Thursday, January 21, 2016

World facing ‘wave of epic debt defaults,’ says economist who predicted Lehman crash

© Reuters
The financial situation in the world has become so unstable that a new wave of defaults and bankruptcies will soon emerge, says William White, the chairman of the OECD's review committee and former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
"The situation is worse than it was in 2007. Our macroeconomic ammunition to fight downturns is essentially all used up," the economist told the Telegraph newspaper before the World Economic Forum in Davos.
White is one of a few bankers who warned about the rising crisis in the Western financial system before the financial crash eight years ago.
Nobel laureate in economics Robert Shiller : US financial bubble ready to burst http://on.rt.com/6r9b 

Banks admit to $1 TRILLION in “non-performing” loans; must be re-capitalized using depositor money thru bail-ins!

Banks are now publicly admitting they have $1 TRILLION in non-performing loans on their books and will need “re-capitalization” with Depositor’s money through Bail-ins!
This will be discussed today at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The global financial system has become dangerously unstable and faces an avalanche of bankruptcies that will test social and political stability, a leading monetary theorist has warned.
“The situation is worse than it was in 2007. Our macroeconomic ammunition to fight downturns is essentially all used up,” said William White, the Swiss-based chairman of the OECD’s review committee and former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
“Debts have continued to build up over the last eight years and they have reached such levels in every part of the world that they have become a potent cause for mischief,” he said.
“It will become obvious in the next recession that many of these debts will never be serviced or repaid, and this will be uncomfortable for a lot of people who think they own assets that are worth something,” he told The Telegraph on the eve of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
“The only question is whether we are able to look reality in the eye and face what is coming in an orderly fashion, or whether it will be disorderly. Debt jubilees have been going on for 5,000 years, as far back as the Sumerians.”

The European banking system may have to be recapitalized on a scale yet unimagined, and new “bail-in” rules mean that any deposit holder above the guarantee of €100,000 will have to help pay for it.
The warnings have special resonance since Mr White was one of the very few voices in the central banking fraternity who stated loudly and clearly between 2005 and 2008 that Western finance was riding for a fall, and that the global economy was susceptible to a violent crisis.
Mr White said stimulus from quantitative easing and zero rates by the big central banks after the Lehman crisis leaked out across east Asia and emerging markets, stoking credit bubbles and a surge in dollar borrowing that was hard to control in a world of free capital flows.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/12108569/World-faces-wave-of-epic-debt-defaults-fears-central-bank-veteran.html
Who would have thought it? QE on a massive scale and low interest rates which encourage everyone to borrow even more would result in total collapse of the financial sector..

Big banks brace for oil loans to IMPLODE! It’s all falling apart folks.
Firms on Wall Street helped bankroll America’s energy boom, financing very expensive drilling projects that ended up flooding the world with oil.
Now that the oil glut has caused prices to crash below $30 a barrel, turmoil is rippling through the energy industry and souring many of those loans. Dozens of oil companies have gone bankrupt and the ones that haven’t are feeling enough financial stress to slash spending and cut tens of thousands of jobs.
Three of America’s biggest banks warned last week that oil prices will continue to create headaches on Wall Street — especially if doomsday scenarios of $20 or even $10 oil play out.
The financial pain has gotten so great that now there’s murmurs of a bail out for the U.S. oil industry, though it’s clear any assistance would run into political opposition.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/18/investing/oil-crash-wall-street-banks-jpmorgan/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

Luxury Retailer Sinks Into The Quagmire.


Brick-and-mortar retailers are sinking into a quagmire – even luxury retailers, like Tiffany and Company.
So, sure, they’re still looking pretty good when compared to the oil and gas industry, which is in a depression, laying off well-paid people, from director-level engineers to roughnecks. Contractors are out of work. Revenues are plunging. Losses are piling up. Cash is running out. Bankruptcies and debt restructurings are now a common occurrence. The junk-bond bubble that funded the US drilling boom is imploding. Banks are starting to recognize losses on their loans. But the sector has been through this before. It’s temporary. When the price of oil rises again, the survivors and new players will thrive, hire, and expand.
That’s not the case with brick-and-mortar retailers.
But it’s a slow process. Some bigger operations have already gone bankrupt recently or have defaulted on their debts. Junk bonds that fund much of the industry are swooning. Liquidity is drying up. And many private equity firms that bought these retailers during boom times and loaded them up with debt are now stuck with them [Defaults and Restructuring Next for Retailers].
Among the list of brick-and-mortar retailers to warn of crummy holiday sales is luxury jeweler and specialty retailer Tiffany and Company. It reported this morning that sales during the holiday period fell 3% on a constant-currency basis: 5% in the Americas and 6% in the Asia-Pacific region. Sales at stores that were open at least a year dropped 5%. And it lowered its guidance.
So it will do what American companies do best: There will be an undisclosed number of job cuts, and there will be “occupancy reductions” at its corporate office. This cost cutting will cost the company about 4 cents per share in the current quarter.
Shares fell 5.1% today to $64.22. They’ve plunged 41% from their all-time high of $108.68 at the end of December 2014.
Scrambling to not fall too far behind reality, analysts unleashed a hail of downgrades, including Cowen & Co. which slashed its price target from $90 to $75 and Nomura which chopped it from $100 to $90.
Tiffany is selling to the privileged, to the beneficiaries of QE’s “wealth effect” in the US and around the globe. It’s selling to people who benefited from the astounding debt-funded booms in Asia and elsewhere over the past few years. Has the recent stock market rout dented their purchasing power, or their willingness to splurge?
Tiffany blamed the “pressure from the strong US dollar”; it blamed “foreign tourist spending” at its stores in the US; it blamed “restrained consumer spending tied to challenging and uncertain global economic conditions.”
But this has been Tiffany’s song and dance for a while. A year ago, on January 12, 2015, Tiffany’s shares plunged 14% and three days later hit the $85-range, down 21% from their all-time high two weeks earlier.
The problem back then? It had reported  lousy holiday sales; it had lowered its outlook; it had blamed “significant headwinds from the stronger US dollar” along with “other global economic pressures.” Copy and paste.
But wait… Stock markets were booming back then. The China bubble was in full swing. Asian millionaires were printed on an hourly basis. European stocks were on steroids. Even the S&P 500 was still trudging toward its high.
But it’s been getting tougher for brick-and-mortar retailers, and a slew of them warned since November that holiday sales would be crummy, and some warned more recently that holiday sales were in fact crummy. Some, including Gap and Wal-Mart, are shuttering some of their stores.
Tiffany faces some jewelry-industry issues: “Jewelry is no longer at the top of the Christmas list,” Neil Saunders, CEO of research firm Conlumino, wrote in a note to clients, cited by Business Insider. “For a brand like Tiffany, where lavish gifting is an important driver of buying, such a trend is distinctly unhelpful.”
There are Tiffany-specific issues, including that it faces a “more competitive environment for jewelry and the rise of other brands,” Saunders said. “Against this backdrop Tiffany has lost some of its relevance, especially to more moderate-spending shoppers.”
Then there are issues all retailers struggle with: Millennials, the largest demographic these days, tend to spend more on experiences and less on things, including expensive baubles. And retailers are facing strung-out American consumers. But Tiffany isn’t actually targeting strung-out consumers. It’s targeting the wealthy.
And here’s the problem for all our beleaguered brick-and-mortar retailers: online sales this holiday season jumped 12.7% to a record $83 billion, Adobe Systems reported today. And when push came to shove right before Christmas, with delivery perhaps uncertain, the buy-online-pick-up-in-store option kicked in. So it’s not like Americans have stopped shopping. They might shop a tad less, but they’re shopping increasingly online.
That’s a structural problem that is gnawing its way into all retailers’ earnings reports. It will never go away. It will only get worse. So they drag out the “strong dollar,” “global headwinds,” “warm weather,” or whatever other less indigestible excuses they can find. And companies can simply copy and paste last year’s excuses into the next earnings warning rather than admitting that online sales are gradually but relentlessly eating their lunch.
So with impeccable timing – the very morning the Commerce Department reported declining retail sales – Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in an SEC filing that it was “committed to growing,” but was “being disciplined about it.” Read…Wal-Mart Rubs Salt on Deepening Retail Wounds

Luxury Retailer Sinks Into The Quagmire.


