The First Ever ‘Codeword’ Leak

By Porter Stansberry 

Today, an emerging story about the secret civil war being waged right now in Washington D.C. It is about to have a HUGE impact on our country. Two warnings before we begin. First, what I know so far is deeply troubling. We're approaching what will be the most dangerous period in our country's political history since the Great Depression. What could happen next scares me. But I continue to be optimistic that what will unfold will be great for our country.

Also, I'm certain that you simply won't believe much of what you'll read in today's essay. In fact, until I did my own follow-up research to verify what I could from my sources, I disregarded this story as "political nonsense" or just another D.C. conspiracy theory. Besides… it was all too horrible to believe. But then… almost everything my sources told me would happen started happening.…

Let's begin here.…
Did you know the U.S. government has a secrecy designation so restricted that virtually nobody – not even lifetime members of the intelligence community – even knows what it's called? It's not "TOP SECRET." It's way beyond that level. In late 2009, President Obama created this new level of secrecy inside our government with an executive order (No. 13526) – so Congress never approved it. Administered by the CIA, this new level of secrecy has created a covert government within the government that almost nobody knows and absolutely nobody is monitoring.

If you've ever heard the term the "Deep State" – the secret government within the government that actually holds power – then you know why a level of secrecy beyond "top secret" is so important. This new, more restricted level of secrecy was created so that the most powerful leaders of our government could communicate in total isolation. This level of secrecy is such a closely guarded secret that the name of the program itself is classified – and divulging the name is a crime, punishable by at least 10 years in a secret prison. So this level of security clearance is known only as "codeword."

At the highest levels of our D.C. government, only two dozen or so people have codeword clearances.…
I learned about this earlier this month. I was invited to lunch with someone who has held that level of security clearance. He told me about the existence of the codeword-level program. This isn't a rumor. It's a fact. For the last 30-plus years, my source has worked for and around the highest levels of our government. He is currently regarded as the president's most likely choice to become our next Federal Reserve chairman. Today, however, his clients include the world's top hedge fund managers and the leaders of America's biggest corporations. He is, in short, America's corporate representative of the Deep State.

We call him the "Metropolitan Man."

We met about a year ago. He reached out to me through a mutual friend – one of the best, young hedge fund managers in New York. He asked me to join him for dinner at the Metropolitan Club in New York, one of the most elite clubs in the United States. (Legendary banker J.P. Morgan founded the club. It's where billionaire investor Warren Buffett held his 50th birthday party. And it sits at the southeast corner of Central Park, across from The Plaza Hotel, with a great vista of Columbus Circle.) At the time, the Metropolitan Man was forecasting correctly that the world's central bankers and their negative interest rate policy were failing and that they would soon trigger a global run out of paper money and into gold. Over the next several months, gold and gold stocks soared (as you may remember).

A few days ago, the Metropolitan Man asked to see me again.…
He wanted to talk about something he had never seen before in all his years working in the government. For the first time ever, a codeword-level secret was leaked to the press. Nothing this sensitive has ever been leaked before – ever. Among senior leaders in D.C., it is widely believed that the director of the CIA himself was responsible for the codeword leak. And the rumor is that this information was then passed to the press through New York Senator Chuck Schumer's office. What was leaked?

A codeword secret briefing the CIA produced about a meeting in Trump Tower last December between a Russian ambassador and two senior Trump administration officials – Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn.
When Flynn lied about the meeting to the White House staff, he was fired. But the deeper question is: How did the CIA know about the meeting? How did it know how long the meeting lasted? How did it know exactly what was discussed? And how did that information end up in the hands of a New York Times reporter?

This backstory explains how Trump knows the CIA was spying on Trump Tower. And the counternarratives – Trump's claim that Obama was spying on him and the Democrats' claim that Trump is in league with Russia – are the beginning of a serious war. A civil war inside the Deep State itself.

Reading the newspapers won't explain how this war is being fought.…
They will never publish a clear explanation of the battle lines – or even who is fighting or why. But the outcome of these battles is likely to determine the fate of our economy for the next several decades. Let me explain why and tell you what this fight is really about. For the last 40 or so years, the U.S. economy has been built around a model that created vast power in D.C. The model has a few important components.

First, we have a highly "progressive" income tax. That ensures that anyone who makes high wages will pay for the lion's share of the government's expenses. Without extremely progressive income tax rates – where about half the country pays nothing and the top 10% pay for roughly 80% – the electorate would never continue to vote for more and more government. But it does, mostly because it doesn't have to pay for it.

Second, the government has an incredibly powerful regulatory regime in place. This allows D.C. to essentially control vast segments of our economy. Take Wall Street, for example. Who gets to sell a bond or a stock to the public? Nobody the Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't like (i.e. yours truly). This power results in tremendous amounts of "tribute" – legal fees, fines, and hidden lobbying that flows into D.C. and feeds its economic ecosystem.

And finally there's the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and "free" trade. Our country has the ability to export all of the inflation generated by our central bank. This has led to decades of lower and lower interest rates and the government's ability to borrow essentially endless amounts of money without any serious inflationary consequences. These three components form the foundations of Washington's power.

Attack any of them and you risk a huge fight with the Deep State. What Trump is doing right now via his border adjustment tax, additional tax reform, and regulatory rollback is targeting all three of them at the same time. If he wins, all of the power that has been consolidated in D.C. over the past 40 years will evaporate.

