US Commentary

In the 21^st century Corporate Media, where “black is white” and “up is down”; perverse reporting of economic data is par for the course. However, nowhere will one find a larger mass of hyperbole and deception than with respect to the epic myth of supposedly emerging U.S. “energy independence.”

First let’s outline this simplistic fantasy. Some intrepid talking-head in the mainstream media points out that U.S. oil production has been “steadily rising” and U.S. oil demand has been “steadily falling”. The data is then plotted on a chart, the lines are extrapolated into the future, and then the talking-head points to the projected intersection-point, and exclaims “Look, soon the U.S. will be energy independent.”

It’s a delightful tale for small children, and would likely make a fine “Disney movie.” Unfortunately it’s a fantasy which cannot be rationally incorporated into the real world. Debunking the myth requires breaking it down into its components.

The starting-point is to explain something scrupulously avoided by all the talking-heads clucking about “energy independence”: why U.S. oil demand is falling. The dynamic is very simple: when economies grow, oil-demand grows. There has never been an exception to this principle since our economies became dependent upon oil…until the “U.S. recovery” of 2009-13.

Since U.S. oil demand peaked in the middle of last decade at more than 20.5 million barrels per day; it has plummeted by roughly 10% to approximately 18.5 mbpd currently. This collapse in U.S. oil demand has only been equaled once previously since the Second World War: during the Great Stagflation of the 1970’s.

What is important to note, however, is that severe recession also marked the one sustained effort by the U.S. government and U.S. auto industry to radically improve “energy efficiency”. While the U.S. has talked about greater efficiency in the decades which followed, in all the decades of (actual) economic growth which occurred since then, U.S. oil demand has steadily risen until 2007.

Since that point, U.S. oil demand has plummeted to a 16-year low. It plummeted all through the (official) Great Recession, and has kept falling throughout this (supposed) Recovery. Has there been some great “energy efficiency revolution” which the U.S. government forgot to tell everyone about?

Apparently not. In fact, President Obama recently announced a new plan to attempt to “double U.S. energy efficiency” over the next two decades. This follows his “new plan” to increase energy efficiency in 2011, and his “new plan” to increase energy efficiency in 2009. One presumes the Obama regime would not find it necessary to announce new “energy efficiency” initiatives (like some solar-powered cuckoo-clock) if the old plans were actually accomplishing anything.

Thus the equation is simple: shrinking oil demand = shrinking economy. This was pointed out in a previous commentary from March of last year, and recently echoed by noted energy expert, Chris Martenson. After studying global economic data, Martenson was unequivocal: “without growth in oil consumption, GDP doesn’t advance.”

This is reinforced by data from the U.S. government showing less and less people working every month – in a chart now familiar to all regular readers. It’s reinforced by data showing U.S. retailers selling less and less goods every month (in this consumer economy).

Industrialized economies do not grow without increased oil demand. Consumer economies do not grow without selling more goods. And no economy of any kind can grow when there are less and less people working.

Gold Commentary

Once upon a time, an entity called the “World Gold Council” was created. It was supposed to be an industry trade-group, which (like all industry trade-groups) promotes the health and growth of their industry. But that’s not how it turned out.

To understand the World Gold Council, one need do little more than examine its history. It was created in 1987. Was this the beginning of some new, Golden Age for the gold mining industry? Hardly. In fact, it marked the early stages of the most successful era of gold price-suppression in history, and the complete destruction of the global gold-mining industry – with more than 90% of the world’s gold mines being bankrupted.

If the World Gold Council is really an “industry trade-group”, then it was/is the most incompetent/inefficient such entity ever created. But, of course, the World Gold Council doesn’t serve “gold” or even gold-mining. It serves paper – banker-paper, to be precise.

Like all (supposed) industry trade-groups, the WGC is officially comprised of a collection of the world’s largest gold-miners; who themselves are nothing but a herd of banker-sycophants. Lest anyone suffer from the delusion that the world’s gold miners (and the WGC) were merely “innocent bystanders” in the destruction of the global gold-mining industry, more facts are in order.

At around the time the WGC was formed; these same large, gold-miners were in the process of enslaving themselves to the bankers by forward-selling 100’s of tons of gold which hadn’t even been dug out of the ground yet – in order to further depress prices in the sector by creating a glut of supply.

This policy of self-destruction became institutionalized. As quickly as the sycophant-miners identified new reserves in the ground, they would forward-sell that ore to the bankers, permanently discounting their own commodity. Those readers who don’t fully comprehend this intentional suicide-spiral need to be reminded of another industry trade-group, with which we are all familiar: OPEC.