Brick-and-mortar retailers are sinking into a quagmire – even luxury retailers, like Tiffany and Company.
So, sure, they’re still looking pretty good when compared to the oil and gas industry, which is in a depression, laying off well-paid people, from director-level engineers to roughnecks. Contractors are out of work. Revenues are plunging. Losses are piling up. Cash is running out. Bankruptcies and debt restructurings are now a common occurrence. The junk-bond bubble that funded the US drilling boom is imploding. Banks are starting to recognize losses on their loans. But the sector has been through this before. It’s temporary. When the price of oil rises again, the survivors and new players will thrive, hire, and expand.
That’s not the case with brick-and-mortar retailers.
But it’s a slow process. Some bigger operations have already gone bankrupt recently or have defaulted on their debts. Junk bonds that fund much of the industry are swooning. Liquidity is drying up. And many private equity firms that bought these retailers during boom times and loaded them up with debt are now stuck with them [Defaults and Restructuring Next for Retailers].
Among the list of brick-and-mortar retailers to warn of crummy holiday sales is luxury jeweler and specialty retailer Tiffany and Company. It reported this morning that sales during the holiday period fell 3% on a constant-currency basis: 5% in the Americas and 6% in the Asia-Pacific region. Sales at stores that were open at least a year dropped 5%. And it lowered its guidance.
So it will do what American companies do best: There will be an undisclosed number of job cuts, and there will be “occupancy reductions” at its corporate office. This cost cutting will cost the company about 4 cents per share in the current quarter.
Shares fell 5.1% today to $64.22. They’ve plunged 41% from their all-time high of $108.68 at the end of December 2014.
Scrambling to not fall too far behind reality, analysts unleashed a hail of downgrades, including Cowen & Co. which slashed its price target from $90 to $75 and Nomura which chopped it from $100 to $90.
Tiffany is selling to the privileged, to the beneficiaries of QE’s “wealth effect” in the US and around the globe. It’s selling to people who benefited from the astounding debt-funded booms in Asia and elsewhere over the past few years. Has the recent stock market rout dented their purchasing power, or their willingness to splurge?
Tiffany blamed the “pressure from the strong US dollar”; it blamed “foreign tourist spending” at its stores in the US; it blamed “restrained consumer spending tied to challenging and uncertain global economic conditions.”
But this has been Tiffany’s song and dance for a while. A year ago, on January 12, 2015, Tiffany’s shares plunged 14% and three days later hit the $85-range, down 21% from their all-time high two weeks earlier.
The problem back then? It had reported  lousy holiday sales; it had lowered its outlook; it had blamed “significant headwinds from the stronger US dollar” along with “other global economic pressures.” Copy and paste.
But wait… Stock markets were booming back then. The China bubble was in full swing. Asian millionaires were printed on an hourly basis. European stocks were on steroids. Even the S&P 500 was still trudging toward its high.
But it’s been getting tougher for brick-and-mortar retailers, and a slew of them warned since November that holiday sales would be crummy, and some warned more recently that holiday sales were in fact crummy. Some, including Gap and Wal-Mart, are shuttering some of their stores.
Tiffany faces some jewelry-industry issues: “Jewelry is no longer at the top of the Christmas list,” Neil Saunders, CEO of research firm Conlumino, wrote in a note to clients, cited by Business Insider. “For a brand like Tiffany, where lavish gifting is an important driver of buying, such a trend is distinctly unhelpful.”
There are Tiffany-specific issues, including that it faces a “more competitive environment for jewelry and the rise of other brands,” Saunders said. “Against this backdrop Tiffany has lost some of its relevance, especially to more moderate-spending shoppers.”
Then there are issues all retailers struggle with: Millennials, the largest demographic these days, tend to spend more on experiences and less on things, including expensive baubles. And retailers are facing strung-out American consumers. But Tiffany isn’t actually targeting strung-out consumers. It’s targeting the wealthy.
And here’s the problem for all our beleaguered brick-and-mortar retailers: online sales this holiday season jumped 12.7% to a record $83 billion, Adobe Systems reported today. And when push came to shove right before Christmas, with delivery perhaps uncertain, the buy-online-pick-up-in-store option kicked in. So it’s not like Americans have stopped shopping. They might shop a tad less, but they’re shopping increasingly online.
That’s a structural problem that is gnawing its way into all retailers’ earnings reports. It will never go away. It will only get worse. So they drag out the “strong dollar,” “global headwinds,” “warm weather,” or whatever other less indigestible excuses they can find. And companies can simply copy and paste last year’s excuses into the next earnings warning rather than admitting that online sales are gradually but relentlessly eating their lunch.
So with impeccable timing – the very morning the Commerce Department reported declining retail sales – Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in an SEC filing that it was “committed to growing,” but was “being disciplined about it.” Read…Wal-Mart Rubs Salt on Deepening Retail Wounds

Luxury Retailer Sinks Into The Quagmire.

