President #Trump: Replace The Dollar With Gold As The Global Currency To Make America Great Again


Forbes

Inside President Trump’s otherwise “standard Trump stump speech” at CPAC was nestled what might be a most intriguing observation:

Global cooperation, dealing with other countries, getting along with other countries is good, it’s very important. But there is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency or a global flag. This is the United States of America that I’m representing.

There’s a keen insight in there that could, just maybe, transform our lives, America, and the world. No “global currency?”  Was this, with the poetic observation that “there is no such thing as a global anthem…or a global flag,” just a trope? Or could it contain a political portent with potential high impact on world financial markets?  Let’s drill down.

As it happens, there is a global currency.

It’s called the “U.S. dollar.”

Most international trade is priced in dollars. The Bretton Woods international monetary system invested the dollar, which then was defined as and (internationally) was legally convertible to gold at $35/oz, with global currency status.  France’s then-finance minister, later its president, Valéry  Giscard d’Estaing, called the “reserve currency” status of the dollar — its status, along with gold, as global currency — an “exorbitant privilege.”

By this d’Estaing was alluding to the fact, as summarized at Wikipedia, that “As American economist Barry Eichengreen summarized: ‘It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100 bill, but other countries had to pony up $100 of actual goods in order to obtain one.'” That privilege, which made great sense during the period immediately after World War II, became a curse.

In 1971 President Nixon, under the influence of his Svengali-like Treasury Secretary John Connally, “suspend[ed] temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold.” That closure proved durable instead of temporary. The dollar became, and remains, the world’s global currency.

What had been an “exorbitant privilege” devolved into an exorbitant liability. As my former professional colleague John D. Mueller, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, formerly Rep. Jack Kemp’s chief economist, writing in the Wall Street Journal in Trump’s Real Trade Problem Is Money recently and astutely observed:

a monetary system based on a reserve currency is unsustainable, since foreign official dollar reserves (for example) are acquired and must be repaid in goods. In other words, the increase in official dollar reserves equals the net exports of the rest of the world, which means it must also equal U.S. international payments deficits—an unsustainable situation.

In other words, if President Trump wishes to address America’s merchandise trade deficit (balanced to perfection, of course, by a capital accounts surplus) he will find that allowing the dollar to be used as the global currency is the real snake in the economic woodpile.  The dollar’s burden as the international reserve currency, not currency manipulation by our trading partners or bad treaties, is the true villain in the ongoing melodrama of crummy job creation.

Mueller’s Wall Street Journal column enumerates the three options open to President Trump:

First, muddle along under the current “dollar standard,” a position supported by resigned foreigners and some nostalgic Americans—among them Bryan Riley and William Wilson at the Heritage Foundation, and James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute.

Second, turn the International Monetary Fund into a world central bank issuing paper (e.g., special drawing rights) reserves—as proposed in 1943 by Keynes, since the 1960s by Robert A. Mundell, and in 2009 by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China. Drawbacks: This kind of standard is highly political and the allocation of special drawing rights essentially arbitrary, since the IMF produces no goods.

Third, adopt a modernized international gold standard, as proposed in the 1960s by Rueff and in 1984 by his protégé Lewis E. Lehrman …and then-Rep. Jack Kemp.

To “muddle along” would, of course, be entirely antithetical to Trump’s promise to Make America Great Again. It would destroy his crucial commitment to get the economy growing at 3%+ — vastly faster than it has for the past 17 years  — which also happens to be the recipe for robust job creation and upward income mobility for workers. It also is the essential ingredient for balancing the federal budget while rebuilding our infrastructure and military.

To turn the IMF into a world central bank would, of course, be anathema to Trump’s economic nationalism. To subordinate the dollar to the IMF’s SDR would be equivalent to lowering Old Glory and replacing the American flag with the flag of the United Nations on every flagpole in America. Unthinkable under a Trump administration.

That leaves the third option, to “adopt a modernized international gold standard, as proposed in the 1960s by Rueff and in 1984 by his protégé Lewis E. Lehrman … and then-Rep. Jack Kemp” (whose eponymous foundation I advise). To this one should add, as Forbes.com contributor Nathan Lewis has shrewdly observed, the removal of tax and regulatory barriers to the use of gold as currency.