When OPEC was created, did it immediately result in a long-term depression in the price of oil? Did it result in 90% of the world’s oil companies being bankrupted? Did OPEC members forward-sell their oil in massive quantities? No. Precisely the opposite, in every respect.

OPEC didn’t forward-sell their oil to depress the price; they restricted supply to maximize total revenues for their industry. Their industry did not go into a long-term depression where more than 90% of all companies were bankrupted. Instead, this industry trade-group is directly responsible for the robust/health profits of the world’s oil companies.

But don’t take my word for it. Feel free to check with Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon. The $400 billion market-cap for Exxon is larger than the combined market-caps for the entire, global gold-mining industry. Indeed, Mr. Tillerson’s personal, annual compensation is larger than the individual market-caps of most of the world’s gold-mining companies.

Clearly the World Gold Council is nothing but a slave-collective, in bondage to the bankers; and which serves not the interests of gold (or gold-mining) but rather the promotion of the bankers’ paper monetary system. Need more convincing? Simply look around their website.

Try finding information about gold (i.e. supply/demand data). What one will discover is that such data goes back no more than two years. This is despite the fact that gold mining is one of humanity's oldest industries, where we have been mining/refining gold for nearly 5,000 years. Conversely there are a plethora of essays going back more than 15 years; letting us know about all the ways in which the bankers want to use our gold to make their paper system “better.”

The World Paper Council is, in reality nothing but a banking industry sub trade-group; composed of some of the bankers most-loyal servants, paying homage to their Masters. More proof that the WGC serves paper rather than gold came out today, with its utterly astonishing reporting on Q1 for the gold market.

US Commentary

Perverse reporting of economic data by the Corporate Media is nothing new. However, what is newsworthy is when that same Corporate Media explicitly acknowledges such perversity. Such open manipulation of the news was on display today.

The context is the accelerating Depression in the U.S. retail sector; which as the propaganda machine itself regularly acknowledges, represents more than ¾ of the total U.S. economy. In March, the revised numbers indicated U.S. retail sales plummeting by -0.5%.

However, that number is neither adjusted for inflation, nor is it reported at an annualized rate (as are most economic statistics). Let me perform those adjustments. Currently, U.S. inflation is somewhere close to 20%. This is likely a conservative estimate, given that as recently as July of last year the World Bank was reporting that global food inflation was running at a current, annualized rate of 120%.

An annual inflation rate of nearly 20% works out to roughly 1.5%/month. When we subtract that number from the “raw” retail sales estimate of -0.5%, we get an actual collapse in U.S. retail sales of roughly -2% for the month of March. Convert that to an annualized rate (i.e. multiply it by twelve); and what the U.S. government really reported last month was retail sales plummeting lower at an annualized rate of approximately 25%.

Let me repeat this. In the U.S.’s consumer economy, retail sales plummeted lower at a rate of 25% in the month of March. Doesn’t sound like much of an “economic recovery” to me. But this brings us to the April figure for retail sales just released this morning.

Given that (almost) all U.S. economists continue to claim the U.S. economy is “growing”; clearly these economists must have been “expecting” retail sales to bounce-back in April with a strong number. Right? Wrong.

U.S. economists were “expecting” an even more-severe collapse in retail sales this month. This brings us to the “beating expectations” game played by the Corporate Media. While this sham has been explained previously, Bloomberg was kind enough to explicitly do so today itself:

…April’s retail sales report is another example of a generally weak report that is better than expected, so it’s perceived to be a positive,” Jim Baird…at Plante Moran Financial Advisors, said in an e-mail to clients. [emphasis mine]

And with that simple statement, the propaganda machine’s Beating Expectations sham is completely unmasked. How do you make “bad news” sound like “good news”? You pretend that you were expecting terrible news.

Then, when merely bad news is announced; you dance a merry little jig, pull out the marching band – and tell everyone that the bad news is really “good news.” This is precisely what we see the cynical U.S. propagandists doing with the April retail sales report.

The economic experts claimed they were expecting U.S. retail sales to plummet lower in April by -0.6% (-27% annualized and roughly adjusted for real inflation). Instead, when a microscopic gain of 0.1% is actually reported it is proclaimed to be “good news”. When adjusted for inflation and expressed as an annualized number, the April number actually reported translates into U.S. retail sales falling at a rate of roughly 18% -- still depression-like numbers.

International Commentary

Definition of insanity: performing the same act again and again, but expecting a different result.

Obviously this is a colloquial “definition” of insanity. However, at the very least it is an unequivocal demonstration of abject stupidity. Choosing to repeat failure is utterly indefensible behavior.