Wolf Richter wolfstreet.com, www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter
Brick-and-mortar retailers are sinking into a quagmire – even luxury retailers, like Tiffany and Company.
So, sure, they’re still looking pretty good when compared to the oil and gas industry, which is in a depression, laying off well-paid people, from director-level engineers to roughnecks. Contractors are out of work. Revenues are plunging. Losses are piling up. Cash is running out. Bankruptcies and debt restructurings are now a common occurrence. The junk-bond bubble that funded the US drilling boom is imploding. Banks are starting to recognize losses on their loans. But the sector has been through this before. It’s temporary. When the price of oil rises again, the survivors and new players will thrive, hire, and expand.
That’s not the case with brick-and-mortar retailers.
But it’s a slow process. Some bigger operations have already gone bankrupt recently or have defaulted on their debts. Junk bonds that fund much of the industry are swooning. Liquidity is drying up. And many private equity firms that bought these retailers during boom times and loaded them up with debt are now stuck with them [Defaults and Restructuring Next for Retailers].
Among the list of brick-and-mortar retailers to warn of crummy holiday sales is luxury jeweler and specialty retailer Tiffany and Company. It reported this morning that sales during the holiday period fell 3% on a constant-currency basis: 5% in the Americas and 6% in the Asia-Pacific region. Sales at stores that were open at least a year dropped 5%. And it lowered its guidance.
So it will do what American companies do best: There will be an undisclosed number of job cuts, and there will be “occupancy reductions” at its corporate office. This cost cutting will cost the company about 4 cents per share in the current quarter.
Shares fell 5.1% today to $64.22. They’ve plunged 41% from their all-time high of $108.68 at the end of December 2014.
Scrambling to not fall too far behind reality, analysts unleashed a hail of downgrades, including Cowen & Co. which slashed its price target from $90 to $75 and Nomura which chopped it from $100 to $90.
Tiffany is selling to the privileged, to the beneficiaries of QE’s “wealth effect” in the US and around the globe. It’s selling to people who benefited from the astounding debt-funded booms in Asia and elsewhere over the past few years. Has the recent stock market rout dented their purchasing power, or their willingness to splurge?
Tiffany blamed the “pressure from the strong US dollar”; it blamed “foreign tourist spending” at its stores in the US; it blamed “restrained consumer spending tied to challenging and uncertain global economic conditions.”
But this has been Tiffany’s song and dance for a while. A year ago, on January 12, 2015, Tiffany’s shares plunged 14% and three days later hit the $85-range, down 21% from their all-time high two weeks earlier.
The problem back then? It had reported  lousy holiday sales; it had lowered its outlook; it had blamed “significant headwinds from the stronger US dollar” along with “other global economic pressures.” Copy and paste.
But wait… Stock markets were booming back then. The China bubble was in full swing. Asian millionaires were printed on an hourly basis. European stocks were on steroids. Even the S&P 500 was still trudging toward its high.
But it’s been getting tougher for brick-and-mortar retailers, and a slew of them warned since November that holiday sales would be crummy, and some warned more recently that holiday sales were in fact crummy. Some, including Gap and Wal-Mart, are shuttering some of their stores.
Tiffany faces some jewelry-industry issues: “Jewelry is no longer at the top of the Christmas list,” Neil Saunders, CEO of research firm Conlumino, wrote in a note to clients, cited by Business Insider. “For a brand like Tiffany, where lavish gifting is an important driver of buying, such a trend is distinctly unhelpful.”
There are Tiffany-specific issues, including that it faces a “more competitive environment for jewelry and the rise of other brands,” Saunders said. “Against this backdrop Tiffany has lost some of its relevance, especially to more moderate-spending shoppers.”
Then there are issues all retailers struggle with: Millennials, the largest demographic these days, tend to spend more on experiences and less on things, including expensive baubles. And retailers are facing strung-out American consumers. But Tiffany isn’t actually targeting strung-out consumers. It’s targeting the wealthy.
And here’s the problem for all our beleaguered brick-and-mortar retailers: online sales this holiday season jumped 12.7% to a record $83 billion, Adobe Systems reported today. And when push came to shove right before Christmas, with delivery perhaps uncertain, the buy-online-pick-up-in-store option kicked in. So it’s not like Americans have stopped shopping. They might shop a tad less, but they’re shopping increasingly online.
That’s a structural problem that is gnawing its way into all retailers’ earnings reports. It will never go away. It will only get worse. So they drag out the “strong dollar,” “global headwinds,” “warm weather,” or whatever other less indigestible excuses they can find. And companies can simply copy and paste last year’s excuses into the next earnings warning rather than admitting that online sales are gradually but relentlessly eating their lunch.
So with impeccable timing – the very morning the Commerce Department reported declining retail sales – Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in an SEC filing that it was “committed to growing,” but was “being disciplined about it.” Read…Wal-Mart Rubs Salt on Deepening Retail Wounds

Luxury Retailer Sinks Into The Quagmire.

Wolf Richter wolfstreet.com, www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter
Brick-and-mortar retailers are sinking into a quagmire – even luxury retailers, like Tiffany and Company.
So, sure, they’re still looking pretty good when compared to the oil and gas industry, which is in a depression, laying off well-paid people, from director-level engineers to roughnecks. Contractors are out of work. Revenues are plunging. Losses are piling up. Cash is running out. Bankruptcies and debt restructurings are now a common occurrence. The junk-bond bubble that funded the US drilling boom is imploding. Banks are starting to recognize losses on their loans. But the sector has been through this before. It’s temporary. When the price of oil rises again, the survivors and new players will thrive, hire, and expand.
That’s not the case with brick-and-mortar retailers.
But it’s a slow process. Some bigger operations have already gone bankrupt recently or have defaulted on their debts. Junk bonds that fund much of the industry are swooning. Liquidity is drying up. And many private equity firms that bought these retailers during boom times and loaded them up with debt are now stuck with them [Defaults and Restructuring Next for Retailers].
Among the list of brick-and-mortar retailers to warn of crummy holiday sales is luxury jeweler and specialty retailer Tiffany and Company. It reported this morning that sales during the holiday period fell 3% on a constant-currency basis: 5% in the Americas and 6% in the Asia-Pacific region. Sales at stores that were open at least a year dropped 5%. And it lowered its guidance.
So it will do what American companies do best: There will be an undisclosed number of job cuts, and there will be “occupancy reductions” at its corporate office. This cost cutting will cost the company about 4 cents per share in the current quarter.
Shares fell 5.1% today to $64.22. They’ve plunged 41% from their all-time high of $108.68 at the end of December 2014.
Scrambling to not fall too far behind reality, analysts unleashed a hail of downgrades, including Cowen & Co. which slashed its price target from $90 to $75 and Nomura which chopped it from $100 to $90.
Tiffany is selling to the privileged, to the beneficiaries of QE’s “wealth effect” in the US and around the globe. It’s selling to people who benefited from the astounding debt-funded booms in Asia and elsewhere over the past few years. Has the recent stock market rout dented their purchasing power, or their willingness to splurge?
Tiffany blamed the “pressure from the strong US dollar”; it blamed “foreign tourist spending” at its stores in the US; it blamed “restrained consumer spending tied to challenging and uncertain global economic conditions.”
But this has been Tiffany’s song and dance for a while. A year ago, on January 12, 2015, Tiffany’s shares plunged 14% and three days later hit the $85-range, down 21% from their all-time high two weeks earlier.
The problem back then? It had reported  lousy holiday sales; it had lowered its outlook; it had blamed “significant headwinds from the stronger US dollar” along with “other global economic pressures.” Copy and paste.
But wait… Stock markets were booming back then. The China bubble was in full swing. Asian millionaires were printed on an hourly basis. European stocks were on steroids. Even the S&P 500 was still trudging toward its high.
But it’s been getting tougher for brick-and-mortar retailers, and a slew of them warned since November that holiday sales would be crummy, and some warned more recently that holiday sales were in fact crummy. Some, including Gap and Wal-Mart, are shuttering some of their stores.
Tiffany faces some jewelry-industry issues: “Jewelry is no longer at the top of the Christmas list,” Neil Saunders, CEO of research firm Conlumino, wrote in a note to clients, cited by Business Insider. “For a brand like Tiffany, where lavish gifting is an important driver of buying, such a trend is distinctly unhelpful.”
There are Tiffany-specific issues, including that it faces a “more competitive environment for jewelry and the rise of other brands,” Saunders said. “Against this backdrop Tiffany has lost some of its relevance, especially to more moderate-spending shoppers.”
Then there are issues all retailers struggle with: Millennials, the largest demographic these days, tend to spend more on experiences and less on things, including expensive baubles. And retailers are facing strung-out American consumers. But Tiffany isn’t actually targeting strung-out consumers. It’s targeting the wealthy.
And here’s the problem for all our beleaguered brick-and-mortar retailers: online sales this holiday season jumped 12.7% to a record $83 billion, Adobe Systems reported today. And when push came to shove right before Christmas, with delivery perhaps uncertain, the buy-online-pick-up-in-store option kicked in. So it’s not like Americans have stopped shopping. They might shop a tad less, but they’re shopping increasingly online.
That’s a structural problem that is gnawing its way into all retailers’ earnings reports. It will never go away. It will only get worse. So they drag out the “strong dollar,” “global headwinds,” “warm weather,” or whatever other less indigestible excuses they can find. And companies can simply copy and paste last year’s excuses into the next earnings warning rather than admitting that online sales are gradually but relentlessly eating their lunch.
So with impeccable timing – the very morning the Commerce Department reported declining retail sales – Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in an SEC filing that it was “committed to growing,” but was “being disciplined about it.” Read…Wal-Mart Rubs Salt on Deepening Retail Wounds