Trump has put a metaphorical gun to the head of the Deep State…
And now, the Deep State is fighting back, tooth and nail, to protect the system it has built. Look at what has happened to the middle class in America over the last 40 years. Did NAFTA prevent price inflation by allowing America's consumer economy the luxury of accessing the world's cheapest labor? Yes, it did. But the flip side was devastating to the entire manufacturing industry in the U.S. And where did the resulting wealth flow? To D.C. and to the top 1% of America's wealthiest people who were able to access foreign markets and shield the resulting income from America's tax system.

Meanwhile, America remains the only industrial country in the world with global income taxation (you have to pay federal income tax, no matter where you live) and without a value-added tax. In short, we've chosen a system that punishes wage earners, while rewarding individuals and corporations who use overseas labor. The result has been a decline in real, after-tax wages over the last 40 years. That's a recipe to destroy the middle class – and that's what has happened.

Trump's plan to effectively lower income taxes to 25% and implement a value added tax to discourage foreign production of U.S. products will turn this entire economic structure on its ear and disenfranchise the Deep State that controls it. The winners will be the middle class, small business owners, wage earners, and America's manufacturing base. The losers? Those who have invested heavily in the current Deep State regime.

Why is this scary?
Well, unlike the health reform issue, the Metropolitan Man assured me that Trump's tax reform agenda would certainly pass. "It's a done deal," he said. He told me that his job lately "has been to help major corporations understand what will be in the new laws and how they will impact various markets." That means the Deep State has been pushed into a corner. What it might do next, no one knows. "That it would leak a codeword secret. Well, I would have told you that couldn't happen. I've never seen it before, not in more than 30 years in D.C. It's scary because if it'll do that, it'll do anything. Stage a terrorist attack? Start a war with China? Nothing is impossible anymore."

That's the downside. The next several months could see our government erupt into open civil war. The FBI accusing the president of treason… The president accusing a director of the CIA of breaking the law and having him arrested. Who knows where this will lead? On the other hand, assuming the government doesn't collapse into a civil war, Trump's new economic model will become a reality before the end of the year. For some industries (and for most Americans) these changes will bring massive prosperity. And for others – especially for companies and individuals who have been living at the government trough, tough times are looming.

Here's the best part.…
I believe these coming changes are so important and could lead to so much wealth creation that I've convinced the Metropolitan Man to come forward.

We will hold a meeting with him, at our offices in Baltimore, on April 5, 2017.
The meeting with start at 8 p.m. Eastern Time. It will last approximately two hours. Security will be very tight, so plan to arrive early. Everyone will be searched. At this meeting, the Metropolitan Man will "take off his mask" and tell you about his role in the Deep State. He'll explain the importance of the codeword-secret leak. And he'll discuss what the new Trump economic model will mean for various industries and parts of our country. He'll also explain how he knows the tax reform/border adjustment laws are certain to pass Congress and what those policies will mean for our country. If you'd like to attend the meeting via a live conference call, you can listen for only $19.95. Yes, that's right. $19.95.

This is easily the most important and valuable meeting I've ever arranged. 
It has taken more than a decade of work to gain access to information like this… And I want you to benefit from the incredible access we've gained. For successful investors and wealthy business leaders, meeting the Metropolitan Man in person and having the opportunity to ask him questions is invaluable. His normal consulting fee is $250,000. So I believe there's tremendous value at both price points. But no matter how you plan to attend, please do whatever you must to be at this meeting. There isn't a more important event you could attend this year.

Sign Up Here

Regards,
Porter Stansberry

The article The First-Ever ‘Codeword’ Leak was originally published at caseyresearch.com

Obama’s Cuban Ambitions as Seen by Cubans Themselves

By Jeff Thomas

For half a century, Americans have been largely unable to visit Cuba and have had to rely on the US government and media for an understanding of the political, social and economic conditions there. What has been described as the “American Berlin Wall” has been successful in providing Americans with quite an inaccurate view.

Throughout this period, those Cubans who exited the island in 1959 (and their descendants) have maintained a propaganda programme that, rightly or wrongly, reflected their desire to return to Cuba and to once again rule it. Additionally, they’ve contributed regularly to both the primary US political parties in order to assure that the blockade would be maintained and that Americans would be kept out until such time as the island could be re-taken.

This is not to say that all is rosy in Cuba. For the past 25 years or more, I’ve periodically spent time there, observing its developments, beginning with its attempt to recover from the loss of its principle trading partner, the Soviet Union, in the early 1990s. It’s been a rocky road, as Cuba has sought to become an international tourist destination whilst attempting to maintain a closed, communist society. Results have been mixed, to say the least.

Still, the US government embargo remains in place and Americans have little real understanding of Cuba, or how the Cuban people view the US. All Americans can rely on is the “official view”—reports fed to the US media by their government, which, in turn, are influenced by Miami-based Cubans.

Recently, Barrack Obama visited Cuba, gave speeches and even walked the streets of Havana, “meeting the people”. Americans have now had time to digest the official US view of that visit, yet, understandably, have no idea whatsoever as to the Cuban view.

If I could sum up the Cuban people’s perception, based upon discussions with Cubans in Havana after the visit, I’d say that the best word to describe their reaction would be “wary”. Cubans are only too aware that Americans have, for half a century, received a highly one-sided view of anything Cuban and, for the most part, tend to agree with their leaders that any dealings with the US government should be cautious.

