time period (the differences made by QE) and can see no big difference has happened in the last month:
Why have stocks not skyrocketed during this latest huge cash expansion? It may in part be because the federal government has not yet joined the Fed in the stimulus effort as it did when it added its muscle to the shover earlier in the year when stocks soared. All market eyes are on what the government is going to do this week, proof the Fed is now impotent in the stock market, until the government adds its muscle.
More importantly, why did such an enormous surge in money supply happen in the last two weeks of November with no financial articles being written about it and no statements from the Fed about it? What is going on behind the scenes at the Fed and/or US treasury right now?
It’s a little bit alarming in that it looks like something serious is breaking down behind the scenes. Maybe it is just due to the Fed implementing policy approved last spring with funds that remained unspent, but it all happened without a sound. The Fed’s policy notice subsequent to its November meeting contains no explanation, and the Fed likes to claim transparency.
The Fed did not increase QE or cut interest rates at its November meeting. Powell mentioned no policy changes at all in his presser. Yet, the burst in “cash” money supply after that meeting is unprecedented. Such a big rise in M1 without any increase in QE or cut in interest rates would indicate existing less-liquid money was suddenly turned into cash, but M2 didn’t change much.
Was cash jolt for emergency reasons? The Fed completely eliminated reserve requirements back in March as a COVID response, allowing banks to use reserves at will for emergency cash management, which is why the Fed requires banks hold reserves … so they can be deployed during dire times. (See: “Federal Reserve Eliminates Reserve Requirements.”) So, my first thought was that banks suddenly had have a massive need for emergency cash and moved money from reserves into circulation, but the Fed’s graphs indicate reserves plunged earlier in the year when the reserve ratio was eliminated, but that they have started recovering since then:
I’ve consulted economic discussions to see if I can find anything about this rapid increase in M1, and I have written to other financial writers, but I have found nothing but guesses. I did glean, though, that the M1 money supply shot up without the velocity of money rising. That, too, is a bit odd, but it indicates the money is being parked away somewhere where it is not circulating, except that stock and bond prices have barely budged, so it’s not going there. They would have to change a lot in order to absorb so much money and remove it from circulation by keeping it in financial circles. Plus buying stocks just makes the cash money someone else’s cash as you take the less liquid stock asset, and the cash you traded for it sits until someone else figures out what to do with it.
I’m still trying to dig out what is happening; but, as I say, I can’t find any reportage on it other than the data/graph that shows it happened. I’ve put in an information request with the Fed to find out how they explain this large anomaly, and I’ll let you know if I hear anything useful back.
UPDATE 2: The Fed has spoken, and it did nothing this week — nothing that lifted the market, no change of substance in any of its policies. It did as I thought it would and continued to wait until the federal government does something because The knows but does not want to prove it cannot move markets or the economy without the government’s muscle working alongside of it, just as I and ZH and Dudley have said. So, it sat on its hands at the last two meetings, waiting for the feds to join it.
The market barely budged in response to Fed insignificant actions, but that is big response of its own. Over the past decade, the market has been extremely attentive to the Fed and always slavering for more support. The fact that it barely moved, closing almost flat with its opening, is yet another indicator the Fed is losing its mojo. (Fed and feds when they apply their muscle synchronously, however, remain a strong force for the time being.)
Since the last update, I’ve done more research on other Fed programs, but there is no explanation for the big shift in money supply in those numerous programs either:
The Fed’s Special Purpose Vehicles are just idling on standby. Five of them go out of existence at the end of the year thanks to US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who says they are not needed anymore (the PMCCF, SMCCF, MLF, MSLP, and TALF programs).
Fed corporate bond purchases are almost dead (down in hundreds of millions, nowhere near even one billion). Corporate bond ETFs have been out completely since July.
All Fed Repos have been cleared off the balance sheet — as in zilch. That, too, happened back in July and has remained near zero since.
Central-bank liquidity swaps have drained to almost nothing. Those exchanged liquid dollars to foreign central banks for their US treasuries. They are down to less than $10 billion per month — small potatoes on the Fed’s multi-trillion-dollar balance sheet.