Here’s how low one bank just took its interest rates—

Julius Caesar was kind of a deadbeat.
The guy was in debt up to his eyeballs, and had borrowed so much money to finance his rise to power that he threatened to skip town forever if he lost an election.
Back in Caesar’s day, interest rates in Rome were about 12%. In ancient Mesopotamia, interest rates could be as high as 25% or more.
In ancient Greece, 10% to 15%. During the Song Dynasty in Medieval China, rates were around 7% to 10%.
Today interest rates are basically nothing; in some cases, rates are even less than nothing.
If you take your hard-earned savings and loan it to a bankrupt government in Europe, you can guarantee a negative rate of return.
There are even some banks in Europe that are starting to charge their depositors negative interest rates.
A friend forwarded me a hilarious note over the weekend informing him that his bank has a “new” interest rate they’re paying on deposits: 0.001%.
Think about that number: 1/1000th of 1%.
Let’s put 0.001% in context just to demonstrate how absurdly small that number is:
* 0.001% is roughly the same as your odds in poker of ending up with a straight flush, and 30 times less than your odds of getting struck by lightning at some point in your life.
* A bank balance of $100,000 earning 0.001% would generate a whopping $1 in interest after an entire year.
* If at the time of his assassination in 44BC, Julius Caesar had put the equivalent of $100 in a savings account earning 0.001% compounding annually, he would have received a grand total of $2.08 in interest over the last 2,000+ years.
In other words, after 2,060 years, Caesar’s bank balance would have grown from $100 to just $102.08.
* If you deposit $1 earning 0.001% and then have yourself cryogenically frozen for over 9,000 years… a period longer than all of recorded human history… you will have received about 10 cents in interest by the time you wake up.
* At 0.001%, it would take your money 69,315 years to double in value. So if our forebears during the Paleolithic era had put a few abalone shells on deposit earning 0.001%, we’d barely collect twice as much today.
* The half-life of the isotope Plutonium-240 is 6,563 years. This means that
the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl and Fukishima will have undergone 11 half-lives and be almost untraceable in the environment, and you still wouldn’t have doubled your money yet.
There’s something clearly broken with this financial system.
Modern day economists who pretend to be ‘scientists’ tell us that conjuring money out of thin air will lead to prosperity.
So they’ve set interest rates at the lowest level we’ve ever seen in human history.
How has that strategy worked out after eight years?
Well, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning that China’s economic growth has slowed to a 25 year low.
Economic growth worldwide is grinding to a halt.
Chances of a US recession are higher than they’ve been in years.
Yet simultaneously, national debt levels around the world have skyrocketed. US debt has nearly doubled to almost $19 trillion.
Bankrupt nations are now able to borrow money at negative interest rates, with some banks passing negative rates on to their customers.
In Europe, interest rates are so low that the Swiss canton of Zug doesn’t want to collect local income tax for fear of having to pay negative interest rates to the bank.
The sheer volume of money in the system has led to the return of financial lunacy—like a San Francisco bank handing out $2 million home loans with no money down.
Or venture capital investors assigning a $67 BILLION valuation to a five-year old company that can’t manage to turn a profit.
Yet the middle class has been so vanquished in America that it no longer comprises the majority of the population.
Wages have stagnated. When adjusted for inflation, median household income in the US is lower than it was more than 15-years ago.
Bottom line, this system of historically low rates has led to more debt, slower growth, reduced prosperity, and a lower standard of living.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the bubble… the risks… the potential consequences.
No one has a crystal ball. We can’t circle a date on the calendar and say “this is the day that the bubble bursts.”
Maybe it happens today. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe five years from now. Maybe never.
That said, you’re not going to be worse off for having a Plan B and taking sensible steps to protect yourself, your family, and your livelihood from such obvious risks.
Our goal is simple: To help you achieve personal liberty and financial prosperity no matter what happens.

Multiple times every week, we help over 100,000 Sovereign Man subscribers who are taking their family's liberty and prosperity into their own hands with our free publication, Notes From The Field.

Activate your free subscription today, and get fresh intelligence delivered securely to your inbox as we travel the world discovering the biggest opportunities available to smart, enterprising individuals like you.

Wealth, influence of Gates Foundation distorting intl development – Global Justice Now

Enormous wealth and influence wielded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is distorting the direction of international development in a global vacuum of accountability, a new report claims.
With assets totaling $43.5 billion, the BMGF is the world’s biggest charitable group. It is viewed by some as the most powerful actor on issues of international health, environment and agriculture, and distributes more aid for global health than any democratically elected government.
Critics warn this concentration of political and monetary clout is skewering the direction of international development in an undemocratic and unaccountable fashion. A report, conducted by UK campaign Global Justice Now, warns this trend could bolster corporate power and exacerbate global inequality.
The study, titled Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?, was published on Wednesday. It argues the power and influence of the BMGF has a silencing effect on NGOs and agencies that are critical of its operations, but are also dependent on the foundation’s funding.
The report’s release coincides with Bill Gates’ promotion of his very own brand of philanthrocapitalism at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The gathering brings together some 2,500 top business chiefs, global political leaders, intellectuals, and reporters to discuss the most serious issues facing the world.
Among the report’s key criticisms was the relationship between Microsoft’s tax-dodging practices and the money that the BMGF donates. According to a 2012 US senate report, the Gates-owned tech giant used offshore subsidiaries to avoid $4.5 billion in taxes, while the foundation issued grants totaling $3.6 billion in 2014.
The study also condemned the foundation’s close relationship with corporations whose policies entrench global poverty and accused the BMGF of profiting from investments in controversial firms than drive socioeconomic injustices. In addition to this, the report criticized the foundation’s promotion of private healthcare and education, citing multiple agencies that insist such programs drive inequality.
It also accused the foundation of undermining sustainable, small-scale farmers that are providing food security in Africa by promoting the adoption of GM, patented seed systems and chemical fertilizers across the continent.
Global Justice Now is urging the foundation to undergo an independent international review. The campaign says this could be orchestrated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee, but insists such a process should be transparent and include a range of stakeholders, including those impacted by foundation-funded projects.
Head of campaigns and policy at Global Justice Now Polly Jones said the Gates Foundation is the most influential actor across the globe in terms of health agriculture. However, she warned it is operating in the absence of accountability or oversight.
“This concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of corporate America,” she said.
“The foundation is relentlessly promoting big business-based initiatives such as industrial agriculture, private health care and education. But these are all potentially exacerbating the problems of poverty and lack of access to basic resources that the foundation is supposed to be alleviating.”
The BMGF said the report misrepresents the organization, its work and its partnerships.
“The foundation’s mission is to improve quality of life for the world’s poorest people. This is a complex challenge, and solving it will require a range of approaches as well as the collaboration of governments, NGOs, academic institutions, for-profit companies and philanthropic organizations,” the foundation said.
“Governments are uniquely positioned to provide the leadership and resources necessary to address structural inequalities and ensure that the right solutions reach those most in need. The private sector has access to innovations – for example, in science, medicine and technology – that can save lives.”
The foundation argued that the role of philanthropy is to take risks where others won’t or can’t. “In all of our work – whether helping women access life-saving prenatal care or ensuring that small holder farmers can produce enough food to feed their families – partners guide our priorities and approach. We listen to experts and practitioners and take action based on evidence,” it said.
The foundation refuted claims that it is unaccountable, saying that it was one of the first organizations to join the International Aid Transparency Initiative and report to the OECD.
Via RT. This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license.

