by Alfred Adask

On February 9^th, Business Insider Australia published "CARNAGE IN JAPAN:  Nikkei's largest fall in years, yen spikes, government bond yields below 0%" which said in part:

 

"On Monday [February 8^th], the benchmark Nikkei 225 index lost more than 900 points, closing the session at 16,085.44.  The 5.4% one-day decline was the largest since June 13, 2013 . . . .  Since January 29^th, the day the Bank of Japan adopted a negative-interest-rate policy, the Nikkei index has lost more than 10%."

 

Since mid-December, when the U.S. Federal Reserve increased the U.S. interest rate by 0.25%, the U.S. stock market has also suffered a significant decline.

Japan lowered its interest rates to zero-and then to a negative interest rate-their stock markets fell. 

The U.S. raised interests from 0.25% to 0.50%, and the US stock markets fell. 

The world's stock market indices are falling. Judging by the US and Japanese recent experiences with raising-and lowering-interest rates, interest rate manipulation is insufficient to overcome whatever forces are causing the market declines.   

This implies that neither the Bank of Japan nor the Federal Reserve has any viable tools including interest rate manipulation that can reliably stimulate the economy and withstand the forces of economic depression.

QE (Quantitative Easing; the distribution of "free" currency to banks) in both nations has also failed to stimulate their economies. 

What tools are left to "simulate" the economy except (allegedly) negative interest rates (NIRP)-and NIRP will almost certainly fail to have any positive effect other than to make people laugh or cuss. 

NIRP is a fantasy or a fraud designed to encourage the public to have (false) confidence in the central banks' ability to control the world's economies.  NIRP is almost certainly a device whose primary purpose is to hide the fact that the central banks have lost their ability to control their economies and are just waiting for, and dreading, the moment when the world recognizes that truth.

 

"While concerns over the outlook for the global economy contributed to the decline, renewed strength in the Japanese yen . . .  was also a major factor behind the Nikkei's decline."

"Renewed strength in the Japanese yen" is evidence of deflation.

Deflation is a hallmark of economic depression. 

Both the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen have been growing stronger-which is evidence that the world's #1 and #3 economies are in deflation and on the brink of, or perhaps already in, an economic depression.  And, so far, they've shown no tools able to prevent that deflation.

 

"While continued easing of monetary policy by the Bank of Japan, along with renewed global growth fears, saw yields on benchmark 10-year Japanese government debt fall below 0%, taking them tolows never witnessed before."

 

"Lows" in Japanese bonds "never witnessed before" is surely bad news for Japan.  But will Japan's misfortune also afflict the U.S. economy?

Anyone who supports the New World Order and Global Free Trade must also support further integration of the U.S. economy into the economies of other countries.  Insofar as the U.S. economy is integrated into Japan's economy, there will be economic contagion between those two countries.  Thus, it appears that Japan's economic depression can infect the U.S. economy with the same disease.

Insofar as the U.S. economy is integrated into the world's, the U.S. economy can be damaged by economic contagion spinning off from other countries like Japan, China, and the EU.

Do we really want to be integrated into a world economy where the U.S. economy's health depends on the health of foreign economies?  Isn't our integration into foreign economies a little like contracting to take blood transfusions from a blood bank located in a gay neighborhood?

It may be that, formerly, the risks created by such contracts were "acceptable" insofar as we believed the central banks had the tools to quickly cure any transmissible diseases.  But as it becomes increasingly clear the central bank "doctors" have no cures for what currently ails our economies, do we really want to risk further economic integration?  Or should we opt for more independence and even economic isolation?

 

 

 

by Alfred Adask

 

Michael Snyder (TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com) writes:

 

"The crisis in Puerto Rico continues to spiral out of control."

 

 I don't regard Puerto Rico's plight as big news. I don't see Puerto Rico as the domino that starts the chain reaction that will, eventually, topple the U.S. economy.

 Even so, Puerto Rico's reaction to its default is interesting as an indicator of what may happen to the US when the U.S. government also inevitably defaults on its debts.

 

*  According to Michael Snyder, "The following is an excerpt from a letter that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent to Congress:"

"Although there are many ways this crisis could escalate further, it is clear that Puerto Rico is already in the midst of an economic collapse. . . . Puerto Rico is already in default."

 

P.R. isn't paying its existing debts.

"1.  It is shifting funds from one creditor to pay another . . . ."