As I have repeatedly observed Donald Trump shows a strong affinity for gold. He has also shown a keen intuitive grasp of  how the gold standard was crucial to having made America great:

Donald Trump: “We used to have a very, very solid country because it was based on a gold standard,” he told WMUR television in New Hampshire in March last year. But he said it would be tough to bring it back because “we don’t have the gold. Other places have the gold.”

Trump’s comment to GQ: “Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do, but boy, would it be wonderful. We’d have a standard on which to base our money.”

Trump has been misled to believe that “we don’t have the gold. Other places have the gold.” In fact, the United States, Germany, and the IMF together have about as much gold as the rest of the world combined and America has well more than Germany and the IMF combined. [Note: This column has been updated to clarify that the United States has well more gold than Germany and the IMF combined but not, as originally stated, more than twice as much.]

We have the gold. Bringing back the gold standard would not be very hard to do.

..

Flood At Warehouse Full Of IDR And USD – SAMPAI GUDANG IDR DAN USD BANJIR NUNGGU RESPON JOKOWI


What’s going on?
Tons of money of IDR (Indonesian Rupiah) and new USD (Treasury notes) are being stored in a warehouse at a secret location in Indonesia.

Catatan Harta Amanah Soekarno

Seorang penjaga gudang uang yang berisi mata uang dollar Amerika Serikat (USD) dan rupiah (IDR) dalam bentuk edisi terbaru mengatakan bahwa gudangnya sudah kemasukan air hujan setiap kali hujan turun. Repotnya, justru sekarang sedang musim hujan, sehingga hampir tiap hari ia bersama teman-teman penjaga gudang mengeringkan air hujan tersebut agar uang tidak terendam air.

img_20161006_114729Safarians.net ____ Oleh karena itu ia meminta kepada penulis untuk menyampaikan pesan agar Presiden Joko Widodo dapat menerima uang-uang ini untuk digunakan dalam pembangunan infrastruktur di Indonesia yang konon kini mencapai kebutuhan Rp 4.500 triliun.

Ketika ditanya oleh penulis, apakah bersedia memenuhi kebutuhan Pemerintah sekarang sekitar Rp 4.500 triliun? Ia menjawab, bahwa isi gudangnya itu melebihi angka tersebut. Tetapi mata uang yang ada di dalam gudang yang ia jaga hanya mata uang dollar Amerika Serikat dan rupiah yang semuanya dalam edisi terbaru.

Untuk melaksanakan amanah itu, penulis pun sudah mengirim sms ke handphone Presiden Jokowi tembusan…

View original post 326 more words

Tick Tock…The World’s Most Dangerous Bank Is Falling To Pieces!!


Deutsche Bank Collapsing in Real Time!!

Don’t you miss those days of the “Green Shoots”?!
.
As planned, almost to the day, the destruction of the Global Derivative Complex is happening as banks and hedge funds are trying to get their capital OUT of the world’s largest Derivative Holder – Deutsche Bank
.
Some Deutsche Bank Clients Reduce Collateral on Trades
.

“A number of funds that clear derivatives trades with Deutsche Bank AG have withdrawn some excess cash and positions held at the lender, a sign of counterparties’ mounting concerns about doing business with Europe’s largest investment bank.” END

The “Run” on the derivative banks has now officially begun!

Bix Weir

http://www.RoadtoRoota.com


LATEST !

cnbc


ft


Emergency Update: Deutsche Bank Plunges as Funds Reportedly Start Yanking $$; Get Out of Financials

Mike Larson here with an emergency update. Shares of Deutsche Bank (DB) plunged more than 6.7% after reports circulated that some funds are starting to yank money out of the German bank.

Specifically, Bloomberg reported that several hedge funds that clear derivatives with DB are pulling excess money from the bank and moving it elsewhere. They include names like Millennium Partners, Capula Investment Management, and Rokos Capital Management. – Money And Markets


Insider “Deutsche Bank COLLAPSE Tomorrow – Friday 9-30-2016” – Will Wipe out banking system worldwide!

German Bank insiders are confirming to SuperStation95 that Germany’s largest, Bank, Deutsche Bank” will “colapse” tomorrow, Friday, September 30, 2016.  The German government has no plans to bail out the bank and its demise could wipe out Banks in the US and other countries worldwide!

According to the insider:

System downfall tomorrow. A collapse of this bank is unavoidable now, and it wipes out everything immediately.
Wolfgang Gerke, President of the Bavarian Finance Centre, the German bank sees in a serious imbalance.