And, as shown in the graph above, the rate of QE hasn’t changed since its first expansion at the start of the pandemic ($80 billions in US treasuries per month plus $40 billion in those dastardly mortgage-backed securities — a QE rate 50% higher than QE3). In fact, I think it backed off on its MBS purchases. The only change the Fed made in its December meeting this week was to clarify its present QE rate will continue until inflation hits and holds at the Fed’s target and the unemployment gets back down to where the Fed wants it. It also said that amount of QE could go up if needed, but that is not something the Fed sees happening unless the pandemic becomes much worse.
So, where has all the money gone? Looking over the Fed’s balance sheet, I could see no moves that cone close to that amount in those weeks. Be vigilant for inflation because big shifts into money’s most liquid form can create huge inflation IF we wind up with too much money in the hands of actual consumers or business operating accounts chasing too few goods. The cash is there, but where is there? I’m still looking for it.


investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--Billionaire Investor Thomas Kaplan: “Gold Prices to Move ‘Way Past’ All-Time Highs”

This week , Your News to Know rounds up the latest top stories involving gold and the overall economy .
Stories include : Billionaire investor sees gold blazing far past August ’ s high , gold is scheduled for a re-run in 2021 , and hoard of medieval gold coins unearthed in an English back yard .
Gold ’ s new all-time high is just the start , says billionaire investor The bull run in gold that saw the metal blaze to a new all-time high of $ 2,071 in August might have , at first glance , been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure , the prevalent uncertainty and the multi-trillion dollar stimulus dump did their part in elevating prices above the previous high set in 2011 .
In an interview with Kitco , billionaire Thomas Kaplan explained why gold is really in a prolonged bull market that started in the early 2000s .
Kaplan , who did his doctoral dissertation on commodity supply and demand , said that gold is currently in the third wave of a decades-long uptrend .
The first wave launched gold from $ 250 to $ 900 , with the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1,900 range .
And , as has often been pointed out by careful observers , gold was already on a bull run and had reached $ 1,800 before the pandemic .
The pandemic , however , has caused both investors and the average citizen to re-evaluate what money really is .
Kaplan points out that a trillion dollars , which seemed nearly unfathomable just a few years back , now appears to have become “ the new billion ” in a staggering display of paper-money inflation .
While not exactly good for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ongoing struggles when it comes to production , adding that new ore is not only increasingly difficult to find but also of a lesser quality .
“ If Barrick is right , and [ gold ] production is declining by about 5 % a year , for a number of years forward , we really are reaching a perfect storm , ” said Kaplan , who also expects silver to rise along with gold and possibly climb to as high as $ 100 .
Plausible ?
Keep in mind Kaplan correctly predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Recession .
Industry experts are bracing for more bullish gold price action in 2021 Progress towards developing a vaccine in the U.S. may have given the stock markets some respite over the past few weeks , but question marks and red flags across the board are indicating another outperforming year for gold .
Sprott CEO Peter Grosskopf and former U.S. Mint director Ed Moy are two industry experts who expect gold to continue its 2020 gains into 2021 , as tailwinds haven ’ t changed .
Grosskopf ranks pandemic concerns at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold ’ s drivers , below soaring and unsustainable debt in major economies and a historic expansion of money supply .
These factors are likely to remain just as prominent in the coming year , paired with the now well-established environment of low to negative interest rates and a weakening U.S. dollar .
Moy believes that doubts surrounding the effectiveness of vaccine treatments and the strength of the economic recovery are poised to place gold on a strong upwards trajectory for several years to come .
Market participants will also pay close attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the inflation rate and how badly the national debt will affect government expenditure .
According to Grosskopf , a Joe Biden presidency could also shape up to be a major positive development for gold prices , as another bout of monetary stimulus is one of Biden ’ s primary goals .
In addition , his administration will have to tackle the issues of massive trade and budget deficits .
English family uncovers a stash of antique gold and silver coins in their garden During a regular gardening operation , a family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , England uncovered a large and somewhat peculiar stash of 63 gold coins and one silver coin minted during various periods between the 15th and 16th centuries .
The family reached out to the British Museum to report the discovery and hopefully find out more about the origins and purpose of the hoard .
In a statement issued on December 10 , the British Museum said that the coins depict different monarchs from Edward IV to Henry VIII and were most likely buried in the 1540s , King Henry VIII ’ s reign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford , expanded upon the find .