What do we see with our politicians, bankers, economists, and media talking-heads? Bludgeon your way through all of the obfuscation; and we see that most of our economic problems are derived directly from two, failed policies: excessive money-printing and excessive debt.

Yet what are the only two “solutions” for these problems being proposed by Western governments (and their apologists in the Corporate Media) today? Even more-extreme money-printing, and even more-extreme debt-creation. Putting out the fire with gasoline. Insanity.

Has anyone actually paid attention to any of the so-called sovereign “bail-outs” which have occurred over the past five years? In every instance it has involved lending vast sums of money to hopelessly insolvent governments.

Supposed I owe $10,000, but require a “bail-out” because I can’t service this debt; and my Rescuer lends me another $5,000. Please explain to me how I’ve been “bailed out” when I now owe $15,000? Obviously if I couldn’t make payments on my debt when I owed $10,000; it’s mathematically impossible to do so when I now owe $15,000.

I haven’t been “bailed-out.” Instead, my bankruptcy has been temporarily delayed, but at the cost of a much larger bankruptcy down the road. This is precisely the opposite manner in which this is handled in the private sector.

In the private sector (unless you’re a Too Big To Fail bank); insolvency is resolved as quickly as possible – with either a genuine “restructuring” (i.e. less debt rather than more) or a formal bankruptcy proceeding. It is universally understood that this is always the process which minimizes economic losses (and the misallocation of resources).

But this is only the foundation for our insanity. On top of this initial layer of insanity; we have multiplied this quest for self-destruction with (arguably) even greater insanities.

What is the only, possible valid reason for repeating a strategy which has already failed repeatedly? We conclude that “the Plan” itself was valid, but the execution of that plan was faulty. In which case, the only sane course of action is to get different people (hopefully better) to attempt to execute the Plan.

What do we see instead? Employing the same Cast of Clowns (Criminals?) who have already failed repeatedly to remain in charge of executing the Plan – expecting that this time the Clowns will perform admirably. Employing the same Cast of Clowns to repeat a failed strategy which is universally understood to be the precise opposite of what they should be doing.

Alternate definition of insanity: expecting the same people who screwed things up originally to “fix” their mistakes…by continuing to make the same mistakes.

Gold Commentary

In many instances, simple principles give expression to important, elementary Truths. In less formal contexts; we often term such thinking “common sense.”

Conversely, merely because a principle (or so-called “Law”) expresses a simple thought does not mean it automatically conveys some “important/elementary truth.” Instead, sometimes “simple” is merely simplistic. Closer examination reveals that the principle lacks validity, generally due to a combination of faulty conceptual understanding and the use of misleading semantics.

This is precisely what one finds on any rigorous analytical scrutiny of the economic/monetary myth known as Gresham’s Law. First however, for those readers not familiar with this dogma: definition of terms. “Gresham’s Law” expresses the seemingly obvious idea that in any economy “bad money will drive out good money.”

This struck me as a rather silly/irrelevant “law”; since it is one which rarely has any application in our modern economies…which have no “good money.” However; it was only after pondering the brilliant work/analysis of Hugo Salinas Price on the concept of “parallel currencies” that the actual mythology inherent in Gresham’s Law became apparent.

He provided a practical, economically viable framework for introducing silver “money” into an economy; to function as a “parallel currency” – along-side our paper currencies. That analysis led me to ponder the dynamics: what would happen after good money (silver) was introduced as a parallel currency?

In fact, the result of that (hypothetical) process is what exposes the primary fallacy of Gresham’s Law. Before detailing how/why this is an inevitable result of such logical analysis; a helpful metaphor is in order.

Ice, like money is both a tangible item and tangible concept. How do we define “good ice”? While it’s possible to construct more oblique standards; the obvious scale by which to measure “good ice” is temperature. Ice is supposed to be cold, thus “good ice” must be colder ice.

This brings us to the inverse concept: “bad ice”. If “good ice” means colder ice, then “bad ice” must (as a tautology) refer to warmer ice. And here is the key, conceptual point. When it comes to the quality of ice; ultimately we only have “good ice”. So-called “bad ice” is simply water – it is no longer “ice” at all.

In fact, in measuring the quality of ice; we find that it is an illusory form of qualitative analysis. Ice has a “freezing point”: above that point; all ice is “good ice”. Below that point, we have only water. In the real world there is no such thing as “good ice” and “bad ice”; merely ice and water.

Here the parallel between ice and money is nearly perfect. In the real world; there is no such thing as “good money” and “bad money”. There is only money and currency. To understand this distinction requires understanding the logical distinction between money and currency.