China Flexes Muscles At Shanghai Gold Exchange

Jeff Nielson:  The New Cold War between West and East has already become a Luke-Warm War , and it threatens to become a full-fledged “hot” war. After years of passively reacting to Western crime and aggression; both China and Russia have shown an increasing tendency to adopt a more proactive stance. On the economic front, China has leaped into the international gold market, suddenly and decisively .
After having purchased no gold on the open market for at least six years; China’s government has now made large, open market purchases of gold every month , for six, consecutive months. This has already totaled roughly 100 tonnes. Ultimately, this is gold which comes out of the warehouses of the Big Bank crime syndicate.
Of equal significance; China is funding these open market purchases with the proceeds from dumping large quantities of its U.S. Treasuries holdings. U.S. Treasuries are worthless paper, available in near-infinite quantities. Gold, as the ultimate monetary metal, is literally “priceless” in comparison to that worthless paper – while its supply is extremely limited. Selling the former in order to buy the latter may not be the banksters’ worst nightmare, but it’s close.
However; China’s open market purchases of gold are not the only example of China “flexing its muscles” in the gold market. Domestically, China has sought to steadily increase the role of the Shanghai Gold Exchange in the global gold market. It is morphing from being a mere alternative to the paper-fraud markets of London and New York into being a serious rival.
In mid-2014; China announced plans to begin offering three “physical” contracts for gold at the SGE, denominated in renminbi, in amounts of 100 g, 1 kg, and 12.5 kg. The significance of the last, larger number is that this equals the size/denomination of the “London good delivery bars” which are (supposedly) being traded in the Western world.
When we see contracts for the trading of a physical commodity labeled as “physical” contracts, isn’t this redundant? No. Rather, the clear implication is that the “physical” trading of gold at the SGE would be in contrast to the paper trading that takes place in the Western world – where more than 100 “ounces” of paper-called-gold exist for every ounce of actual metal in those fraud markets.
China further stipulated that it was “inviting” Western financial institutions to take part in the trading of these physical contracts. A Reuters article provides the thinking behind sending out such invitations:
“China wants to have more voice in gold prices,” said Jiang Shu, an analyst with Industrial Bank, one of 12 banks allowed to import gold into China. “The international exchange is the first step towards gaining a say in gold pricing.”
“If you don’t allow foreign players to participate in your market actively, or do not push Chinese financial institutions to participate in the international market, then China’s strong gold demand is only a number, not a power,” he said.
The implication is clear: international participation in trading at the SGE enhances the prestige and (perceived) legitimacy of the Exchange, and thus accelerates its rise in status vis-à-vis the exchanges in London and New York. For this reason, it will likely not be a surprise to many readers that Western financial institutions have been less-than-enthusiastic about such participation.
For newer readers, who are not yet familiar with the “role” of Western banks in the West’s ultra-fraudulent bullion markets, it’s really quite simple. These Big Banks are the “hit men” in these markets, who perennially prevent price-discovery (and thus legitimate prices) in global bullion markets, through a variety of forms of illegal manipulation .
One of their favorite methods of market-rigging is through “shorting” these markets, with massive, illegal trading, where the illegality could not be more obvious. How obvious? In 1971; the Hunt Brothers were convicted of “cornering the silver market”, at a time when their total holdings represented less than 20% of available inventories.
Today, the four Big Shorts in the silver market, all Western Big Banks, have “cornered” roughly 80% of the trading on the short side of the market. This means that each of those four, criminal institutions holds a larger concentration in this market than the percentage which earned the Hunt Brothers their criminal conviction.
More to the point; regular readers are fully aware that all of these Western banks are, in fact, nothing but tentacles of one, gigantic, financial behemoth: the One Bank . This single crime syndicate is allowed to permanently hold a short position in the silver market more than four times more concentrated than what U.S. courts have already ruled is illegal.
That’s called a double-standard. There is one set of rules for the Criminals “trading” (illegally) on the short side of the market. Meanwhile, we have another totally opposite set of rules for those individuals/entities looking to engage in honest commerce in the silver market. Put more simply: there are no rules for the Criminals, and (by implication) no rights for the honest traders.
Those are the West’s “bullion markets”: permanent cesspools of financial crime, with the Big Banks holding massively illegal short positions, which are grossly disproportionate in size to short-trading in all other commodity markets. This provides us with one of the reasons for the extreme reluctance of these crooked Big Banks to participate in offering the SGE’s (real) gold contracts.
For any player in any market with a short position; increased “long” trading directly and immediately puts price pressure on any short position in that market. Sitting on the largest (illegal) short positions in the history of human commerce, these Big Banks have little appetite for facilitating the trading of actual bullion at the SGE, to put it mildly.
However, once again, this pulls our focus back to the paper-fraud markets in the West. In the West, for some reason, these same Big Banks have (supposedly) taken an entirely opposite attitude toward being big players on the long side of the market. Indeed, these Big Banks volunteered to act as “custodians” for the largest “bullion funds” in the Western world: the bankers’ notorious bullion-ETF’s.
In legitimate spheres of the bullion world; investors who trade in legitimate bullion funds are required to bear the storage costs for holding that bullion. Thus the unit cost of their holdings in these funds exceeds the “spot” price of the bullion market at that time, by a modest premium, in order to cover those storage costs. Not so, with respect to the Big Banks’ bullion-ETF’s.
The largest of these so-called bullion funds are the SPDR Gold Trust, and the iShares Silver Trust, better known by their market symbols ( GLD and SLV, respectively). The purchasers of units in these funds pay no premium for their “gold” and “silver”. Indeed, they can often purchase their units at a slight discount to the spot price.
If we were to assume that GLD and SLV were legitimate bullion funds, which were being administered for the benefit of unit-holders, then consider what is implied. As custodians; the Bullion Banks would not merely be providing free storage for the long investors entering this market, they would be subsidizing those investors, since the storage costs for the Big Banks, themselves, are greater than zero.
Note further that this is (potentially) an infinite subsidy for long investors in the gold and silver market, since they have pledged to act as custodians (and thus subsidize) any and all investors in these funds. What we are supposed to believe is that these mega-shorts, with short positions in both the gold and silver market which are so large as to be obviously illegal, are also the largest philanthropists on the planet on the long side of the market – offering infinite subsidization for long investors in gold and silver, but only in the Western markets which they control.