To Naylor , that four of the coins feature initials from three of Henry VIII ’ s wives ( Catherine of Aragon , Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour ) stands out as an oddity .
Most of the coins are “ angels , ” the workaday gold piece of the late medieval period , which feature an image of the archangel Michael killing a dragon ( as described in the Book of Revelation ) .
While the coins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to be placed on auction today , the value of the stash is nonetheless conspicuously high and offers some clues as to the owner .
Barrie Cook , a curator of medieval and early modern coins at the British Museum , revealed that the entirety of the hoard would be worth around £24 ( $ 32 ) at the time ( or the equivalent of $ 18,600 today ) , significantly above the annual wage during Tudor times .
Naylor hypothesizes that the hoard might have belonged to a member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create such stashes as a method of wealth preservation .
Both Naylor and the British Museum mentioned the importance of the find , with the museum stating that a representative in Milton Keynes is currently trying to find the coin ’ s owners .
Milton Keynes is notable for a similar recent find , where 50 South African 1 oz gold krugerrands from the 1970s were likewise found in an area just outside of London .
Although such finds are incredibly rare , if you ’ re planning a visit to Milton Keynes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring a metal detector .

From Birch Gold Group
This week, Your News to Know rounds up the latest top stories involving gold and the overall economy. Stories include: Billionaire investor sees gold blazing far past August’s high, gold is scheduled for a re-run in 2021, and hoard of medieval gold coins unearthed in an English back yard.
Gold’s new all-time high is just the start, says billionaire investor
The bull run in gold that saw the metal blaze to a new all-time high of $2,071 in August might have, at first glance, been a result of the pandemic. To be sure, the prevalent uncertainty and the multi-trillion dollar stimulus dump did their part in elevating prices above the previous high set in 2011. In an interview with Kitco, billionaire Thomas Kaplan explained why gold is really in a prolonged bull market that started in the early 2000s.
Kaplan, who did his doctoral dissertation on commodity supply and demand, said that gold is currently in the third wave of a decades-long uptrend. The first wave launched gold from $250 to $900, with the second wave pulling gold towards the $1,200-$1,900 range. And, as has often been pointed out by careful observers, gold was already on a bull run and had reached $1,800 before the pandemic.
The pandemic, however, has caused both investors and the average citizen to re-evaluate what money really is. Kaplan points out that a trillion dollars, which seemed nearly unfathomable just a few years back, now appears to have become “the new billion” in a staggering display of paper-money inflation. While not exactly good for the mining industry, Kaplan also highlighted the ongoing struggles when it comes to production, adding that new ore is not only increasingly difficult to find but also of a lesser quality.
“If Barrick is right, and [gold] production is declining by about 5% a year, for a number of years forward, we really are reaching a perfect storm,” said Kaplan, who also expects silver to rise along with gold and possibly climb to as high as $100.
Plausible? Keep in mind Kaplan correctly predicted the steep rise in gold price following the Great Recession.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Industry experts are bracing for more bullish gold price action in 2021
Progress towards developing a vaccine in the U.S. may have given the stock markets some respite over the past few weeks, but question marks and red flags across the board are indicating another outperforming year for gold. Sprott CEO Peter Grosskopf and former U.S. Mint director Ed Moy are two industry experts who expect gold to continue its 2020 gains into 2021, as tailwinds haven’t changed.
Grosskopf ranks pandemic concerns at only third place on the list of gold’s drivers, below soaring and unsustainable debt in major economies and a historic expansion of money supply. These factors are likely to remain just as prominent in the coming year, paired with the now well-established environment of low to negative interest rates and a weakening U.S. dollar.
Moy believes that doubts surrounding the effectiveness of vaccine treatments and the strength of the economic recovery are poised to place gold on a strong upwards trajectory for several years to come. Market participants will also pay close attention to the Federal Reserve’s actions, including the inflation rate and how badly the national debt will affect government expenditure.
According to Grosskopf, a Joe Biden presidency could also shape up to be a major positive development for gold prices, as another bout of monetary stimulus is one of Biden’s primary goals. In addition, his administration will have to tackle the issues of massive trade and budget deficits.