Sadly, such understanding is rare in the “profession” of economics. This both explains how Gresham’s Law ever came into existence in the first place, and why this fatally-flawed doctrine has survived as  a “law” this long.

Money has an objective/universal definition. While there has been some semantic quibbling about peripheral aspects of this definition; the central, defining quality of “money” is unequivocal: it is a “store of value.” What does this mean?

Gold Commentary

Since the Crash of ’08 exposed the global financial system as simply one, big Ponzi-scheme ticking-down to implosion; one of the most public and emphatic economic policies of China’s government has been the rapid/relentless accumulation of more gold reserves to “back” its own monetary system.

This economic priority has become an even greater imperative as China steadily replaces the U.S. dollar with the renminbi as the world’s new “reserve currency.” Stage I of that process has been $trillions in bilateral trade agreements and currency-swaps. Stage II was the establishment of a “reniminbi trading bloc” among seven of ten of Asia’s most-prosperous economies, where the renminbi is now the reserve currency for these nations.

What is unclear is whether “Stage III” involves any overt action by China to spread the renminbi’s official, reserve currency status; or whether it simply involves passively waiting for the West to complete its self-destruction of the dollar-based system. What is clear is that a central part of China’s mission to have the renminbi assume the global mantle of “reserve currency” is to have massive gold reserves backing that currency.

China should add to its gold reserves to “ensure national economic and financial safety, promote yuan globalization [i.e. the renminbi as reserve currency] and as a hedge against foreign-reserve risks [i.e. a dollar meltdown],” according to Gao Wei, an official from the Chinese Department of International Economic Affairs of Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Wei wrote the above comments in the China Securities Journal today, according to a Bloomberg report…

…and later in the same article:

…In 2009, a State Council advisor in China stated that a group of officials and economists from Beijing and Shanghai established a “task force” to discuss measures to add to the nation’s gold holdings. “We suggested that China’s gold reserves should reach 6,000 tons in the next 3-5 years and perhaps 10,000 tons in 8-10 years,” the advisor noted.

This is where the question of how much gold China has (and how much gold China wants) becomes interesting. “Officially” China’s gold reserves stand at 1,054, and (also noted in the above source) this number has not been “updated” since 2008, when “it disclosed [emphasis mine] that its reserves had increased” from 600 tonnes.

Here both the mainstream media and even many commentators within the precious metals sector have done a terrible job in explaining the Rules which relate to the reporting of gold reserves. It must be understood that legally/technically there are two entirely separate ways in which nations can add to their gold reserves.

Nations can purchase gold internationally/on the open market, or they can acquire gold from domestic sources. If a nation accumulates gold in the former manner, it is required to report/disclose every ounce of reserves added (or sold) in essentially a real-time manner. However, if/when a nation accumulates gold from domestic sources; it has no obligation to report any gold acquired in that manner – ever.

Gold Commentary

As massive supply-deficits and vanishing inventories lead to greater and greater stress in our totally corrupted precious metals markets; these dynamics push us toward one of two potential ‘implosion’ events. One of these gruesome endings is obvious: a formal default in the gigantic “futures” markets for precious metals which now completely dominate the real, legitimate markets.

The other path toward implosion is less-direct, less-obvious, and thus much less discussed. However, for forthcoming reasons it is also (by far) the most likely manner in which the phony/fraudulent “paper” markets for gold and silver will be discredited, and (more or less) exposed for what they really are. This Second Path is a “decoupling” between the paper prices for gold and silver and the real price for gold and silver in legitimate, “physical” markets.

Why is this more likely? A better way to answer to that question is to itemize the list of reasons why the Establishment in general (and the Bullion Banks) in particular would want to avoid a formal default in their cherished, paper markets – at any/all costs.

These reasons all ultimately trace back to a single theme: a formal default would expose all of the corruption and crime in these markets, and (equally important) legitimize/validate the growing Voice which has been clamoring about the blatant corruption and manipulation in the paper bullion markets. With this “clamor” having now begun to spread to the mainstream media itself; the threat to the Bullion Banks who manipulate these markets has never been greater.

What does a formal default in these markets imply?

To begin with, it would expose a massive campaign of lies. How many (mainstream) articles have been written claiming that precious metals markets are amply supplied with physical inventories – if not over-supplied? How many mainstream articles have been written alleging that gold and/or silver are “overvalued”? How many more descend all the way to the hyperbolic absurdity that these (grossly under-owned) assets are “in a bubble”?

Asserting the precise opposite of reality, countless thousands of times is not “innocent mistake”; it is malicious propaganda. And it is conduct for which the banksters themselves are on the record to confessing.