“This is absolutely not about Peanuts. We experience real shockwaves. The Bank is in real trouble, “Gerke said the Thursday edition of the” Passauer Neue Presse “.

This is as good as a death sentence. It is insider info (presumably from the DB itself), after the financial collapse is to take place on 30 September.

UPDATE 12:58 PM EDT —

Germans are being quietly told that ALL BANKS in Germany will close on October 1, ALL ATMS, Credit and Debit Cards are likely to be “unavailable” for unknown duration! !  !

European Central Bank Chairman  Draghi refused to talk about Deutsche Bank today, saying It is not his fault the bank appears to be in trouble.

German Insider:

There is panic in DB now. A lot of People withdraw money, close accounts. One guy says he transferred 25’000 Euro and the bank called him back if the amount and transaction is correct and true! Still has not sent the money!

This is a developing story, please check back.

Stock markets worldwide have now tuned-in to this situation and they are falling fast . . . .


Deutsche Bank – The Meltdown Crisis

Ten of the large hedge funds are withdrawing from Deutsche Bank. What must be understood here is that Deutsche Bank is the main clearing house for trades in Europe. The problem the hedge funds have is where do they move for clearing? Short-term, they can move to New York or London. With over $60 trillion derivative book at the Deutsche Bank, the government is totally incapable of even understanding how to deal with this crisis. We are looking at a major crisis in confidence.

Merkel is simply out of her mind to adhere to this insane policy of a bail-in. How can hedge funds stay with clearing at Deutsche Bank when she takes this position that would set off a catastrophic global meltdown. It still appears that Merkel will have to blink. Once people realize this is the real crisis, then the German debt market should turn down rather hard.

The pressure is clearly building based upon how my own phone is melting down. This illustration based upon IMF data, illustrates the global contagion. I “BELIEVE” that Merkel will be compelled to blink. We may see an announcement this weekend at the latest where she must address this issue. The implications of a global contagion go far beyond Germany.

Investors in Deutsche Bank are obviously looking to Merkel and whether or not she will step up to the plate here. DB shares have plummeted more than 50 percent this year. The prospect of bailing out Deutsche Bank is particularly a problem when Merkel seeking a fourth term in an election next year. Her view is to hold to what she took as a position. Hence, must the world suffer for her personal political career once again?

The EC attack on Apple has led to a backlash where the US Justice Department in retaliation wants a multibillion-dollar fine from DB. This is also contributing to the problem of DB being in the cross-hairs of US prosecutors who also seek to further their political career not unlike Merkel.

Merkel’s spokesman said the government sees “no grounds” for talk of state funding for DB. This simply cannot stand in the face of a major global contagion. The government would have to step in if Deutsche Bank was really in major trouble and hedge funds reducing exposure are abandoning the bank. You can bet by tomorrow, every bank will be trying to reduce their exposure to DB by the weekend.

John Cryan, Deutsche Bank’s chief executive officer, has come out publicly saying that raising capital “is currently not an issue,” and as far as a bailout from government, he has stated Merkel’s position that such support is “out of the question for us.” This entire crisis is actually set in motion by Merkel who championed to keep taxpayers off the hook in a crisis. She pushed for bail-ins and not bail-outs and this has made it far more difficult for governments to support banks in Europe. The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, which is the cornerstone of Europe’s efforts to tackle too-big-to-fail banks, takes the position that the need any such extraordinary public financial support indicates that a firm is “failing or likely to fail,” that will trigger the resolution. Now, support for banks is highly restricted and has devastated Greece, Italy, and Portugal. Consequently, if Merkel now intervenes on Deutsche Bank’s behalf, she is basically saying the law is for everyone else but Germany. That will lead to internal protests within the EU.

Internationally, if Merkel’s governing coalition does not step up to support Deutsche Bank, the political fallout globally will in itself cause a major crisis probably by November.  Clearly, the need for some sort of state intervention would outweigh calculations about the political fallout. Merkel will cause the international chaos if DB fails and it can fail if this bank run continues. DB needs to be restructured but when it is the biggest in Europe, it cannot be merged as a shotgun wedding. Its business must reduce risk for itself and the connection of other banks. The German government could assume a stock investment. The legal restrictions prevents extraordinary support as state aid that would distort competition by favoring one company over another. Under the EU law, the German government could just take an equity stake. That would not be a bailout in the classic terms that Merkel opposed. It must be carried out at current market conditions. They cannot arbitrarily supply money at some agreed upon share price that is away from the market.