English family uncovers a stash of antique gold and silver coins in their garden
During a regular gardening operation, a family in the New Forest district of Hampshire, England uncovered a large and somewhat peculiar stash of 63 gold coins and one silver coin minted during various periods between the 15th and 16th centuries. The family reached out to the British Museum to report the discovery and hopefully find out more about the origins and purpose of the hoard.
In a statement issued on December 10, the British Museum said that the coins depict different monarchs from Edward IV to Henry VIII and were most likely buried in the 1540s, King Henry VIII’s reign. John Naylor, a coin expert from the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford, expanded upon the find. To Naylor, that four of the coins feature initials from three of Henry VIII’s wives (Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour) stands out as an oddity. Most of the coins are “angels,” the workaday gold piece of the late medieval period, which feature an image of the archangel Michael killing a dragon (as described in the Book of Revelation).
While the coins would fetch an extraordinary price if they were to be placed on auction today, the value of the stash is nonetheless conspicuously high and offers some clues as to the owner. Barrie Cook, a curator of medieval and early modern coins at the British Museum, revealed that the entirety of the hoard would be worth around £24 ($32) at the time (or the equivalent of $18,600 today), significantly above the annual wage during Tudor times. Naylor hypothesizes that the hoard might have belonged to a member of the clergy, as churches were known to create such stashes as a method of wealth preservation.
Both Naylor and the British Museum mentioned the importance of the find, with the museum stating that a representative in Milton Keynes is currently trying to find the coin’s owners. Milton Keynes is notable for a similar recent find, where 50 South African 1 oz gold krugerrands from the 1970s were likewise found in an area just outside of London. Although such finds are incredibly rare, if you’re planning a visit to Milton Keynes, England, you might want to bring a metal detector.


investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--Tracking COVID-19 Vaccines Around the World

In November 2020 , the world received the exciting news that the first COVID-19 vaccines were ready for roll out—and as of now , nearly 7.25 billion doses have been pre-purchased by countries and organizations around the globe .
Today ’ s visualizations highlight the number of vaccine doses that different countries have purchased , as well as the companies and organizations that have pre-sold them .
The data has been collected via the Launch and Scale Speedometer at the Duke Global Health Innovation Center with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation .
Although high income countries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , India has ordered 1.5 billion—more than any other individual country .
The U.S. , in comparison , has pre-purchased 1.01 billion doses , and although this number is less than the amount India has purchased , the U.S. has around 330 million people compared to India ’ s burgeoning 1.3 billion citizens .
*COVAX is a global initiative to provide equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines Without the purchasing power of high income countries , low and middle income countries must leverage other means to acquire COVID-19 vaccines , like volunteering to host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as was done in Peru .
India ’ s ability to purchase so many doses has come out of manufacturing agreements with vaccine producers .
As a percentage of total doses sold , high income countries have bought almost 54 % , equating to 4 billion doses .
Meanwhile , low and middle income countries have purchased just over 23 % .
Notably , Canada has reserved the highest number of doses per person compared to any other country , having ordered over 350 million vaccinations for a population of just over 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per person .
There are currently over 200 vaccine candidates being developed and tested at breakneck speed .
However , one important aspect to note is that not all of the vaccine candidates that are being pre-sold will pass the testing stage .
The Oxford University vaccine is the most popular so far , with over 2.5 billion doses sold .
The academic institution , together with AstraZeneca , is doling out 500 million vaccines each to India and the U.S. , as well as 400 million to the European Union .
Novavax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines , has pre-sold 1.3 billion doses .
So far , the early birds Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have pre-sold 10 % and 6 % of the total vaccine doses being manufactured respectively .
In terms of pricing , Pfizer-BioNTech , for example , is selling their vaccines at $ 19.50 per dosage .
With the current number of doses already sold by Pfizer-BioNTech , that amounts to a current revenue of over $ 13 billion .
Without COVID-19 vaccines , health and safety measures such as social distancing and self-isolation would likely stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Looking beyond which countries receive the vaccines first , the World Health Organization has created a road map detailing which individuals should be prioritized , with a focus on frontline healthcare workers and the elderly .
A future where life is somewhat back to normal is on the horizon , but some countries are set to get there faster than others .