P.R. is robbing Peter to pay a more politically-connected Paul; the political favorites who are "too chummy to fail" will be paid as long as possible.

"and P.R. has,

"2.   Stopped payment altogether on several of its debts."

 

Those who are mere investors and not particularly chummy with government are already losing the cash owed to them.

 

"3.  Creditors are filing lawsuits."

 

The creditors who sue P.R. better pack a Snickers bar because they're going to be in court for a long time before they ever get paid.  In the end, they'll probably receive only a relatively small percentage of the debt due (take a "haircut"). 

P.R. creditors have no more chance of collecting all of the money owed them than do the creditors who loaned money to Greece.  What can't be paid, won't be paid.

 

*  Puerto Rico's Government Development Bank, which provides critical banking and fiscal services to the central government, only avoided depleting its liquidity [exhausting its supply of cash and becoming openly insolvent]by:

The Puerto Rican "Government Development Bank" didn't actually "halt lending" by choice.  They ran out of cash.  The P.R. "Government Development Bank" is broke.

"And,

"2.  Sweeping in additional deposits from other Puerto Rico governmental entities."

 

So far, it's easier for P.R.'s territorial government to rob the city and county municipal accounts than it is to rob the Puerto Rican people.  But, you can bet that as soon as the municipal accounts are exhausted, the Puerto Rican government will start to rob the people's savings accounts and other bastions of private savings.

 

*  In broad strokes the Puerto Rican reaction to their government defaults is:

 

1.  Rob its creditors by stopping payment on debts due.  There aren't many creditors and nobody likes 'em anyway because they're rich.  Governments can rob rich creditors without causing much adverse political reaction.

2. Robbing smaller governmental agencies and entities.  Nobody likes government, either.  Therefore, robbing cities and counties will create only a little more political heat than robbing rich creditors, but not as much as will be created when the government robs the people.

3.  Ignore the resulting lawsuits since most are filed by creditors without political clout and they'll take years to settle.

4.  Rob the ever-dangerous and unpredictable Puerto Rican people-and hope they don't riot and burn the island down to the water line and/or hang the government officials.

*  Implication?  Faced with bankruptcy, most governments (including that of the United States) will first rob those with the least political clout (rich creditors), then rob those with some political clout (smaller governmental entities) and only as a last resort, risk robbing the people who have the most political clout and just might riot.

There's a good chance that when the US defaults-as it must since the National Debt can't be paid in full or even substantially-we'll go through a very similar set of steps:  1^st, rob its rich creditors; 2^nd, rob smaller governmental savings accounts, and finally, 3^rd, rob the American people of their savings.

Repaying the debt is all about politics. 

If you're a creditor and politically connected, you might get paid. 

If you lend money to the government, but you're not politically connected, the probability that you'll be robbed by the national government is high.

 

 

 

 

"Even as Obama takes his anti-gun crusade to new highs [by] dispensing executive orders, the president conveniently continues to ignore the state of affairs in his native Chicago-a city in which guns are banned-yet where the shooting epidemic has never been worse. 

"According to the Chicago Tribune, the total number of shootings in the windy city has risen to 120 in just over a week into the new year . . . at least 19 people have been killed and at least 101 more have been wounded. This is three times higher than compared to the same period one year ago.

"Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi released a statement saying, 'Every year Chicago Police recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city, and as more and more illegal guns continue to find their way into our neighborhoods. So it is clear we need stronger state and federal gun laws.'"

 

That's not "clear" at all. 

What's clear is that the Chicago Police Department is lying or stupid.  As you'll read, there's good evidence indicating that Chicago gun deaths aren't due to Chicago's gun control laws being too weak, but because their gun control laws are too strong. 

Gun control kills.

The cops should know it.  Insofar as the Chicago Police Department advocates more gun control, it's helping to cause, rather than prevent, more deaths.

 

The Chicago P.D.'s statement continues:

 

"So far this year, the majority of the gun violence we've seen are a result of chronic gang conflicts driven in part by social media commentary and petty disputes among rival factions."

 

First, if Chicagoans are dying because of "social media commentary" (the internet) and "petty disputes," is Chicago's real problem gun control or ineffective education and failure to provide young people with some sense of moral values?

More, I'll bet that a majority of those shot or killed were disarmed when the shooting took place.  How many of those victims would've died if the assailants knew they were armed?  Would the killers have all had the nerve to shoot if they knew the victims might shoot back?  Evidence below suggests that the answer is No.