Euro HangingOne loophole under EU regulation would allow Merkel bailout DB provided it is only to “remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a member state and preserve financial stability.” This must be only a temporary measure. This would qualify and she can claim that she is following the EU law and it is not different from country to country. However, EU state-aid rules require junior creditors and shareholders to share losses. Therein lies the problem of a global contagion.

If Merkel actually tried to inject government funds into Deutsche Bank or purchase its capital instruments, it may do so only if there is a capital shortfall identified. Still, there must be no advantage to DB from a competition perspective. The interesting problem that would emerge, highlights the clearing crisis. The European Union would then NEED British banks for clearing. In the face of BREXIT, they are not likely to concede that at any time, so there is another nail in the coffin of the euro. – Armstrong Economics

..

Save

Save

Warren Buffett Is Out Of The Casino


TDV

Jeff Berwick

Warren Buffett Is the Latest Billionaire To Jump Ship From The Markets

Right now the market is perceived to be so dangerous that it’s even chased the most fearless value investors to the sidelines.

Just this evening, in the Presidential debate, Trump warned that the stock market was a bubble “about to pop”.

Now, the bearish billionaire circle has grown even wider with the addition of Warren Buffett.

The “Oracle of Omaha” as he’s known, currently has more money outside the markets than ever before in his five decades running Berkshire-Hathaway.

buffetscashholdings

This is a striking fact considering that Buffett is very well known for his long-term investment strategy – an approach that requires one to constantly have most of their capital tied up in order to generate consistent returns.

That’s right, as the S&P 500 is near record highs, Warren Buffet is more out of the market than he has ever been and waiting for a collapse.

That the 86 year old has so much dry powder, shows his anticipation of a massive market crisis and quite possibly the biggest buying opportunity of his life. Just like us, Buffet is ready to survive and prosper through this calamity.

And with asset prices at all time highs and CNBC and Fox business puppets still perpetuating the great recovery myth, you might expect all these smart money billionaires to be piling into stocks to ride the upside. Instead they obviously know the “goldilocks” recovery holds true to its name’s fairytale origin.

They say “follow the smart money”… and Buffett is known as one of the smartest!

And even more multi-billion dollar fund managers are coming out and warning.

Tad Rivelle, the chief investment officer of TCW’s $195 billion investment fund, is yet another outspoken multi-billion dollar fund manager who’s expressed concern about the economy and monetary policy gone awry.

Rivelle mentioned in a Bloomberg interview last week that he thinks it’s “Time to leave the dance floor” because, to paraphrase, corporate debt is piling up faster than income is increasing.

In a note to investors Rivelle argued, “Face it: the central banking Emperors have no clothes.” he continued:

“…The Fed could continue to use its printing press to falsify capital market signals, but to what end? When a central bank buys an asset with an electronically printed dollar, a “something for nothing” trade has taken place. Unless everything we understand about economics is plain wrong, the Fed cannot go on blithely adding printing press dollars to the system and expect no ill effects.”

The letter continues:

“Our counsel remains as it has been: avoid those assets that will be broken in the coming de-leveraging while keeping a ‘steady as she goes’ attitude towards the future purchase of those assets that will merely bend when the flood comes.”  

He actually called the coming de-leveraging, “the flood”. Even the language of these top money people is biblical in nature.

When we first began ringing the alarm bells about an impending financial crisis last summer, we were nearly the only ones doing it.  Then, month after month, some of the biggest names in money and finance have not only climbed aboard our bandwagon, but have practically stampeded past us.

Now, we can barely keep up with the amount of people warning of impending doom.

Last summer we made a call for subscribers that earned 4,500% in just three days by calling the market crash in late August correctly.

And, our Senior Market Analyst, Ed Bugos, has just reissued a very similar play in an alert to Premium subscribers on September 16th.

There is no guarantee we’ll make another 4,500% gain in a short amount of time, of course.  But it is virtually the exact same investment play we made last summer which made a fortune.

And, that was before we had the likes of Soros, Trump, Rothschild, Jim Rogers and numerous other billionaires, also feeling the same way as us.

We are now less than a week away from the end of the Jubilee Year and if our call is right, we could again make mind boggling returns in just the next few weeks or months.