In “The Great Gold Debate” which occurred in 2010; former Goldman Sachs banker and present head of the CPM Group Jeffrey Christian publicly confessed that the spreading of malicious propaganda was a regular tactic of these Bullion Banks – going as far back as the 1990’s.

The particular example cited by Christian was the disastrous sale by the Bank of England of roughly half of its gold reserves at under $300/oz. Legions of critics accused the BoE of undermining its own gold-sale by announcing in advance its intention to dump all this gold onto the global market – in “one gulp.”

Christian defended the Bank of England. He pointed out that the Bullion Banks at that time were regularly (and maliciously) spreading rumors that various governments were “about to dump gold” onto the market – in order to manipulate bullion prices lower. Christian asserted that this “forced” the BoE to announce its sale in advance, in order to thwart more of this rumor-mongering by the banksters.

Naturally, a formal default in any bullion market would expose the fraud/corruption of the current generation of banksters – as well as the pseudo-regulators who have facilitated this corruption. A formal default indicates a market which has literally “blown up”; much like the same cabal of banksters blew-up the global financial system in 2008 (via more, massive fraud/corruption).

Gold Commentary

In attempting to peddle the absurd fantasy that the world was “fleeing gold”; the Corporate Media faced two enormous hurdles. First of all, throughout (and even before) this supposed “panic”; people have in fact been buying gold (real gold) – at an unprecedented rate.

If the same Corporate Media attempted to delude people into thinking the world was “fleeing i-Pads” – as consumers emptied store shelves – even the Sheep would laugh. The propaganda machine has no answer for this.

All we get is the idiotic, rhetorical drivel; asking “if physical demand can save the gold market?” Physical demand (for gold) is the gold market. The fact that the Corporate Media at least pretends not to comprehend this fundamental reality perhaps discredits it most of all.

However, this propaganda machine can be remarkably stubborn at times; and clearly it has been instructed to maintain the “fleeing gold” fantasy – at all costs. This has (inevitably) forced it to confront the second, gigantic obstacle to this media fantasy: unprecedented gold-buying by the world’s central banks, and at record prices.

Obviously it was Bloomberg which was tapped on the shoulder for this assignment; and it immediately tips its hand as to its strategy in the first half of its title:

Gold Rout For Central Banks Buying Most Since 1964

There you have it folks! The explanation as to how/why central banks would be buying the most gold in history, at the highest (nominal) prices in history: they were simply “routed” like the Chumps which Bloomberg asserts them to be. However, before dealing with the first half of this premise; let me deal with the second half – another fantasy?

Back in 1964; the world had a gold standard, with the U.S. dollar as “reserve currency”. This meant other governments could convert their U.S. dollars to gold; as part of the routine currency transfers needed to keep a free-market currency system in balance.

For Bloomberg (and the entire propaganda machine) to suggest that central banks were “buying gold” in 1964 – rather than engaging in routine currency transfers – is to directly imply that the world was dumping U.S. dollars for gold. If anyone in the Corporate Media is able to document in our history books that the world was “fleeing U.S. dollars” in 1964; they should provide their historical references.

In fact, current gold-buying by central banks (at the highest prices in history) is at the greatest rate in history. Which once again begs the question: why? Bloomberg is emphatic:

“They sell at the wrong time and buy at the wrong time,” said Walter “Bucky” Hellwig, who helps manage $17 billion of assets at BB&T Wealth Management in Birmingham Alabama. “They aren’t traders. They are looking at it as a long-term holding, as an ultimate reserve currency. With the benefit of hindsight, they tend to get it wrong more often than not.” [emphasis mine]

It doesn’t get more unequivocal than that. They sell at the wrong time, and buy at the wrong time; and generally tend to get it wrong more often than not. But note what “it” refers to here: trading currencies. Here I will be forced to challenge one of “Bucky’s” assertions.

When Bucky suggests that central banks “aren’t traders”; he’s flat-out wrong. Central banks not only manufacture all of our currencies (except gold and silver); they are up to their eyeballs in trading this paper, by the $trillions, every day. Bloomberg quantifies their recent losses in currency-trading – in just this one currency:

Central banks are the biggest losers, with about $560 billion of value erased since gold reached a record $1,921.15 an ounce in September 2011…

Wow! Over $500 billion in “losses” in just 18 months. So when Bloomberg and Bucky assert that central banks are grossly incompetent currency-traders, to the point where even Bucky asserts that they aren’t “traders” at all; this is a very serious accusation. It’s like walking up to a bull-rider and saying, “He ain’t no cowboy.”