Pages: Next

Russia, China, and many of the world’s elites are hoarding as much gold as they can get. Here’s why…

Shocking Revelation Seen in Data

Russia, China, and many of the world’s elites are hoarding as much gold as they can get. Here’s why…
Gold Discovered

The red line is exploration spending, and as you can see, over the past 5 years, the sector has spent an unprecedented amount of capital looking for gold, but ounces of this rare metal discovered have absolutely collapsed!
Peak Gold
Goldman Sachs, in a report last year, went as far as saying the world had seen peak gold! This is why they are forecasting a higher gold price, and the fact is they are right – the lack of discoveries has destined the gold market to a geological shortage, which will push prices much higher than they are today.
This is happening at a time when gold demand is surging due to insolvent governments around the world!
It’s no secret that central banks, the money printers themselves, have been net buyers of gold for the past 6 years. But did you know that some major producing oil nations are already selling oil for gold?
Gold, over the next 10 years, is going to be a very important investment, and potentially, even restored as a reserve currency.
Former CIA Advisor James Rickards, when he set a $10,000 price target for gold, also stated that China and Russia could very well be preparing for a gold-backed global currency. This would explain why they are buying gold and gold properties so aggressively.
President Ronald Reagan’s former economic advisory, who worked in the Treasury Department in the 1980s, has recently warned that the gold price will soon “break loose,” meaning a rapid and violent surge higher!

How to Profit from a Rising Gold Price

Legendary investors are piling into a new gold and silver stock, including billionaire Eric Sprott, one of the wealthiest men in all of Canada, and Rick Rule, a famous gold stock speculator.

It’s headed up by Keith Neumeyer, founder of First Quantum Minerals, one of the world’s largest copper producers, and founder of First Majestic Silver, a primary silver producer. Investors today have the opportunity to partner with his newest venture — not even year old, and trading for less than $1 — First Mining Finance (TSXV: FF & US: FFMGF).

Even New York Times best-selling author and hedge fund manager, Marin Katusa, has called this one of his key investments, “1 of only 9” stocks he owns!

The last time people entrusted money with this Keith Neumeyer, they could have turned $10,000 into $1.2 million!

Keith has built two billion-dollar companies, and now he’s pouring millions into his new stock, which has been on an acquisition rampage, including hostile takeovers… It was launched with a core objective: acquire gold, silver, and other minerals at dirt-cheap prices.

Find distressed sellers with established resources (ounces in the ground) and seek out friendly acquisitions. And if they refuse, take them out through hostile takeover!

In just 9 months, First Mining Finance is now one of the fastest gold developers in the World!

With the U.S. national debt nearing $20 trillion and the world bankers moving towards negative interest rates, the set-up for gold investors could not be better!

To learn more about gold or gold investments, visit FutureMoneyTrends.com/InvestRight


Legal Notice: This work is based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, corporate press releases and what we’ve learned as financial journalists. It may contain errors and you shouldn’t make any investment decision based solely on what you read here. It’s your money and your responsibility. The information herein is not intended to be personal legal or investment advice and may not be appropriate or applicable for all readers. If personal advice is needed, the services of a qualified legal, investment or tax professional should be sought.
Never base any decision off of our emails. FutureMoneyTrends.com stock profiles are intended to be stock ideas, NOT recommendations. The ideas we present are high risk and you can lose your entire investment, we are not stock pickers, market timers, investment advisers, and you should not base any investment decision off our website, emails, videos, or anything we publish.  Please do your own research before investing. It is crucial that you at least look at current SEC filings and read the latest press releases. Information contained in this profile was extracted from current documents filed with the SEC, the company web site and other publicly available sources deemed reliable. Never base any investment decision from information contained in our website or emails or any or our publications. Our report is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities, or as a recommendation to purchase anything. This publication may provide the addresses or contain hyperlinks to websites; we disclaim any responsibility for the content of any such other websites. We have been compensated by First Mining Finance thirty thousand dollars, one hundred thousand options, and eleven payments of seven thousand each over the next year for our promotional pieces, online ads, and other digital marketing. Future Money Trends LLC staff currently owns fifteen thousand shares of First Majestic Silver, which shares many of the same members of First Mining Finance. We also own three hundred and five thousand shares of First Mining Finance that we will hold for a minimum of six months. Please use our site as a place to get ideas. Enjoy our videos and news analysis, but never make an investment decision off of anything we say. Please review our entire disclaimer at FutureMoneyTrends.com.

The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE bank. How stupid is this?

Some big wigs basically got together and said, “Let’s start up a bank that can, at will, add ‘zeros’ to the balance sheets and accounts of whatever bank we want. We’ll put an American flag out front of it and act like it’s part of the government, and get Congress to pass a law saying how great we are and how legitimate we are, and how we have control over everything.”
While the Fed pays the Treasury 96% of it’s “profits”, who cares about that when they can just add “zeros” to any bank in the US, anytime and anywhere?
Goldman Sachs calls up The Fed, “Hey, we lost about $2 Billion in the markets this week, so we need you to go in and place an entry in our balance sheet for $2,000,000,000.00. Cheers!”
This has to be one of the craziest scams ever conceived!
Here are some interesting thoughts on the issue (by the way, your True Conservative SAVOIR Ted Cruz missed the Audit the Fed vote):

Why the fed is private:
1) A woman in Washington DC, was hit by a car while crossing the street. The driver was an employee of the Federal Reserve and on work time. The victim took the driver to court and sued her addressing the respondent as “an employee of the United States Federal Government, and The Federal Reserve”.
When the matter came to the bench, the judge dismissed the case for the reason that “The Federal Reserve was NOT in any manner part of the Federal Government and could not be held responsible for what a private bank’s employee did!
2) ALL Freedom of Information Act requests that have been initiated by the people have 100% been returned with the explanation that:
The Federal Reserve Central Bank is not part of the Federal Government and is not obligated to honor any requests associated with FOIA requests!!
Only the sleeping public who are hard party followers believe a word of this pure banker garbage piece. The author should be completely embarrassed to have written such lies and non sense.
Sadly, there’s a big majority of the public who have no clue what the Federal Reserve is, and even worse what it does.

The Fed is a PRIVATE bank, absolutely no way around it. Period. They’ve never divulged their full holdings or their ownership. Speculation is that the member banks own it, but nobody really knows for sure. They sure do profit from it, as Goldman Sachs has by trading with the Fed and booking BILLIONS in profits doing so.
Wish I could start a bank and do that, but what do you think the odds are that I’d ever get into that club? And, yes, we know they don’t absolutely “print money”, but increasing the balance sheet of banks is substantively different in what way? You say tomato, I say tomaaato.
Are they really a government entity? Who signs and issues Ben Bernanke’s paycheck? I don’t know the answer, but I bet its not the gubmint. Who determines his rate of pay? Congress? Is he a classified federal employee? GS 12 maybe?
I know there’s a lot of BS surrounding the Fed, but the reality is they exist in a secretive, quasi-official, somewhat-but-not-quite-completely-overseen-by-Congress, nether world without much accountability to the people. And that’s what should have been reported here.
Comments found at this link:
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/federal-reserve/myths-federal-reserve-7.aspx
The banks act in their own interests, and they own the Fed!

Aside:
It’s inconceivable to me why, after saying what she says in this video, how Liz Waaren could vote AGAINST the audit the Fed bill!
So here is an article debunking Fed “conspiracy theories”…
Almost every point they make is an outright LIE or misrepresentation.
It’s actually hilarious reading this. They talk about how “pro-banker” Republicans were “opposed” to the Fed Act of 1913! LOL. That is really funny. The “opposition” was controlled, it was fake, so the bill would pass with the support of Democrats who were actually anti-banker. Crazy:
https://sites.google.com/site/stuffeconomics/courses/bank-regulation/fed-conspiracy-theories

Mark

Market Vane Sentiment Survey on S&P 500 Dips Below 50% This Week – Usually a Bad Sign For Prices

Market Vane Sentiment Survey on S&P 500 Dips Below 50% This Week - Usually a Bad Sign For Prices

Davos Boss Warns Global Economic Crisis Could Be Precursor to Something Much Bigger!