And, the best part about this type of an out-of-the-money shot is that you can put a small amount of money into it and possibly make large returns… and if it is wrong, you lose just a small amount of money.

Subscribe to TDV Premium and get immediate access to Ed Bugos’ pick in his alert of September 16th.

If the ship’s going down, and soon, it’ll be much more enjoyable making a massive investment return off of it than going down with everyone else.

..

Say What You Like About The Fed Or The Central Banks, The Bank$terS Are Above Governments


FT

Fed on ropes as Yellen seeks to fend off Trump blows

Populist attacks from all sides make central bank vulnerable to calls to rein it in, say analysts

After a fusillade of excoriating and in many ways unprecedented attacks on the Federal Reserve by the Republican presidential candidate, Janet Yellen, the US central bank’s chair, finally hit back.

Ms Yellen last Wednesday dismissed as emphatically wrong Donald Trump’s claims that she and her institution were keeping short-term interest rates low at the behest of the Obama administration. “Partisan politics play no role in our decisions,” she declared.

Mr Trump is throwing punches at a time when the US central bank is under assault from both sides of the partisan divide, and at a time when polling suggests public confidence in its leadership has declined during a subpar economic recovery.

Some experts say the Fed is vulnerable and that the populist attacks could fuel demands by politicians for tighter constraints on its policy freedoms. Mr Trump “is tossing a lot of fuel on the fire”, says Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University. “It intensifies the partisan criticism of the Fed and keeps the Fed in the politicians’ crosshairs.”

Mr Trump’s interventions by no means mark the first time the Fed has been turned into a political punching bag. Previous Fed chairs have been the subject of barbs during presidential campaigns — including in 2011 when Republican candidate Rick Perry accused former Fed chair Ben Bernanke of “treasonous” behaviour by conducting quantitative easing. Past administrations have seen outbreaks of tension with Fed chiefs, including under presidents George HW Bush and Richard Nixon.

Ms Yellen herself has become accustomed to fielding hostile questions from lawmakers during often fractious Capitol Hill appearances.

Mr Trump has, however, set a new standard for anti-Fed invective — at least when it comes to presidential nominees. He has said in recent weeks that Ms Yellen should be “ashamed” of what she is doing to the country, accusing her of creating a false stock market with low rates and setting policy to bolster President Barack Obama’s fortunes…

Read further


Central banks: Peak independence

http-com-ft-imagepublish-prod-s3-amazonaws-com-cf449596-84a9-11e5-8e80-1574112844fd

After a post-crisis surge in central bankers’ power, some politicians want to rein in their role


Yellen To Trump: The Fed Is Above The President

CorbettReport.com


Trump goes after Fed Reserve’s Yellen, claims she’s ‘more political’ than Clinton – Fox

“We are in a very big, ugly bubble,” Trump said Monday. “The Fed is not doing its job. The Fed is being is more political than Hillary Clinton.”


..

Elizabeth Warren – a devoted tool for the civic religion that is statism


FEE

Elizabeth Warren’s Selective Outrage

Joey Clark

89b4f579-525b-4081-ab44-43155fecf274

I made the mistake of checking my newsfeed only to witness that paragon of Potemkin progress, Elizabeth Warren, indignantly shaming the CEO of Wells Fargo over the bank’s recent cross-selling scandal.

Say what you will about the senior Senator from Massachusetts, love her or hate her, but waking up to an Elizabeth Warren harangue is about as pleasant as a throbbing hangover without the consolation of a previous night’s revelry.

Despite having the moral high ground (Wells Fargo did, indeed, defraud their customers), Senator Warren’s presentation came across as effective yet priggish. This is the Elizabeth Warren many progressives have come to know and love. When one progressive writer recently described Warren (and I believe with loving intentions) as a “moral drill bit,” he wasn’t far off from describing her as a useful tool.

A Veritable Swiss Army Knife

I happily welcome this metaphor. Warren is, indeed, a tool – a passionate tool for the populist left, an unwitting tool for government cronyism, a conscious tool of Hillary Clinton, and a devoted tool for the civic religion that is statism.

Though Warren may “speak truth to power” to Wall Street, she often turns mute on some of the worst abuses of government. Like most statists, she sees the speck in her brother’s private eye while failing to see the beam in her own public eye. A whole manner of sins, it seems, are forgiven once one is “serving the public” in government.