by visualcapitalist
In November 2020, the world received the exciting news that the first COVID-19 vaccines were ready for roll out—and as of now, nearly 7.25 billion doses have been pre-purchased by countries and organizations around the globe.
Today’s visualizations highlight the number of vaccine doses that different countries have purchased, as well as the companies and organizations that have pre-sold them.
The data has been collected via the Launch and Scale Speedometer at the Duke Global Health Innovation Center with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Breaking Down COVID-19 Vaccines by Country
Although high income countries are currently buying the larger shares of doses, India has ordered 1.5 billion—more than any other individual country.
The U.S., in comparison, has pre-purchased 1.01 billion doses, and although this number is less than the amount India has purchased, the U.S. has around 330 million people compared to India’s burgeoning 1.3 billion citizens.
Search: Country or Region COVID-19 Vaccine Doses % Global Share European Union 🇪🇺 1,585,000,000 21.87% India 🇮🇳 1,500,000,000 20.69% USA 🇺🇸 1,010,000,000 13.93% COVAX* 🌐 700,000,000 9.66% Canada 🇨🇦 358,000,000 4.94% UK 🇬🇧 357,000,000 4.92% Indonesia 🇮🇩 338,000,000 4.66% Japan 🇯🇵 290,000,000 4.00% Brazil 🇧🇷 196,000,000 2.70% Global Total (as of Dec 11) 7,248,900,075 100.00% Previous Next
*COVAX is a global initiative to provide equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines
Without the purchasing power of high income countries, low and middle income countries must leverage other means to acquire COVID-19 vaccines, like volunteering to host clinical trials in exchange for doses, as was done in Peru. India’s ability to purchase so many doses has come out of manufacturing agreements with vaccine producers.
As a percentage of total doses sold, high income countries have bought almost 54%, equating to 4 billion doses. Meanwhile, low and middle income countries have purchased just over 23%.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Notably, Canada has reserved the highest number of doses per person compared to any other country, having ordered over 350 million vaccinations for a population of just over 38 million people, equating to nine doses per person.
The Business of COVID-19 Vaccines
There are currently over 200 vaccine candidates being developed and tested at breakneck speed. However, one important aspect to note is that not all of the vaccine candidates that are being pre-sold will pass the testing stage.
The Oxford University vaccine is the most popular so far, with over 2.5 billion doses sold. The academic institution, together with AstraZeneca, is doling out 500 million vaccines each to India and the U.S., as well as 400 million to the European Union.
Novavax, the second highest seller of COVID-19 vaccines, has pre-sold 1.3 billion doses. So far, the early birds Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have pre-sold 10% and 6% of the total vaccine doses being manufactured respectively.
In terms of pricing, Pfizer-BioNTech, for example, is selling their vaccines at $19.50 per dosage. With the current number of doses already sold by Pfizer-BioNTech, that amounts to a current revenue of over $13 billion.
The Way Forward
Without COVID-19 vaccines, health and safety measures such as social distancing and self-isolation would likely stay in place for the foreseeable future.
Looking beyond which countries receive the vaccines first, the World Health Organization has created a road map detailing which individuals should be prioritized, with a focus on frontline healthcare workers and the elderly.
A future where life is somewhat back to normal is on the horizon, but some countries are set to get there faster than others.


investmentwatchblog--2020-12-19--How U.S. Government Paid-Off Its Super-Rich In Order to Pass Its Coronavirus-Relief Laws

On December 14th , two excellent news-reports were belatedly published about some of the massive corruption that was behind the initial U.S. federal coronavirus-relief law , the CARES Act , and about U.S .
Senators of both Parties now intending to include such corruption in the next one .
( NOTE : This present news-report may be viewed as a confirmation , and a further explanation , of what I was predicting in my article on April 22nd , “ Why Post-Coronavirus America Will Have Massive Poverty ” .