As in any country, there are varied viewpoints and, to be sure, the Cubans who oppose the existing regime to the point that they’ve stolen a boat and braved the seas to escape Cuba, would have a far different view from those who are glad to remain in Cuba.

A particular concern that they tend to voice is that Americans leaders are arrogant, seeming to believe that they have all the answers for every country and seem to perceive themselves as magnanimous, in offering to unilaterally change other countries “for the better”. In the present instance, they resent Mister Obama stating in a Havana speech that his country is considering diminishing its economic punishment of Cuba, but that, first, he would need to be assured that the Cuban political structure be altered to reflect the American model more closely. As stated by President Raul Castro in the Havana Reporter, “he should not expect the Cuban people to give up their destiny…for which they have made huge sacrifices.”

A continuing sore in the side of Cuba is the occupation of Guantanamo Bay. Cubans, when confronted with their government’s admitted incarceration of some citizens for political reasons, may respond by reminding Americans that Cubans regard Guantanamo as “the horrible torture center”, housing the US government’s political prisoners. They are bolstered in their view by American presidential candidates who vehemently support the continued violation of the Geneva Convention at Guantanamo. (Most Cubans have television and there’s no restriction on American broadcasts. Cubans therefore know far more about the US than Americans know about Cuba.)

Again, quoting the Havana Reporter, “The Cuban authorities request for the illegally occupied military territory to be returned, although spokespeople for Obama’s administration say that the subject is not on the agenda for discussion.”

Again, the American presidential message, as seen from the Cuban perspective, appears to be, “We’ll decide what we will or won’t do for you, and we’ll decide what you’ll do for us.”

And the discussion is not an isolated one. For many years, the UN has regularly held votes on the legality and morality of the blockade and, in each case, all members except the US and Israel vote for its elimination. Just prior to Mister Obama’s Cuban visit, Federica Mogherini, Vice President of the European Commission, reiterated the UN request for the “rejection of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the US”, which she described as both outdated and illegal.

In his book, “Obama and the Empire”, Fidel Castro comments, “You state…that your country…would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right must be respected, while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, air and space forces distributed across the planet. I ask: Is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?”

To be sure, Mister Castro has his own agenda, as do all political leaders, yet his point is well taken. In spite of US pressure, he has outlasted ten US presidents since 1959. Cuba boasts universal literacy and the lowest rate of violent crime in the hemisphere, whereas, in the US, the percentage of those who are functionally illiterate varies between 15% and 35% (depending on the definition of illiteracy). The US also has both the highest number of prison inmates and the highest percentage of inmates per capita. Whether the US or Cuba has the greater claim to the moral high ground is therefore very much an individual assessment.

But, what’s the view on the street in Havana? What’s the reaction of the average Cuban to the Obama visit?

Well, for a start, people in the street, who are accustomed to seeing their leaders with a minimal entourage and few armed guards, were surprised to see a virtual army of suited protectors, making Mister Obama’s stroll through Havana anything but casual. Of course, this has become the norm for any American leader, but what message does this convey, when the visitor displays such a show of force?

In spite of this; however, a young waiter at a bistro in the popular Empedrado Callejón del Chorro commented that, whilst he doubted the sincerity of the visit, anything that brings the two countries closer together can only be an improvement. And, to be sure, younger Cubans are more likely than the previous generations to acknowledge that the inevitable passage out of the Castro’s leadership may be overdue, but that a softening of Cuban distrust of the “American imperialists” can only take place if the American government learns to regard Cuba as a sovereign nation, not as a whipping boy.

Recommended Links

Doug Casey: Rude Awakening for America Coming In 2016 Doug Casey: “The coming crisis is going to be much rougher, much longer lasting, and much different than what happened in 2008 and 2009.” And now we have conclusive proof it could unfold just months from now… Landmark online training event with Doug reveals how to prepare – and profit, in a big way. But you’ll miss out… unless you click here immediately. - The U.S. Government’s #1 Fear is Finally Coming True [Yellen Terrified] What do the world’s most powerful leaders truly fear more than anything else? It’s not a stock market crash, inflation, or another mortgage meltdown. Rather, it’s a “country killer,” which has nearly destroyed America 3 times in the past 200 years. According to our team at Casey Research, this contagion has already spread to several regions of the U.S. Click here for the full story... and to download our 3-step protection blueprint.

--

And, of course, this is a sentiment that we see worldwide. The more the US positions itself as the world’s policeman, the more it alienates the peoples of other countries. At a time when the US has begun its economic decline, it would do well to soften its approach, yet it is clearly doing the exact opposite. This does not bode well for the US. No one likes a bully. Bullies are typically only tolerated until they weaken. When this occurs, people turn on the bully, whether he is a person, or indeed, a government. What we are observing is the decline of a large nation and, soon, the rebirth of a small one. As events unfold, the comparisons between the two will be fascinating to observe.

Editor’s Note: Nick Giambruno, editor of Crisis Investing, thinks Cuba is a huge investing opportunity...
Nick is an expert “crisis investor.” He invests in markets that are bombed out, hated, and depressed. This strategy allows Nick to buy world-class companies at bargain prices… and to buy a dollar’s worth of assets for pennies. This sets him up to make big gains, like the 210% gain he made on the Cypriot hospitality business Lordos Hotels in the wake of that country’s banking crisis a few years back.

According to Nick, Cuba has been in a slow motion crisis for decades. The U.S.' ban on trade with Cuba killed any chance of economic growth for the last 60 years. But Nick says the embargo will soon become “a page in the history books.” When this happens, money should pour into Cuba. Nick has a “back door” way to profit from Cuba’s huge untapped potential...

