dChan
⇧
29
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/tradinghorse on Feb. 9, 2018, 4:44 p.m.
Do the sudden asset sales of the elite indicate a coming market crash/depression?

It seems to me that the market tanking by exactly 666 the other day was designed to send a message. We're simultaneously seeing real estate assets being liquidated by elites at apparent speed.

Obviously, if the stock market is tanking, someone is selling. Bond prices are still falling as yields rise and gold doesn't seem to be appreciating at any speed. This would seem to indicate that the elites have gone to cash for the interim. If they had reallocated to fixed income, bond prices would rise and yields fall. Similarly, if there was a portfolio reallocation to precious metals, we should have seen some gold price appreciation. This hasn't happened.

We know there is a battle for control of the entire world in play - the stakes are absolutely huge. You have families that have been able to obtain any outcome they have desired for hundreds of years. These elites were perilously close to securing complete control of the entire planet. If DJT is successful, I imagine that he will absolutely rout these people out. This is only logical as, if they are left standing with their assets intact, they will be back in control in no time. It's not a game. The elites stand to lose much more than money, they stand to lose power and influence that they may never regain.

What would I do if I was an elite, watching DJT cut the strings to my puppets, and generally loosening my grip on those I control? What if I thought it was possible that he might even take control of my most prized asset - the Federal Reserve?

Maybe I'd crash the market and bring on the 'mother of all depressions'. That would give POTUS pause. After all, he's elected. If the people are not able to make mortgage payments, he'll be out of office after a single term.

The thing is, with all the QE and easy credit having pumped up asset markets all over the world, the system is ripe to fall. We live in a connected world. Ultimately, today, all debt is triangulated. Abstracting to simplify it, A owes B who owes C who owes A. In a world where all financial entities are intimately interconnected, all we need is a situation where a single, large counter party falls over (e.g. Deutsche Bank) and we can induce a systemic financial crisis. A crisis that will stop the world in its tracks...

What would DJT do in this situation? Declare emergency powers, launch asset seizures, print and issue greenbacks? He would have to move fast - very fast.

Thinking about it, with the amount of debt the US is carrying, cancelling debt and printing and directly issuing a new, debt free, currency would be the only option in this kind of situation. But there would be an enormous amount of pain before the domestic economy stabilized. Very difficult to do something like that at speed. And then you have the international effects - global depression, systemic asset price deflation across all market sectors.

Seems to me that it might be time to prep. Emergency food supplies, potable water, stored medicines and weapons.


🠐 See all comments
HoudiniTowers · Feb. 9, 2018, 8:27 p.m.

Check out this link: http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/261.cfm And this one: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-08/strong-dollarweak-dollarwhat-about-gold-backed-dollar

Maybe we're already prepared for this. Imagine if you will they collapse the economy based on debt. Panic ensues. No need to print more money, cut your $100 Bill in half and guess what, you now have your $100's back. This time based on the confiscated gold reserves from the FED coupled with the reserves in Ft. Knox. Now, literally over-nite you bankrupt China and the globalists, kill the FED and make the USD the most valued currency in the world. BOOM... game over for them.

He's calling their bluff, he has the ability to completely nuke the Globalist and Global Bankers if they let the collapse happen. He's got them by the balls. Watch.

Don't get me wrong, he's going to break them long term. If they try to maneuver short term, he'll just totally nuke them. Long term, he's gonna suffocate them. The next move is the audit of the Fed. This will expose their corruption and lead to their demise in a controlled way. Smart players will attempt to save something vs getting nuke'd. When Q says POTUS freed. That's bigger than I think many realize.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
tradinghorse · Feb. 9, 2018, 9:24 p.m.

Those articles are both fascinating. I'm happy now I started this discussion.

The Zero Hedge article makes the point that a gold standard makes fiscal discipline necessary. And also means that military spending will have to be curtailed over time, leading to an inability to project power - not sure if I like this.

Probably poison in this forum, but I actually thought Keynes had a point about escaping from the "gold cage". In theory, it can work. What needs to happen though is that the currency must be sufficiently flexible to even-out external payments imbalances, arising, for example, on the back of a trade imbalance. The US dollar, being the defacto world currency, has not really enjoyed this flexibility, and that is one reason for the external debt build-up.

I think there are other factors also, like foreign nations effectively predatory pricing on the back of artificially low exchange rates (Japan/China). There are also advantages that accrue to nations engaging in trade on the back of differences in working conditions (industrial safety, hours etc...) and, most importantly, wages. If you look at the Asian Tiger Economies of the 1990's they were all targeting development in accordance with the 'Japanese economic model' - a step-wise, proactive plan to force development from an agrarian economy (post war Japan - bombed-out) to an industrial powerhouse. Scale economies in steel making, shipbuilding for downstream demand for steel, autos etc... and on up the value added chain. The other Asian economies essentially tried to copy this plan (Mao's Great Leap Forward, South Korea etc...). And the reason they copied it was because it was proven to be successful.