What that was predicting is being confirmed in the two recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At around the start of the coronavirus-epidemic , the Texas state government had announced , on 24 January 2020 , that “ Our workforce continues to grow and is now 14,188,100 Texans strong ” , and this means that the CARES Act ’ s breaking-of-precedent ( “ the first time federal lawmakers allowed for direct financial assistance to houses of worship ” ) was helping to retain employment for one two-hundred-and-fortieth of employed Texans , and therefore it couldn ’ t even possibly have produced any significant impact upon the rate of unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-election chances of public officials in Texas , by its purchasing from Texas ’ s preachers ( who have lots of political clout in that state ) a more favorable attitude toward those incumbent governmental office-holders , who had provided this largesse , upon their special interest .
Downen ’ s article also listed 16 Texas corporations ( such as “ Percheron Holdings LLC ” ) which had been given federal loans of at least $ 10,000,000 each ; and , so , the federal Government ’ s largesse wasn ’ t only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious organizations .
However , if the actual intention of the CARES Act had been to help workers instead of to help their bosses , then nothing would have been funneled through the corporation down to its workers , but everything would instead have been paid directly to each individual worker , and any corporation that was suffering losses during the epidemic could separately have applied to the U.S. Small Business Administration after-the-fact , for loan-assistance , in order for that corporation ( or church , or etc . )
to be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise would have gone bust .
In other words : all CARES-Act monies that went to corporations were funneling their benefits to workers by way of and through their employers , and thus were really political pay-offs to the richest , in order for political incumbents to be able to retain their seats as governmental officials .
A ‘ democracy ’ like this is actually a kleptocracy .
And that news-report in the Houston Chronicle appeared only after the 2020 ‘ election ’ , not before it .
So : it was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November ‘ elections ’ .
Also on December 14th , the great investigative journalist David Sirota ’ s blog headlined “ SCOOP : Stimulus Bill Bails Out Defense Contractors , Denies Direct Payments to Families ” and reported that , “ Buried in the new 525-page stimulus bill is a provision granting military contractors benefits that are being denied to workers and small businesses across the country.
” He and his reporter Julia Rock opened by noting that , “ Earlier this year , Republican senators slammed the idea of spending money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Only a few months later , a group of GOP senators has signed onto stimulus legislation that would authorize the government to pay idle defense contractors to not work , even as those contractors rack up big profits during the pandemic .
Meanwhile , the same bill excludes bipartisan provisions authorizing direct payments to millions of Americans struggling to survive.
” They reported that Democratic Party leaders in Congress ( especially West Virginia ’ s U.S .
Senator Joe Manchin ) were quietly working in the background in order to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , and were no less corrupt than their bolder Republican colleagues were in in whoring themselves to ‘ defense ’ contractors — the “ Military-Industrial Complex ” or “ MIC , ” which basically writes America ’ s international sanctions , and other U.S. foreign policies , so as to maximize the global sales of U.S.-made military weaponry .
Washington Post and the New York Times and CNN and Fox and ABC and CBS and NBC and The Atlantic — all of which are owned and controlled by America ’ s fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they never yet have done ) to make a public issue out of the real issue here , which is the question of whether or not funneling public benefits through employers constitutes anything else than the corruption of any democracy and the installation of an aristocracy of the super-rich replacing that democracy of the people by a dictatorship of the aristocrats .
This is a fundamental issue , and it is always being simply avoided , banned to publish .
( In fact , a recent law-review article , which was titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those “ flaws ” in it .
Academia is , itself , often either grossly incompetent , or else part of the corruption , and therefore it should be viewed as being part of the ‘ news ’ -media , itself — in other words : propaganda . )
All of this news is “ belated , ” however , unless the major American ‘ news ’ -media , such as theand theand CNN and Fox and ABC and CBS and NBC and— all of which are owned and controlled by America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide ( which they never yet have done ) to make a public issue out of the real issue here , which is the question of whether or not funneling public benefits through employers constitutes anything else than the corruption of any democracy and the installation of an aristocracy of the super-rich replacing that democracy of the people by a dictatorship of the aristocrats .
This is a fundamental issue , and it is always being simply avoided , banned to publish .
( In fact , a recent law-review article , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Myth of the Paycheck Protection Program ” , actually defended what had happened by saying that that program , which is commonly acronymed “ PPP , ” had been sold to the public as being intended to protect workers in small businesses , but never was intended to do that .
This article claimed that “ The misinformed condemnation of large companies obscured the fact that Congress had designed a flawed program with limited ability to help small businesses.