Here’s Nick:

Cuba has over 2,000 miles of pristine coastline and the potential to be a top tourist destination. If Cuba ever opens up, there’s potential to make a fortune.

Nick’s investment is a legal way to profit from the “opening up” of Cuba while the embargo is still in place. It trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange. This investment is up over 25% in the last three months. But Nick expects it to go much higher. We can’t disclose the investment here, because it wouldn’t be fair to paying subscribers. But you can get instant access to Nick’s “back-door” Cuba investment by signing up for a trial subscription to Crisis Investing. Click here to learn more.

The article Obama’s Cuban Ambitions as Seen by Cubans Themselves was originally published at internationalman.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "The Rebel's Guide to Trading Options"....Just Click Here!

Distressed Investing

By Jared Dillian 

When most people think of distressed investing, they think of buying CCC-rated bonds at 20 or 30 cents on the dollar, then maybe sitting in bankruptcy court to divvy up the capital structure, making healthy risk-adjusted returns in the end. You just need to hire a few lawyers.

Distressed investors are a different breed of cat. It’s one of those countercyclical businesses, like repo men, who do well when everyone else is getting hammered.

I remember distressed guys killing it in 2002. Most people remember the dot-com bust, but there was a nasty credit crunch that went along with it. Nasty. High yield/distressed investments had some amazing years in 2003 and 2004. Convertible bonds in particular.

Funny thing about distressed investors is that they like to stay within their comfort zone. In my experience, they’re not keen on commodities. Like coal mining, which this week saw one bankruptcy filing and another one in the works. Distressed guys hate commodities because they are just timing the earnings cycle – which is the same as market timing.  Distressed guys want less volatile earnings so their projections aren’t totally dependent on commodity prices rising.

Coal is distressed, all right. But you don’t see the distressed guys getting involved. Even they are too scared!

Here’s a somewhat controversial statement: I think most commodities are distressed. Coal is definitely distressed. So is iron ore. Copper, too. And yes, even gold. Corn and beans have had a nice little run, but metals and energy in particular have been a complete horrorshow.

So I think it’s time to start looking at commodities as a distressed asset class. The assumption is that fair value of these commodities/producers is well above current market prices, and current market prices are wrong because of, well, a lot of things. In particular, a self-reinforcing process where selling begets more selling.

If you’re a distressed investor and you’re buying something at a deep discount, if you have a long enough time horizon, you’ll be vindicated eventually. Sometimes, it takes a long time. Sometimes, not very long at all. It’s pretty great when it works.

I have never had much aptitude for it. But I am trying it now.

Gold: A Special Case

Gold is a little different.

How do you value gold? It has no cash flows. An industrial commodity like copper is pretty easy to value. With gold, you’re trying to gauge investment demand (at the retail or sovereign level), which is hard, against mining production, which is a little easier.

But what an ounce of gold is worth is entirely subjective. More subjective than copper or cocoa or coffee. For example, if everyone started using bitcoin, there would be little to no demand for gold. (For the record, I think cryptocurrencies indeed have had an impact on gold demand.)

Basically, people want gold when they think their government no longer cares about the purchasing power of their currency. In our case, that was when the Fed was conducting quantitative easing, known colloquially as printing money.

But that’s not really what people were nervous about. Think about it. The Fed was printing money for monetary policy reasons. They were trying to effect monetary policy with interest rates at the zero bound. That’s different from printing money to buy government bonds because nobody else wants to. That’s called debt monetization.

When budget deficits get sufficiently large, people worry about things like failed bond auctions, that the Fed will have to step in and be the buyer of last resort. This is the nightmare scenario described in Greenspan’s Gold and Economic Freedom essay.

We had $1.8 trillion deficits not that long ago. The bond auctions were a little scary. I thought debt monetization was a possibility.

The deficit is lower today, mostly because of higher taxes, more aggressive revenue collection, and economic growth. As you can see, the price of gold has corresponded almost perfectly with the budget deficit.

With a small deficit today, nobody cares about gold.

Is the deficit going higher or lower in the future? Higher. Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. One of the reasons I’m happy owning gold as a part of my portfolio.

Paper vs. Things

Asset allocation gets a lot easier when you figure out that the financial markets are a tug-of-war between paper and things. Sometimes, like now, financial assets (stocks and bonds) outperform. Stocks are overpriced, and bonds are way overpriced. Other times, like 10 years ago, commodities outperformed.

It has to do with the degree of confidence people have in… other people. A bond is a promise to repay. A stock is a promise to pay dividends, or that there will be something left over at the end. A dollar is a promise that it’s worth something, namely, a divisible part of the sum total of the productive abilities of all the people in the country.

These are pieces of paper. Paper promises. When confidence in promises is high, nobody needs gold, coal, or copper. When confidence in promises is low, time to build that underground bunker in the backyard. Confidence in promises is currently at all-time highs. Without making a positive statement either way, I’d say that only in the year 2000 were commodities more undervalued than they are right now.

Sidebar: it is tempting to treat commodities as an asset class, but you should try not to. They are idiosyncratic, and for most commodities, the cost of carry is high enough that it’s impractical to hold them for long periods of time.

Commodity related equities are a different story.

Disclaimer

I’m kind of biased on this, and I always think commodities are undervalued because I’m a deeply suspicious person and I don’t believe promises. I’ve owned gold and silver for years (plus GLD and SLV, and GDX and SIL), and if prices get low enough, I will add to those positions.