Yet, the crucial distinction between government and business is not private vs. public. After all, business often serves the public while government often serves private interests. The crucial difference between government and the so-called private sector is impunity – the ability to assault, kill, and defraud without consequence. The more government and business become intermingled, the more the law becomes a tool of privilege for private and public players alike rather than a defensive measure for the equal liberty and dignity of all.

Elizabeth Warren and those of her ilk seem to think the remedy to crony capitalism is to further empower the very source of such abuses in the first place – state power. When they express righteous indignation in the face Wall Street executives’ impunity but turn a blind eye to the state’s own, it is nothing more than hypocrisy.


Given their incessant prattling and absurd demands, we might as well start calling the whole damn Congress the “Knights Who Say Ni!”


Impunity is impunity is impunity, yet sadly there are plenty of hypocrites on Capitol Hill who damn private actors for actions that are par for the course, or even encouraged, in the public arena. However, among this recent bunch of public servants, Elizabeth Warren takes the cake. Her presentations are not only hypocritical and sanctimonious but boldly so.

As warranted as Senator Warren’s dressing down of Wells Fargo’s CEO was, let us consider this “moral drill bit” in terms of both her style and substance.

Warren’s “Progressive” Political Stylings

Warren always seems one monosyllabic utterance away from sounding exactly like a Michael Palin character in a famous Monty Python film. Almost without fail, after asking the Wells Fargo CEO each of her questions, Warren allowed little to no time for answers. No, her committee time would be used for a hectoring lecture come hell or high water. The folks back home expect nothing less, and to be fair, such an approach is not unique to Elizabeth Warren.

Leading questions and political grandstanding are a mainstay at congressional hearings no matter the party affiliation of the inquisitor. Given their incessant prattling and absurd demands, we might as well start calling the whole damn Congress the “Knights Who Say Ni!” If only we could get them to shut-up by simply saying “it.”

That said, Elizabeth Warren has largely proven herself first among equals when it comes to displays of high dudgeon. She needles the Wall Street elite like no one else, and her star has risen accordingly among progressive populists. The more she pooh-poohs the rising stock prices of corrupt bankers, the higher her own political stock rises.

One may say Elizabeth Warren is the left’s version of Donald Trump more than Bernie Sanders ever was. She is notoriously gifted at marshaling invective, outrage, suspicion, and resentment against not only corrupt bankers but a whole class of people – entrepreneurs – who, according to Warren, somehow become rich and successful en masse by not cooperating with others or serving the needs of society.

No, in Warren’s mind, the only way to “pay it forward” to society is to serve the state:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
This consistent schtick has now earned Warren a spot in the progressive political big leagues. According to Benjamin Wallace-Wells in his piece for The New Yorker (the same piece that “lovingly” compared her to a tool,) Elizabeth Warren has been tapped as the “Democratic Party’s insult comic” for her effective belittling of Trump.

This consistent schtick has now earned Warren a spot in the progressive political big leagues. According to Benjamin Wallace-Wells in his piece for The New Yorker (the same piece that “lovingly” compared her to a tool,) Elizabeth Warren has been tapped as the “Democratic Party’s insult comic” for her effective belittling of Trump.

Yet, Warren must be careful of hypocrisy by her own progressive standards. By taking on Trump, she is coming to the aid of Hillary Clinton who is much too cozy with Wall Street for most progressives’ liking. In fact, as Warren was lambasting Wells Fargo’s CEO, she forgot to mention the ties of her chosen presidential candidate to the very same bank:

Wells Fargo, both the bank and its foundation, have given generously to the Clinton Foundation over the years. The bank has given between $10,001 and $25,000, and the foundation has given between $100,001 To $250,000. In 2011, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech to Wells Fargo for $200,000.

Of course, one may forgive Elizabeth Warren for doing the best she can to choose the lesser of two evils in the corrupt world of presidential politics, but even forgetting this shallow game of guilt by association with the Clintons, Warren’s hypocrisy still stands based on her own flawed political theory.

Impunity for Me and Not for Thee

So, why was Elizabeth Warren so upset at Wells Fargo anyway?