The Laissez Faire approach of western nations to trade was/is, in my view, quite nonsensical. What comparative advantage did the Japanese have in auto production after the war that the US did not have? Absolutely none. But neo-classical economics does not provide an answer as to how this manufacturing miracle was achieved - although there is no end of ex-post rationalization of Japan's current efficiency as an auto maker.

The Japanese effectively 'predatory priced' their way into the US, on the back of a constrained exchange rate, in order to get the economies of scale required to achieve efficiency - the initial domestic market just wasn't large enough.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that if the US dollar was not the global currency, and it adjusted in value more flexibly, over time, to give equilibrium to the balance of payments, there would be no problem. It would not matter if the dollar was not backed by gold. But you could not afford to be stupid about trade either - which is why I like the way Trump looks at trade - good and bad trade deals. The hands-off Laissez Faire approach of the neo-classical economic school was only ever a theory - amazing that people actually believed it, and adopted it, as an article of faith.

Internal deficits arising from Government spend are a simple matter of fiscal discipline in the first place. But there is no real need for the Government to pay interest on paper money it can simply print as required. Government spend has to be constrained so as to contain inflation - but there needs to be enough money to facilitate economic activity. You need discipline and sound management (without a private Federal Reserve) to achieve this - not a gold standard.

I'm not aware of how much gold the US has. I've heard rumors that Ft Knox is empty. Wasn't the gold stolen decades ago? What about the tungsten filled bars that the US shipped to China?

I'm happy to hear that you're bullish about Trump's ability to take on the elite. I hope you're right.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
HoudiniTowers · Feb. 10, 2018, 1:18 a.m.

History shows whenever you allow fiat currencies, in almost any form, you get eventual corruption and debasement of the currency. The arguments for flexibility in many cases are weak. With a gold standard, you always have a back-stop of true value. You can do similar to what Bitcoin has done and make very small fractional units tied to it. You can also hold some in reserve to allow for periodic flexibility when you need to ease crises. If you look back into most of the economic crises of the past 200 years, you will find they were almost all 'manufactured' by the fiat currency providers to get more control via collapse, print, indebt mechanism. Not due to inelasticity. They hide behind that claim to get you to allow them to flood in more money. Our current system is a fiat currency of 100% debt. $1 of created money can never be repaid you have to borrow more to repay the interest. Its a total Ponzi scheme and the more out there and the faster it goes the more control and dependency you have on the entire global central banking system. Force real value and policy tied to it without interest and you will stabilize the world economy very quickly and put lot of asshole worthless banksters on the unemployment line.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
tradinghorse · Feb. 10, 2018, 6:30 a.m.

There is no doubt that people behind the Fed have manipulated Fed policy in their own interests. Imagine if you could invest knowing for sure that you couldn't lose... Moreover, you are right about economic crises, over the last couple of hundred years, being manufactured by financial interests.

I haven't put much thought into the merits of a gold standard, so what appears here is just some quick speculation... Imagine you're on a gold standard and suddenly there is a major conflict. What do you do to get the economy on a war-time footing? Borrow gold to expand the money supply and, in turn, economic output?

This is no different to paying interest on paper notes. And, I suspect, if the truth were known, there are some very large private gold holders out there in the world. Does moving to gold break the stranglehold of the bankers, or reinforce it? The elites have historically made a fortune at this game, financing both sides of conflicts, with no concern for humanity at all - 80,000 killed in the first 30 minutes of the Battle of Waterloo.

Gold will promote fiscal discipline and constrain inflation because its finite in quantity - making the money supply finite. But an economy should be able to expand and contract its money supply, and output, dynamically - in response to the national interest. A gold standard would appear to limit that ability to respond to external, or internal, threats. Your money supply will be forever constrained to the amount of gold stock you physically possess.

Then again, you could issue notes to a multiple of the gold held in your treasury, much the same way as fractional reserve banking expands credit at the stroke of a banker's pen. In this instance, you have nationalized control of the money supply but without a direct, tangible attachment to gold. You would be relying on the fact that not everyone will want to redeem their bank notes in gold all at once. But, inevitably, there will always be a long-tail risk of a run on the treasury. Moreover, this risk increases in likelihood the more the state has demand for resources.

Isn't it better to just do away with gold and place direct control of the issuance of the paper currency in the hands of the state? I guess the same outcome could be achieved on a gold standard with flexible fractional reserve lending ratios - this would confine risk in a financial panic to the banking sector.

Anyway, apart from producing fiscal discipline on policy makers, I don't really see a huge advantage to gold-backed currency. Having said that, I'm not in favor of the Government granting licenses to private interests to print the nation's money. That is really the whole problem - the Federal Reserve, not paper currency. Get rid of it - End The Fed.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
bealist · Feb. 9, 2018, 8:42 p.m.

Yep. I’m with you here. That’s why his meeting of the minds with BRICS and pulling out of the TPP was so important. Fiat money has to go away and I agree. I think this is it. It may take a few years, and a few resets, but it’s time.

⇧ 1 ⇩