Keep in mind that I worked for the government under the Clinton administration. Clinton’s mantra to government employees was, “Do more with less.” The man did a lot to restrain the growth of government—and he was a Democrat!

People resented him for it. They wanted their fancy toys and their boondoggles. Public servants have been much happier under Bush and Obama. Not coincidentally, gold bottomed in 2000, at the end of Clinton’s presidency, and has basically been going up since.

So here is the secret sauce: You want to know when commodities are going up?
Watch the deficit. If someone dreams up free college for everyone, buy commodities with veins popping out of your neck.

Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com. Follow Jared on Twitter @dailydirtnap

The article The 10th Man: Distressed Investing was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Keystone XL Veto is Partisan Political Disaster for America

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

The controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline is proof positive that American politics have gone from debate to pure partisan propaganda – at the expense of business and even common sense.  With over half a million miles of pipeline already, failing to replace that aging infrastructure only means more oil flowing via crumbling pipelines – some 50 years old – and dangerous rail cars, like the one that killed dozens in Quebec in 2013. 

NY Times Best-selling author of The Colder War, Marin Katusa, explains why President Obama’s veto of the Keystone legislation is far riskier than the pipeline itself in this riveting, short video:

For a better understanding of just how much political spin, and outright lies, now come along with news on global energy, read USA Today and Amazon.com best seller: The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped from America's Grasp. Get a free sample chapter at www.colder war.com.

The article Keystone XL Veto Is Partisan Political Disaster for America was originally published at casey research

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

America is Going to Have to Learn to Play Nicely......Where Have All the Statesmen Gone?

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

One of the most striking things about the Colder War—as I explore in my new book of the same name—has been the contrast between the peevish tone of the West’s leaders compared to the more grown-up and statesmanlike approach that Putin is taking in international affairs.

Western leaders and their unquestioning media propagandists appear to believe that diplomatic relations are some kind of reward for good behavior. But it’s actually more important to establish a constructive dialogue with your enemies or rivals than your friends, because that’s where you need to find common ground. Indeed, it’s been the basis for diplomacy since time immemorial.

Reassuringly, despite having been the target of the Ukraine crisis rather than the instigator, Putin still sees the West as a potential partner, not an enemy. Nor does, he says, Russia have any interest in building an empire of its own. In theory, if Putin is sincere, there should be plenty of room for cooperation, especially in the fight against terrorism.

As Putin said in his speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi in October—whose theme was “The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules”—he hasn’t given up on working with the West on shared risks and common goals, provided it’s based on mutual respect and an agreement not to interfere in one another’s domestic affairs.

Putin has, of course, already shown that he can rise above the fray. By negotiating the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal under international supervision, he did Obama a big favor and got him off the hook in Syria. But his collaboration with Obama went further than that. Putin had helped persuade Iran to consider making concessions on its nuclear program and was working behind the scenes on North Korean issues.

But as we’re discovering, this was precisely the sort of statesmanship that the neoconservative holdouts in Washington could simply not abide, because it would wreck the plan they’d been hatching for decades to bring about US military strikes against Assad and to move beyond sanctions and more aggressively confront Iran.

Determined to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin and punish Putin for interfering with their goal of regime change in the Middle East, these masters of chaos—like National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, and Senator John McCain—sprang into action.

These crazies first started fantasizing openly about regime change in Russia, and demonizing the “ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” before helping to topple Ukraine’s constitutionally elected government.

This is hardly the sort of behavior, to put it mildly, that would lead the Russians to trust American motives—especially after two rounds of NATO expansion in Central and Eastern Europe.

And the Russians also really don’t know what to make of the fact that one second Obama is including them on the list of the top global threats, and the next they’re being asked—yet again—to help secure a truly historical rapprochement with Iran. “It’s unseemly for a major and great power to take such a flippant approach toward its partners. When we need you, please help us, and when I want to punish you, obey me,” Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said last week.

The West has squandered the opportunity, after its victory in the Cold War, to establish a new stable system of international relations, with checks and balances, said Putin in Sochi. Instead, the US trashed the system to serve its own selfish ends and made the world a more dangerous place.

A particularly disturbing accusation Putin made is that the U.S. has been using “outright blackmail” against a number of world leaders. “It is not for nothing,” he added, “that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars keeping the whole world, including its own allies, under surveillance.” If true, it would put the US beyond the pale of the civilized global diplomatic community.

Last year Putin reminded Americans, in a New York Times op-ed, that the UN was founded on the basis that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and that it’s this profound wisdom that has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. The UN risked suffering the same fate as the League of Nations, he said, if America continued to bypass it and take military action without Security Council authorization.

What really amazes Putin—and most right-minded people—is that even after 9/11, when the US finally woke up to the common threat of Islamic terrorism and suffered the most epic blowback of all time, it continued to use various jihadist organizations as an instrument, even after getting its fingers burnt every time.
What did toppling Gaddafi achieve? Nothing, except to turn Libya into a total mess and fill it with al-Qaeda training camps. And what is Obama’s present strategy of funding “moderate” rebels in Syria going to achieve, if not more of the same mayhem, as one US-backed group after another joins forces with the Islamic State?