Davos Boss, Klasu Shwab, Warns Global Economic Crisis Could Be Precursor to Something Much Bigger! Not only for Europe but also for the whole World. He gave an interview at the World Economic Forum at Davos.
~~
Links:
1) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/article…
2) http://independentfilmnewsandmedia.co…
3) Thumbnail image – Klaus Schwab, WEF, public domain. Wikimedia commons images.
https://www.google.gr/search?q=Klaus+…
4) Music – Youtube Audio Library
“Ambient Ambulance”
https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/…

How Silver and Gold Can Protect Purchasing Power Today (A Canadian Prespective)



Although we usually view our silver and gold stacking goals as a way to protect our purchasing power in the long-term, some recent economic trends in Canada have been demonstrating to us that silver and gold may assist us in protecting our purchasing power in the short-term as the Canadian Dollar continues to be devalued and its purchasing power erodes.

$10 Oil Banks Bracing


Oil is falling hard and fast. Join the Junius Maltby discussion today.

Stock Markets “Fish Flopping” As Federal Reserve’s 100 Year Scam Ends


Stock markets “fish flopped” during Tuesday’s session. Chinese losses, now in the trillions since the start of 2016, have not been regained. National currencies are on the fritz, Bitcoin was doing well until a strange developer defection. What the hell is really happening here? Allow me to explain. JOIN MY PATREON-https://www.patreon.com/dgseaman Every pledge helps! :)
Get started with Bitcoin the right way + $10 bonus: https://www.coinbase.com/join/davidse…
Follow DG- https://twitter.com/d_seaman

$20 Oil to Cause Junk Bonds to Crash…Bigger Bubble than 2008 – Dave Kranzler Interview


Video: Wage Pressures, Falling Commodity Prices Spell Trouble for the Global Economy ROKU


With no recovery in the Eurozone and the whole of Eastern Europe in trouble, greater turmoil in Asian economies could bring the world economy to a critical …

Video: Bottom of barrel: Crude oversupply makes producers cut oil output to stabilize market



The oil price dropped to a 13-year low on Monday trading below $28 per barrel. Large oil producers are struggling to keep the economy afloat, with the global …

Gold Tops $1100, Breaks Above Key Technical Resistance

Having bounced higher off the 50-day moving-average 3 days ago, gold has surged back above $1100 this morning, pushing back above the crucial 100-day moving-average. Silver has also broken above its 50-day moving-average.



Silver is also surging...

Prepare For Empty Grocery Store Shelves


Have Crude Oil Prices In Nebraska Really Hit Minus 50 Cents Per Barrel? Are Shipping Companies Really refusing To Ship Products To The USA? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoc40…
ORDERFOOD.THRIVELIFE.COM
Thank You You Tube For Allowing Me To Post Here.

CANADA: It sure takes a lot of piling on of debt by governments (all levels), businesses and households in this country to keep our way of life going.

The following numbers are taken from the Statistics Canada website:
At the end of September, 2015 the total debt outstanding in Canada (bottom line of the credit market summary data table) was $6.70 trillion.
At the end of September, 2014 the total debt outstanding was $6.17 trillion. In the one year period from the end of September, 2014 to the end of September, 2015 it increased by $530 billion. This is an increase of 8.5%.
The approximate beginning of the global financial crisis was June, 2007. At the end of June, 2007 the total debt outstanding was $3.99 trillion. In the last 8-1/4 years it has increased by $2.71 trillion. This is an increase of 67.9%.
Looking at the total debt outstanding in Canada of domestic non-financial sectors (17th line up from the bottom of the credit market summary data table):
At the end of September, 2015 the total debt outstanding of domestic non-financial sectors was $4.86 trillion.
At the end of September, 2014 the total debt outstanding of domestic non-financial sectors was $4.54 trillion. In the one year period from the end of September, 2014 to the end of September, 2015 it increased by $323 billion. This is an increase of 7.1%.
At the end of June, 2007 the total debt outstanding of domestic non-financial sectors was $2.84 trillion. In the last 8-1/4 years it has increased by $2.02 trillion. This is an increase of 70.9%.
The start date of this Statistics Canada data table can be changed by clicking on the “add/remove data” tab at the top of the page.
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=3780122

Terry

Oxfam Finds: Global Poverty Is Soaring

Eric Zuesse
 
On January 18th, Oxfam issued an analysis of the direction of the world economy, and titled it “An Economy for the 1%.” They found that:
During the period 2010-2015, the total wealth of the world’s poorer half went down from $2.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion, while the total wealth of the world’s 62 richest people went up from $1.2 trillion (not counting undeclared wealth) to $1.8 trillion (also not counting secret wealth). 
However, as I have previously indicated, the wealth of King Saud, whom neither Forbes nor Bloomberg even count because they don’t count the wealth of kings, has always exceeded $1 trillion and was around $15 trillion when oil was at $100/barrel (under the prior King). Furthermore, neither Forbes nor Bloomberg has access to information on hidden wealth, offshore in tax havens and often under layers of shell companies, which also are entirely privately controlled.
Consequently, Oxfam’s calculations are based upon data that grossly underestimate, or even ignore entirely (such as with King Saud), the wealth of the actually-wealthiest people. 
What the world has is an astronomical scam-operation. However, even applying the defective data on the basis of which Oxfam was calculating, Oxfam can say this:
“The global inequality crisis is reaching new extremes. The richest 1% now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined. Power and privilege is being used to skew the economic system to increase the gap between the richest and the rest. A global network of tax havens further enables the richest individuals to hide $7.6 trillion.” 
In other words: Oxfam is saying that the wealth of the 62 richest people is $1.8 trillion, but that there exists in “tax havens” another $7.6 trillion, which cannot be attributed to any of those 62 nor to anyone, because its ownership is hidden.
Whatever the inequality-problem is, it’s vastly more extreme than the official figures show.
But what the official figures show is already terrible: The bottom half are getting poorer, while the richest 62 are getting richer faster. The report says: “The wealth owned by the bottom half of humanity has fallen by a trillion dollars in the past five years.”
The people who control the world could probably fit in a typical middle-class livingroom, but, while those people might actually know and be in communication with each other (since they buy and sell companies to each other, and need to negotiate with each other, perhaps at first via agents but ultimately through direct contact between themselves), outsiders would probably not be able to draw up an invitation-list to invite them, because their identities could be quite different from the 62 people whom Forbes lists as being the world’s richest. There is probably some crossover between the official lists and the reality, such as, for example, including Bill Gates at around $80 billion (he’s probably higher than 63rd-richest), but, even at only a trillion dollars, King Saud would still be worth twelve of those “#1”s, and the true #2 might be more in Saud’s league than in Gates’s.
Furthermore, when oil was $100/barrel, the Saudi King was lots richer than $7.6 trillion.
Another thing that the Oxfam report indicates is this (indicated on page 3): during the crash of 2008 (from around April 2008 to April 2009), the known wealth of the 62 richest people declined from about $1.3 trillion to about $0.8 trillion. By contrast, the wealth of the poor half of humanity had already taken its big hit starting 2007, declining from about $2.2 trillion in September 2007 to about $1.6 trillion in June 2008. Then, the wealth of the poor half headed back up again, from about $1.7 trillion in June 2008 to around $2.6 trillion in September 2010. And ever since September 2010, it’s been falling for the lower half. Meanwhile, the recovery for the 62 that started in April 2009 has continued ever since (so Oxfam reports: “The wealth of the richest 62 people has risen by 44% in the five years since 2010”), but the poor half of humanity have been losing wealth since September 2010 — more than five years. (Oxfam says: “Meanwhile, the wealth of the bottom half fell by just over a trillion dollars in the same period – a drop of 41%.) So: during those five years, the richest 62 people, according to Oxfam’s figures, gained slightly more wealth than the poor half of humanity lost. 
Oxfam says: “A powerful example of an economic system that is rigged to work in the interests of the powerful is the global spider’s web of tax havens and the industry of tax avoidance, which has blossomed over recent decades. It has been given intellectual legitimacy by the dominant market fundamentalist world view.”
Here is what’s at the core of that “market fundamentalist world view” which has “given intellectual legitimacy” to this soaring inequality:
All of economic theory — except Keynes’s and a few other similar macroeconomic theories that aren’t based upon microeconomics and that therefore are likewise viewed skeptically by economists as being foundationless — are based upon microeconomic theory. All of the standard or “classical” macroeconomic theories are based upon microeconomic theory. That’s the foundation of “classical economics.” A core component of microeconomic theory is its equations for ‘welfare,’ and those equations are based upon the Pareto Welfare Principle, which prohibits interpersonal comparisons, and therefore rules-out any consideration of equality or inequality.
Consequently, whatever a given economist might happen to feel about the question of what the “most efficient” or “optimal” or best level of equality and inequality, is, there exists no basis for that in economic theory. It’s a philosophical issue, perhaps, and a political issue, certainly, but the people who are supposed to be (at least by the public) the experts in it, economists, are allowed to talk about it only ex-cathedra — it’s something that’s outside their area of expertise. Consequently, economists generally prefer not to discuss it — least of all in print — amongst themselves or in professional papers.
I view that situation as being outrageous. I have in draft a book that proposes a replacement for the Pareto Welfare Principle. Any economist who might be interested in seeing my proposed replacement for it is welcomed to leave a reader-comment to this article at washingtonsblog, indicating your email address to send it to for your opinion on it, and I shall be happy to send it.
—————