” But it wasn ’ t ‘ misinformed ’ , and these weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , lobbyists for huge corporations had heavily lobbied and paid Representatives and Senators to lard the entire CARES Act with huge give-aways to large corporations and to the investors in those corporations ; and , as a result , Wall Street boomed even while unemployment soared .
“ Congress had designed a flawed program ” they were beingtothose “ flaws ” in it .
Academia is , , often either grossly incompetent , or elsethe corruption , and therefore it should be viewed as being part of the ‘ news ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : propaganda . )
Perhaps all of America ’ s ‘ news ’ -media ought to be nationalized and donated to a public trust which is headed by a board of directors which consists of 100 certifiably low-income Americans who are otherwise ( than their being in the lowest-wealth category ) selected randomly from the general population , and who will , then , in turn , select and fire the top officials of all of the nation ’ s largest twenty media corporations , so as to make the news-media accurately inform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue deceiving the public in the ways that the super-rich — both liberal and conservative — collectively want the public to be deceived .
Maybe that would do it .
Maybe that would restore democracy , to the United States of America .
Democracy is impossible without there being an accurately informed public .
And , in the U.S. , the public is instead systematically deceived , so as to hide from them what the billionaires of both of the nation ’ s political Parties want the public not to know , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be a democracy .
In an aristocracy , everything is just a racket .
Even a covid-19 relief bill is .

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture
On December 14th, two excellent news-reports were belatedly published about some of the massive corruption that was behind the initial U.S. federal coronavirus-relief law, the CARES Act, and about U.S. Senators of both Parties now intending to include such corruption in the next one. (NOTE: This present news-report may be viewed as a confirmation, and a further explanation, of what I was predicting in my article on April 22nd, “Why Post-Coronavirus America Will Have Massive Poverty” . What that was predicting is being confirmed in the two recent news-reports that are cited here.)
Houston Chronicle on December 14th, Chronicle reported in July.” Regarding the CARES Act, J. Robert Downen headlined in theon December 14th, “Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church got $4.4 million in federal PPP loans” , and he reported that “Lakewood received a $4.4 million loan through the Paycheck Protection Program, a part of the federal CARES Act that provided loans to pay employee wages or for other basic operational costs such as utilities. The program marked the first time federal lawmakers allowed for direct financial assistance to houses of worship. … More than 1,000 religious groups in Texas received hundreds of millions of dollars to retain a combined 59,000 jobs, thereported in July.”
At around the start of the coronavirus-epidemic, the Texas state government had announced, on 24 January 2020, that “Our workforce continues to grow and is now 14,188,100 Texans strong” , and this means that the CARES Act’s breaking-of-precedent (“the first time federal lawmakers allowed for direct financial assistance to houses of worship”) was helping to retain employment for one two-hundred-and-fortieth of employed Texans, and therefore it couldn’t even possibly have produced any significant impact upon the rate of unemployment in Texas, but only improved the re-election chances of public officials in Texas, by its purchasing from Texas’s preachers (who have lots of political clout in that state) a more favorable attitude toward those incumbent governmental office-holders, who had provided this largesse, upon their special interest.
Downen’s article also listed 16 Texas corporations (such as “Percheron Holdings LLC”) which had been given federal loans of at least $10,000,000 each; and, so, the federal Government’s largesse wasn’t only to ‘non-profits’, nor to religious organizations.
However, if the actual intention of the CARES Act had been to help workers instead of to help their bosses, then nothing would have been funneled through the corporation down to its workers, but everything would instead have been paid directly to each individual worker, and any corporation that was suffering losses during the epidemic could separately have applied to the U.S. Small Business Administration after-the-fact, for loan-assistance, in order for that corporation (or church, or etc.) to be able to stay in business, if they otherwise would have gone bust.
In other words: all CARES-Act monies that went to corporations were funneling their benefits to workers by way of and through their employers, and thus were really political pay-offs to the richest, in order for political incumbents to be able to retain their seats as governmental officials. A ‘democracy’ like this is actually a kleptocracy. And that news-report in the Houston Chronicle appeared only after the 2020 ‘election’, not before it. So: it was no help to voters in preparation for the November ‘elections’.