It’s hard to disagree with Putin that America’s neoconservatives have sown geopolitical chaos, by almost routinely meddling in others’ domestic affairs. He lists the many follies the US has committed, from the mountains of Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda had its roots in CIA-funded operations against the Russians, to Iraq and Saddam’s phantom weapons of mass destruction, to modern-day Syria, where the Islamic State appears to have benefited at least indirectly from some serious funding—and weapons smuggled out of Libya by the CIA.

Instead of searching for global solutions, the Russians think the US has started believing its own propaganda: that its policies and views represent the entire international community, even as the world becomes a multipolar one. It would appear that Putin is in good company. No less a statesman than former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger agrees with him.

Sanctions against Russia are a huge mistake, says Kissinger: “We have to remember that Russia is an important part of the international system, and therefore useful in solving all sorts of other crises, for example in the agreement on nuclear proliferation with Iran or over Syria.”

Like Putin, Kissinger argues that a new world order is urgently needed. In an interview in Der Spiegel, he adds that the West has to recognize that it should have made the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the EU a subject of a dialogue with Russia. After all, he says, Ukraine is a special case, because it was once part of Russia and its east has a large Russian population.

So how has the current generation of American leaders responded to Putin’s accusation—shared by his allies Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and South Africa—that the U.S. is riding roughshod over the interests of other nations?

By mocking him with the sort of childishness that was on display at the G20 summit, where Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper grabbed headlines when he told Putin: “Well, I guess I’ll shake your hand, but I only have one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine.” While Putin is obviously no saint, his presence at the G20 summit shows that far from being isolated, he continues to be treated as respectable company, despite his actions over Ukraine.

At least Germany and the EU now appear to understand that diplomacy, not military action, is going to resolve differences between Russia and the West—even though Russia expelled one of Germany’s diplomats in Moscow last week. Following up on the four-hour meeting Merkel had with Putin in Melbourne and the call for intensified diplomacy by the EU’s new foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is now engaged in intensive shuttle diplomacy with Moscow.

The world will be better off if we all stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement, as Putin says. That’s what real statesmen would do, rather than trying to provoke Russia into a new Colder War. America is going to have to learn to play nicely. Otherwise, as Putin says, “today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of the world order.”

As you can see, there’s no greater force in geopolitics today than Vladimir Putin. But if you understand his role and how it influences the energy sector as Marin Katusa does, you’ll know how to get out in front of the latest moves and profit along the way. Of course, the situation is fluid, which is why Marin launched a brand new advisory dedicated to helping investors avoid energy companies that are being left behind and move into ones that will benefit from the tremendous shifts in capital being created by Putin. (In fact, Marin has the very best plays for taking advantage of cheap oil.)

It’s called The Colder War Letter. And it’s the perfect complement to Marin’s New York Times best seller, The Colder War, and the best way to navigate today’s fast-changing energy sector. When you sign up now, you’ll also receive a FREE copy of Marin’s book. Click here for all the details.

The article Where Have All the Statesmen Gone? was originally published at casey research

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

The Madness of the EU’s Energy Policy

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Vladimir Putin has launched a devastating plan to turn Russia into an energy powerhouse. And Europe, dependent on Russian natural gas and oil for a third of its fuel needs, has fallen right into his hands: Putin can bend the EU to his will simply by twisting the valve shut.

Considering how precarious Europe’s economic security is, one would have thought that now would be a good time for the EU to reassess its energy policy and address the effect crippling energy costs are having on its struggling economy. But the EU is never going to agree to a rational reappraisal of its policies, because eco-loons like its new energy commissioner, Violetta Bulc, have taken over the asylum.

A practicing fire walker and a shaman, she’s the sort of airy fairy Goddard College type who only believes in the power of “positive energy.” What will guide us in this frightening new era is, according to her blog, the spirit of the White Lions:

The Legend says that White Lions are star beings, uniting star energy within earth form of Lions. The native ancestors were convinced that they are children of the Sun God, thus embodying Solar Logos and legends say that they came down to Earth to help save humanity at a time of crisis. There is no doubt that this time is right now.

With the European Commission stuffed with green anti capitalist zealots, it’s not surprising that the EU’s response to the challenges of a resurgent Russia is a complete break with reality.

The EU has come up with an aggressive climate plan—just like Obama’s. In defiance of all logic—if not Putin—it’s agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% and make clean energy, like wind and solar, 27% of overall energy use by 2030. Instead of guaranteeing the “survival of mankind,” this would cause the extinction of Europe’s industry—unless there’s a secret plan to massively expand nuclear power.

Fortunately for Europe, its leaders haven’t yet lost all their marbles.

These climate goals are just a bargaining chip in the runup to next year’s UN climate summit in Paris. They’re not legally binding. Unless the whole world commits to an equally radical policy of deindustrialization—which seems rather unlikely to say the least—the EU will “review” its climate targets.

This is just as well. In trying to meet the so-called 20:20 target—a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020—Germany and the UK have already discovered that renewable energy is too costly to maintain a competitive industry. As electricity prices skyrocket, Germany’s industrial giants are either having their power costs subsidized or are relocating to the US.

Both countries are struggling with the inability of wind and solar energy to provide reliable baseload power, which is threatening to cause blackouts.

The UK is putting its faith in fracking—and has managed to head off any EU legislation to ban shale-gas. But Germany and its fellow travelers, who have no qualms about reverting to coal, are simply overriding the EU Commission and its zero emissions utopia.

Knowing that EU climate policy would destroy international competitiveness and crush their economies, Poland, which depends on coal for 90% of its energy needs, and other low-income countries have taken a different approach. They've forced the Commission to give them special exemptions from any emissions reduction plan.