Second, nearly 3,000 Chicagoans were shot in A.D. 2015.  If Chicago's current rate of gun assaults continues throughout A.D. 2016, over 4,000 could be shot and over 800 killed in a city that has powerful, unprecedented gun control laws.

Doesn't the relationship between a high number of shooting victims and a high-powered gun control laws suggest that gun control laws are no more effective at quelling crime than Quantitative Easing is at stimulating the economy?

 

"Despite mounting evidence that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the mass slayings in California, the White House said Thursday that stricter gun control could have prevented the attack and vowed to keep "scrubbing" the nation's laws for ways that President Obama can take executive action to restrict gun ownership.

Apparently, it wasn't the "Islamist terrorists" who killed 14 in San Bernardino, it was the guns.  Maybe we should've let the "Islamist terrorists" go and just jailed their guns.

In fact, gun control is President Obama's #1 solution to every problem. 

Got global warming?  Cure it with more gun control.

Leaves falling off trees and clogging your gutters?  Stop it with more gun control.

Unseasonably warm, cold or moderate weather choking the economy?  Gun control will solve your problems.

Too many potholes in the streets?  The answer's obvious:  more gun control.

In fact, stricter gun control laws won't work any better than stricter drug control laws or NIRP.  Drugs are here in abundance and the government can't or won't do anything to stop it. NIRP is a last grasp at a flimsy straw.  There's no reason to suppose that stricter gun control laws will work any better to defeat criminal elements.

In fact, there's good reason to believe that the only real effect of stricter gun control laws will be to put more honest Americans in prison for having guns to defend themselves against criminals-or in the grave for following the law and having no gun to defend themselves.

No one seriously believes that stricter gun control laws would've stopped the Jihadists in San Bernardino from acquiring guns to kill 14 and wound 17 last December.

But increasing restrictions on access to guns helped leave the law-abiding 14 who died defenseless.  Gun control left the law-abiding 17 who were injured defenseless.  Those people died or were wounded precisely because they obeyed the existing gun control laws.  Their resulting inability to defend themselves got 14 of them killed.

What if the Jihadists had known that 2, 3 or 10 of the people who they planned to attack were packing heat?  What if they'd known that if they showed up with two AK-47s, they'd have to face off against ten people packing 9mm pistols or 45 semi-automatics?

More gun control would not have saved the San Bernardino victims.  It's gun control that got them killed.

 

*  That opinion is not radical hyperbole.

The Economist is a highly-respected English news magazine that agrees that gun control is hazardous to your health.  As reported by The Washington Examiner ("The Economist Speaks on U.S. Gun Control"), The Economist has studied the relationship between American gun ownership and gun violence and reached the following conclusions:

"Over 16 million new guns entered the U.S. marketplace in 2013, up from about 7 million when Obama was elected in 2008.

"'America has become a much safer place over the past two decades, but public sentiment has yet to catch on to the fact.  In 1993, near the peak of America's crime wave, seven out of every 100,000 people aged 12 and up were gunned down. That number has since halved,' it said."

 

Q:  What's the lesson of the Economist's report? 

A:  More guns in the hands or more people actually make people safer.  The 14 who died and the 17 who were wounded in San Bernardino weren't the victims because gun control laws were too weak-they were the victims because gun control laws were too strong. 

If half a dozen of those victims had had their own guns with them, the death and injury toll on the victims would've been smaller.  It's likely that if the Jihadists had known they were bringing their weapons into a room where their intended targets were also armed, those Jihadists might not have bothered to attack.

The victims who died in San Bernardino didn't die simply because the Jihadists had guns.  The victims died because they didn't have guns. What's true in San Bernardino is also true in Chicago.

 

*  If President Obama really wanted to protect the American people from gun violence he'd help enact laws that encouraged more people to own fire arms and allowed and encouraged people to carry those firearms in public.

If may be counterintuitive for many to suppose that more guns result in fewer gun fatalities, but that's only because we've been conditioned by government propaganda to believe gun control is a rational agenda.

The evidence is clear.  During the last 23 years, the number of guns in this country has doubled and the number of people killed with guns has fallen by half.

"Gun control nuts" are, at best, ignorant-at worst, treasonous.

The truth is this:  Gun control kills.

Gun control advocates can get you killed.