Bloomberg reports:

“The lender opened more than 2 million accounts that consumers may not have known about, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement Thursday. Wells Fargo, which fired 5,300 employees over the improper sales practices, agreed to pay a record $100 million fine to the CFPB, $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and $50 million to the Los Angeles city attorney to settle the matter. The San Francisco-based bank also will compensate customers who incurred fees or charges, the agencies said.”

So let me get this straight: a major bank took out accounts in people’s name without their consent and started charging them fees. Many Wells Fargo’s customers not only lost money in the short-term. Unwitting customers who had a line of credit taken out in their name without their consent could potentially have their credit ratings downgraded with long-run consequences. When these aggrieved customers tried to sue for damages, the bank claimed it was immune from punishment given certain contract stipulations.

I agree with Elizabeth Warren that this is deplorable behavior. I agree with her that this is an institutional problem rather than just a few thousand rogue employees. The incentives given by bank leadership clearly influenced bad behavior by the bank’s lower-level agents. I agree justice must be done.

Fraud and Force? Look at Government

Elementary justice would call for Wells Fargo to make the customers they defrauded whole, a refund plus damages. Yet, under the state’s theory of justice, not only must the bank pay back those who have been done wrong, they must also pay the state. Whereas the wronged customers of Wells Fargo will receive a few million dollar pittance in total, the state will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. That sniffs of more than simple justice. That smells more like a protection racket.

Again, it is immoral and criminal when any one person or institution without explicit consent takes the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, and Wells Fargo appears to have committed fraud.

Yet, how can Elizabeth Warren and her ilk be so outraged by this bank’s actions, yet so sentimental about the government’s own modus operandi of force, fraud, and impunity? Why so sad in the face of Wells Fargo’s fraudulent contracts yet so enthusiastic for the social contract?

As deplorable as Wells Fargo’s behavior was in this situation, their actions pale in comparison to what the state does every day legally.

I Never Consented to the Social Contract

Just think of what the government does every day. The government looks at people living in its geographic monopoly (its customers) and presumes their consent, but I personally have never given my consent (and never would) for most of what the government does.

Though I have never consented to programs such as Social Security and Medicare (programs passed decades before my birth), the government persists in charging me fees for their administration. Though I have never consented to the War on Drugs, the government continues to take my money through threat of force only to then turn around and threaten me again with kidnapping and imprisonment for non-violent and often pleasurable behavior. When the government’s low-level agents, say the police, overstep the bounds of natural liberty in their enforcement of state rules I never consented to, the police may be sanctioned, but the politicians are never punished for giving the police the incentive to do so.

Furthermore, when the government does not take my property directly through taxation, it takes debts out in my name and sees fit to issue more currency by means of its monopoly on the production of money, harming the future credit prospects of a whole generation in the long-run while destroying the purchasing power of millions of Americans’ wages through inflation in the short-term. It then uses these debts to prosecute wars abroad in my name and grant special privileges to big business and other special interests.


Who judges the judges? Who guards the guards?


Again, I never consented to any of this, and when I try to sue the state or seek redress, the government claims to be immune from the basic dictates of justice and the ancient rules of liberty. Infuriatingly, the U.S. government claims this impunity for the sake of upholding liberty. They trample on our rights to uphold our rights. Go figure.

And this is supposed to be the institution serving as my champion against the likes of Wells Fargo? Where is Elizabeth Warren? What is her opinion on the bloody impunity of the state? Other than demonizing regulators on occasion for not doing “enough,” when has Elizabeth Warren ever struck at the root of the problem that is the state’s impunity?

Where is your indignation now, Senator?

Well, as Senator Warren told libertarian voters nearly four years ago:

“I’ve taught contract law for 25 years and contracts are about private ordering, about parties and voluntary exchanges who engage in transactions that make all of us better off. I love contracts and I think it’s a core part of the libertarian principles. It is an important part. Libertarians believe in social ordering, right? That the social ordering is by private arrangement, so, that they ought to believe in contracts and in fact I think they do.”

Yes, libertarians, or true liberals, believe in contracts based on voluntary consent. Libertarians are all for standards, rules, morality, and community; as long as they are freely chosen. This is not because of some arbitrary or peculiar penchant for personal liberty; rather, the libertarian contends voluntary standards are superior to imposed dictates because standards, rules, morality, and community are predicated on individual consent, e.g. a community that has not been freely chosen is no community at all, at least not a free one; if imposed through aggressive coercion, it is a society of institutional subjugation.