Unlike in the U.S.—where Obama is taking executive action to wipe out the coal industry—lignite, or brown coal, is set to become an increasingly important part of Europe’s energy supply, as it is in much of the rest of the world. There are 19 new lignite power stations in various stages of approval and construction in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia. When completed, these will emit nearly as much CO₂ as the UK.

Which is ironic. The UK is the only member of the EU to have been insane enough to impose a legally binding carbon dioxide reduction target intended to take it to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. It’s also the only modern industrial nation where there’s serious talk of World War II style energy rationing.

As you’ll discover in my new book, The Colder War, Europe and America need to wake up. They’ve never been so economically vulnerable. The time for indulging environmental fantasies and putting one’s faith in White Lions is over—unless, that is, you want to see Putin controlling the world.

Click here to get your copy of my new book. Inside, you’ll discover exactly how Putin is orchestrating a takeover of the global energy trade, what it means for the future of America, and how it will directly affect you and your personal savings.

The article The Madness of the EU’s Energy Policy was originally published at casey research

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

New Video: Obama’s Abandoning the Saudis for Iran and Dooming the Petrodollar

By Alex Daley, Chief Technology Investment Strategist

I sat down with Jim Rickards, author of many best selling economics and investing books, including his latest, titled The Death of Money. In this exclusive interview, Jim shares his view on the changes in U.S. foreign policy—the newly announced partnership with Iran to help fight ISIS and recent moves away from the petrodollar deal with Saudi Arabia—and what they mean for the dollar, gold, and investment markets in general.

This interview just scratches the surface of the topics Jim covered in his speech at the most recent Casey Research Summit in San Antonio. You can grab a complete recording of that speech, and all 25 of the others, in the Summit Audio Collection, which is on sale with a juicy preorder discount for just a few more days.

Alex Daley
Chief Technology Investment Strategist
Casey Research

The article Jim Rickards: Obama’s Abandoning the Saudis for Iran and Dooming the Petrodollar was originally published at casey research

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Obama’s Secret Pipeline

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

Isn’t it odd that an 800 mile pipeline that runs across environmentally sensitive land has been permitted without any mention in the media? Not a word about it from President Obama either.

Obama’s Secret Pipeline will be built over land that’s much more sensitive than that of the Keystone XL pipeline, which gets nothing but front page coverage. It will actually be 17% (six inches) larger in diameter than Keystone XL (36 inches) and it will transport natural gas, not oil.

Bill 138

The Senate of Alaska, the state in which the pipeline will be built, has just passed Bill 138, which makes the state a partner of three of the world’s largest oil companies, including one that has a horrible environmental track record on U.S. soil. In a nutshell, Alaska’s government is now partners with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips.

Only one more signature is required—Governor Sean Parnell’s—and it’s expected that he will sign the deal.

Not Even the US Government Wants US Dollars

For more than 100 years, the U.S. government has been receiving a royalty and tax revenue paid on the amount of oil or natural gas produced on American soil—a fee that is paid in U.S. dollars. Bill 138 has changed this forever.

Instead of Alaska receiving its dues in U.S. dollars, the state legislature has decreed through Bill 138 that the state will be paid “in kind.” In other words, the state will be getting its share of royalty and tax revenue in natural gas instead of U.S. dollars.

For the record, this is the first time ever that a US state has entered into a partnership like this. Essentially, Alaska is now a 25% equity partner with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips—which also requires the state to cough up cold, hard cash to build the entire project, including the 800 mile long, 42 inch wide pipeline.

Overall, the project is currently estimated to cost north of U.S. $50 billion, and we expect that when all the capital expense overruns and government inefficiencies are accounted for, the whole project will come in at more than U.S. $75 billion, using the total costs of similar projects for comparison.

But it will be 2015 before the final negotiations and the specific details of the partnership are agreed on, and remember, the devil is in the details. Who do you think will get the better end of the deal—a bunch of government bureaucrats with zero oil and gas experience, or the world’s top oil and gas producing companies? I know whom I’m betting on.

Which leads us to the point of this weekly missive.

And the Winner of Obama’s Secret Pipeline Is…

We already know which company will be building and operating Obama’s Secret Pipeline. The company I’m talking about has a lower price to earnings (P/E) ratio and a better yield than all of its peers. That’s good, because shareholders get paid a monthly yield for owning the stock while sitting back and watching the share price rise as well.

The Ultimate Oil Toll Booth

Think of it this way: this company charges the world’s most powerful oil and gas producers for every barrel of oil that passes through its “road network,” and now it can also charge the state of Alaska. Regardless of the price of oil or natural gas, this company gets its fee.

It’s a low-risk way to benefit from a high risk enterprise. This company is a current Buy in our Casey Energy Dividends portfolio. The Energy team is currently working hard on the upcoming issue, which will in detail cover the company that’s bound to gain big from Obama’s Secret Pipeline.

I know you haven’t heard about this pipeline yet, but you will soon enough.

That’s what we do here at the Energy Division of Casey Research: We’re the first to uncover breakthrough stories, and the first to uncover the best energy investment opportunities in the world. Doug Casey and I just got back from a whirlwind European tour, where we visited many of Europe’s most promising energy projects.