GAS BELOW 80 CENTS PER GALLON!


For the first time in years, gas stations in one U.S. state are reportedly selling gas at less than $1 per gallon, Sputnik reports.
Stations throughout Houghton Lake, Mich., are selling gas at less than $1 per gallon.
See the report here:
https://youtu.be/R5FVjsobZfA
Read more:
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160118/10…

“Worse Than 2007” Warns Top Level Banker as Central Banks Out of Options!


Sources:
S&P 500 Little Changed Amid Struggle to Rebound From August Lows – Bloomberg Business
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/article…
World faces wave of epic debt defaults, fears central bank veteran – Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fi…
Big banks continue retreat from mortgages
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/19/big-ba…
Hollande outlines jobs plan to tackle economic ‘emergency’ – FT.com
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5d4867…
UPDATE 3-Italy bank stocks plunge, brokers say tough 2016 ahead | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/italy-…
Saudi Arabia buying up farmland in US Southwest
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/saudi-…

2007 Video: Hillary Clinton To Wall Street: Financial Crisis Is Not Your Fault, Home Buyers To Blame

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once said that Wall Street did not cause the mortgage crisis that led to the financial collapse, and she also partly blamed poor people who took out mortgages that they could not afford.

Video of Clinton’s December 2007 speech at New York City’s NASDAQ stock market could provide fuel both for her left-wing opponent
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%
and also for Republicans. Clinton was running for president as it was becoming clear that subprime mortgages were failing as the first part of what became known as the financial collapse. Clinton referred in the speech to her “wonderful donors, some of whom are here today,” and then absolved those donors of culpability in the collapse.
In her remarks, she spoke of “an economy that in recent months has been the subject of increasingly worrisome headlines about weakening consumer confidence, about a declining dollar, and ballooning national debt.”
“Now these economic problems are certainly not all Wall Street’s fault. Not by a long shot,” Clinton said (4:45 Mark In Video Below).
“Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse,” Clinton eventually conceded.
Though Clinton said that Wall Street has played a “significant role in the current problems” including the housing crisis, she went on to partially blame homeowners for their own role in the financial meltdown.
“Now who’s exactly to blame for the housing crisis? Well, that’s always a question that the press and people ask, and I think there’s plenty of blame to go around,” Clinton said, pointing blame at mortgage lenders, the Bush administraton, and rating agencies.
Then she blamed poor people who took out mortgages they couldn’t afford to pay back.
“And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Home buyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads,” Clinton said. (11:55 Mark In Video).

Clinton also blamed speculators who took out multiple mortgages.
“Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don’t deserve our sympathy.”
Ironically, Clinton praised the trend toward low-income home ownership that caused the collapse. That trend started, in large part, due to her own husband’s government lending policies.
“Good things have happened in the housing market. Home ownership is at the heart of the American Dream, and ownership rates rose to a record 69 percent in 2006. That means millions of new stakeholders in their communities. The largest gains were among low income and minority families,” Clinton said.
Of course, it was President Bill Clinton’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency under Secretary Andrew Cuomo that forced lenders into the subprime lending business.
Joseph Lawler described in The American Spectator how a 1992 federal government mandate – which was increased by Cuomo – forced government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start giving out tons of subprime loans to poor minorities who could not afford to pay them back.
“The mandate meant that, in 1999, 42 percent of Fannie and its counterpart Freddie Mac’s loan purchases serviced low- and moderate-income families,” Lawler wrote.
Bill Clinton’s director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development raised the requirement to 50 percent, funneling even more loans to people who could hardly afford them. That director was Andrew Cuomo, now the governor of New York and rising Democratic Party star. Cuomo had great visions for HUD’s housing goals, predicting that “it will strengthen our economy and create jobs.” In order to meet the goals set by Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie had to buy riskier and riskier loans, including subprime. Morgenson and Rosner report that GSE purchases of subprime began increasing sharply in 1999, and in 2008 Fannie and Freddie purchased $1.6 trillion of toxic mortgages, almost half of the entire market.
Financial expert Peter Wallison, who was warning of the housing bubble years before the collapse, described how these government mandates led America to disaster.
“Because Fannie and Freddie were the dominant players in the mortgage markets, when they reduced their underwriting standards, so did most lenders. Homebuyers, of course, were happy to put up low downpayments, even if they could afford much more, and soon many of the concessionary benefits that were intended to go to low income borrowers were going to people who could have afforded prime mortgages,” Wallison said.
“By 2008, before the financial crisis, there were 55 million mortgages in the U.S. Of these, 31 million were subprime or otherwise risky,” Wallison said.
And of this 31 million, 76 percent were on the books of government agencies, primarily Fannie and Freddie. This shows where the demand for these mortgages actually came from, and it wasn’t the private sector. When the great housing bubble (also created by the government policies) began to deflate in 2007 and 2008, these weak mortgages defaulted in unprecedented numbers, causing the insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, the weakening of banks and other financial institutions, and ultimately the financial crisis.
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment for this report.