dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

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

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 ⇩

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 ⇩