Also on December 14th, the great investigative journalist David Sirota’s blog headlined “SCOOP: Stimulus Bill Bails Out Defense Contractors, Denies Direct Payments to Families” and reported that, “Buried in the new 525-page stimulus bill is a provision granting military contractors benefits that are being denied to workers and small businesses across the country.” He and his reporter Julia Rock opened by noting that, “Earlier this year, Republican senators slammed the idea of spending money to pay Americans not to work during the pandemic. Only a few months later, a group of GOP senators has signed onto stimulus legislation that would authorize the government to pay idle defense contractors to not work, even as those contractors rack up big profits during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the same bill excludes bipartisan provisions authorizing direct payments to millions of Americans struggling to survive.” They reported that Democratic Party leaders in Congress (especially West Virginia’s U.S. Senator Joe Manchin) were quietly working in the background in order to be able to pass this new corruption into law, and were no less corrupt than their bolder Republican colleagues were in in whoring themselves to ‘defense’ contractors — the “Military-Industrial Complex” or “MIC,” which basically writes America’s international sanctions, and other U.S. foreign policies, so as to maximize the global sales of U.S.-made military weaponry.
Washington Post and the New York Times and CNN and Fox and ABC and CBS and NBC and The Atlantic — all of which are owned and controlled by America’s fewer than 1,000 billionaires — will decide (which they never yet have done) to make a public issue out of the real issue here, which is the question of whether or not funneling public benefits through employers constitutes anything else than the corruption of any democracy and the installation of an aristocracy of the super-rich replacing that democracy of the people by a dictatorship of the aristocrats. This is a fundamental issue, and it is always being simply avoided, banned to publish. (In fact, a recent law-review article, which was titled because they were being paid to produce those “flaws” in it. Academia is, itself, often either grossly incompetent, or else part of the corruption, and therefore it should be viewed as being part of the ‘news’-media, itself — in other words: propaganda.) All of this news is “belated,” however, unless the major American ‘news’-media, such as theand theand CNN and Fox and ABC and CBS and NBC and— all of which are owned and controlled by America’s fewer than 1,000 billionaires — will decide (which they never yet have done) to make a public issue out of the real issue here, which is the question of whether or not funneling public benefits through employers constitutes anything else than the corruption of any democracy and the installation of an aristocracy of the super-rich replacing that democracy of the people by a dictatorship of the aristocrats. This is a fundamental issue, and it is always being simply avoided, banned to publish. (In fact, a recent law-review article, which was titled “The ‘Small Business’ Myth of the Paycheck Protection Program” , actually defended what had happened by saying that that program, which is commonly acronymed “PPP,” had been sold to the public as being intended to protect workers in small businesses, but never was intended to do that. This article claimed that “The misinformed condemnation of large companies obscured the fact that Congress had designed a flawed program with limited ability to help small businesses.” But it wasn’t ‘misinformed’, and these weren’t merely ‘flaws’. In fact, lobbyists for huge corporations had heavily lobbied and paid Representatives and Senators to lard the entire CARES Act with huge give-aways to large corporations and to the investors in those corporations ; and, as a result, Wall Street boomed even while unemployment soared. “Congress had designed a flawed program”they were beingtothose “flaws” in it. Academia is,, often either grossly incompetent, or elsethe corruption, and therefore it should be viewed as being part of the ‘news’-media, itself — in other words: propaganda.)
Perhaps all of America’s ‘news’-media ought to be nationalized and donated to a public trust which is headed by a board of directors which consists of 100 certifiably low-income Americans who are otherwise (than their being in the lowest-wealth category) selected randomly from the general population, and who will, then, in turn, select and fire the top officials of all of the nation’s largest twenty media corporations, so as to make the news-media accurately inform the general public, instead of to continue deceiving the public in the ways that the super-rich — both liberal and conservative — collectively want the public to be deceived. Maybe that would do it. Maybe that would restore democracy, to the United States of America. Democracy is impossible without there being an accurately informed public. And, in the U.S., the public is instead systematically deceived, so as to hide from them what the billionaires of both of the nation’s political Parties want the public not to know, or not to understand. That can’t be a democracy.
In an aristocracy, everything is just a racket. Even a covid-19 relief bill is.
—————