Yet, Elizabeth Warren, as noted above, is a true believer in the “social contract”—that by voting or simply living in a certain area, we have implied “our” consent to the state. Well, by that logic, I suppose Wells Fargo’s victims implied their consent by simply being customers with the bank in the first place.

However, unlike the state, Wells Fargo is subject to sanction from the government protection racket. There will be some semblance of justice served despite the state’s perverse understanding of justice. But, obviously, the government itself is not subject to its own scrutiny in the same way. Who judges the judges? Who guards the guards? How can we trust a monopoly to ever police its own monopoly powers in good faith?

Can One Consent to the Social Contract in the First Place?

If Warren is such a big believer in social ordering by private arrangement and voluntary consent, would she ever deem a contract signed under duress valid? Can one really consent to something, say the social contract, in the first place if one is never given the option to “just say no”?

As Gary Chartier writes in his book, The Conscience of an Anarchist:

“..if there is no real way of opting out, if the state doesn’t provide a way of allowing people not to consent to its authority while remaining within the territory it claims, then there’s really no way of opting in, either. The state treats us as having consented to its authority whatever we do, so we’re not really being given the choice to consent at all. And it’s hard to take seriously the idea that your consent means anything, that it should obligate you in any way, if you don’t have the option of not consenting.”

So, Elizabeth Warren, please continue to call out the massive frauds on Wall Street, but when you do, be sure you call out the state as well. After all, how can we trust an institution that doesn’t play by the same rules as the rest us to keep us honest in the first place?

I imagine this is a large part of why so many institutions, private and public, act criminally with impunity today. They have discovered a loophole in the system. If you wish to break the law, make the law a matter of one’s own authority rather than a matter of content as best gleaned by the dictates of a free and equal people’s reason and good faith.

If we are to have governance at all, it must be subject to same rules as those it governs. If I, or anyone else, defraud or murder someone, my consent is not needed to punish me. But, if I have done no one harm, what right does any person or government have to my life, liberty, or property? None whatsoever.

I am all for sniffing out unjust force, fraud, and impunity. However, I am under no illusion that impunity can ever be conquered by impunity. Only someone who loves the state could believe in such a fantasy.

Unfortunately, in the midst of this 2016 presidential election, I must admit this bloody delusion is going strong, and Elizabeth Warren is merely a bit player in a timeless struggle of liberty against power. Sometimes she gets it right, but overall, she accepts the basic lie of democratic state power that “we” are the government.

In time, I hope she learns to love liberty and be just as suspicious of the state as she is of Wall Street.


Joey Clark is a budding wordsmith and liberty lover. He blogs under the heading “The Libertarian Fool” at joeyclark.liberty.me. Follow him on Facebook.

..

“The Committee to Destroy the World” Just Tipped Its Hand


The Road to Roota Theory postulates that there is a group of people in the United States as well as around the world that are working to remove and destroy the financial banking powers that have secretly controlled all aspects of our lives for hundreds of years. The original idea of this group sprang from the mind of Alan Greenspan and involved rigging markets with computer programs that he had invented in the 1960’s.

The ongoing financial crisis is nothing but a planned collapse by Alan Greenspan’s “Golden Agenda”


MoneyMorning

The Federal Reserve Board is largely made up of tenured economics professors who are long on theory and short on practical. So it’s not surprising that their dot plots rarely reflect anything close to a realistic, well-reasoned forecast. A 3.25% short-term rate prediction, for instance, is pure science fiction.

dot-plot-graphic

Central Banks Are Willfully Destroying This Critical Market Function

Michael E Lewitt

With central banks owning $25 trillion of financial assets and sovereign wealth funds owning countless trillions more, it is time to ask whether capitalism as we know it is a thing of the past.

These non-economic actors have different motivations than traditional investors who buy assets in order to earn a profit over a reasonable period of time.

Central banks are buying stocks and bonds in order to monetize government debt and keep afloat the endless Ponzi schemes required to finance massive entitlement promises to their constituents.

Sovereign wealth funds are looking for places to park their cash for extremely long periods of time and often focus on assets with trophy or strategic value.

But the most important thing these two types of buyers have in common is that they don’t have to sell, which means that their ownership can inflate the value of what they own for prolonged periods of time.

This destroys the price discovery mechanism that markets are supposed to provide. And without price discovery, markets cease to function properly.

Then the destruction starts in earnest…read further

 

..