Here’s a picture of Doug Casey and me at Europe’s largest onshore drill site. This drill rig is 15 stories high and uses about 16,000 liters of diesel a day to turn the drills—which Doug and I are holding in this picture. As a side note, just the crank shaft that we’re holding costs U.S. $2 million—this rig is expensive and gigantic.

For you to get a better perspective on the true size of Europe’s largest onshore drill rig, here is a picture of Doug Casey and me with our friends Frank Holmes, Frank Giustra, and Matt Smith.

(From far left to right: Frank Holmes, Doug Casey, Marin Katusa, Frank Giustra, Matt Smith)

 

Do Your Portfolio a Favor and Try Out the Casey Energy Report

Doug Casey and I have done all the hard work for you. The current issue of the Casey Energy Report is a compilation of our Europe trip, including in-depth descriptions of our site visits and a new recommendation with a hugely promising project in an out-of-the-way European country that we personally checked out. The company is backed by mining giant Frank Giustra, and you bet he knows what he’s doing.

The Casey Energy Report comes with a free one year subscription to Casey Energy Dividends (a $79 value), including, of course, the upcoming May issue with our “Obama’s Secret Pipeline” pick.

There’s no risk in trying it: You have 90 days to find out if it’s right for you—love it or cancel for a full refund. You don’t have to travel 300+ days a year (as we do) to discover the best energy investments in the world—we do it for you.

If you don’t like the Casey Energy Report or don’t make any money within your first three months, just cancel within that time for a full, prompt refund. Even if you miss the cutoff, you can cancel anytime for a prorated refund on the unused part of your subscription. Click here to get started.

The article Obama’s Secret Pipeline was originally published at Casey Research

Sign up for todays Free Trading Webinar "Why HFT Firms Have a Competitive Advantage"....Just Click Here!

 

A Crisis vs. THE Crisis: Keep Your Eye on the Ball

By Laurynas Vegys, Research Analyst

Today I want to talk about crises. Two of the most notable ones that have been in the public eye over the course of the past 6-8 months are obviously the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. The two are very different, yet both seemed to cause rallies in the gold market.

I say “seemed” because, while there were days when the headlines from either country sure looked to kick gold up a notch, there were also relevant and alarming reports from Argentina and emerging markets like China during many of the same time periods. Nevertheless, looking at the impressive gains during these periods, one has to wonder if it actually takes a calamity for gold to soar.

If so, can the yellow metal still return to and beat its prior highs, absent a major political crisis or a full blown military conflict? My answer: Who needs a new crisis when we live in an ongoing one every day?

More on this in a moment. Let’s first have a quick look at what happened in Ukraine and Syria as relates to the price of gold. Here’s a quick look at the timeline of some of the major events from the Ukrainian crisis, followed by the same for Syria.

There seems to be a fairly clear pattern in both of these charts. Gold seems to rise in the anticipation of a conflict; once the conflict gets going, or turns out not as bad as feared, however, it sells off.

We see, for example, that as the news broke that chemical weapons were being used in Syria and Obama was threatening to intervene, gold moved up. But when the U.S. did not wade into the bloodshed and Putin proposed his diplomatic solution, gold slid into a protracted sell off, ending up lower than where it began.
It’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty how much of gold’s recent rise was due to anticipation of the Ukraine/Crimea crisis, but there were certainly days when gold seemed to move sharply in response to news of escalation in the conflict. And again, after it became clear that the U.S. and EU would do little more than condemn Russia’s actions with words, gold retreated. As of this writing, it’s down about $85 from its high a little over a month ago. (We think many investors underestimate the potential impact of tit for tat sanctions, but they are not wrong to breathe a sigh of relief that a war of bullets didn’t start between East and West.)

In sum, to the degree that global crisis headlines do impact the price of gold, the effects are short lived. Unless they lead directly to consequences of long term significance, these fluctuations may capture the attention of day traders, but are little more than distractions for serious gold investors betting on the fundamentals.

You have to keep your eye on the ball.

The REAL Crisis Brewing

 

Major financial, economic, or political trends—the kind we like to base our speculations upon—don’t normally appear as full-fledged disasters overnight. In fact, quite the opposite; they tend to lurk, linger, and brew in stealth mode until a boiling point is finally reached, and then they erupt into full blown crises (to the surprise and detriment of the unprepared).

Fortunately, the signs are always there… for those with the courage and independence of mind to take heed.
So what are the signs telling us today—what’s the real ball we need to keep our eyes upon, if not the distracting swarm of potential black swans?

The big league trend destined for some sort of major cataclysmic endgame that will impact everyone stems from government fiscal policy: profligate spending, leading to debt crisis, leading to currency crisis, leading to a currency regime change. And not in Timbuktu—we’re talking about the coming fall of the U.S. dollar.

The first parts of this progression are already in place. Consider this long term chart of U.S. debt.

Notice that government debt was practically nonexistent halfway through the 20th century, but has seen a dramatic increase with the expansion of federal government spending.

Consider this astounding fact: The government has accumulated more debt during the Obama administration than it did from the time George Washington took office to Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Total US government debt at the end of 2013 exceeded $16 trillion.

Let’s put that in perspective, since today’s dollars don’t buy what a nickel did a hundred years ago.

Except for the period of World War II and its immediate aftermath, never before has the U.S. government been this deep in debt. Having recently surpassed the threshold of 100% debt to GDP, America has crossed into uncharted territory, getting in line with the likes of…....

• Japan, “leading” the world with a 242% debt-to-GDP ratio
• Greece: 174%
• Italy: 133%
• Portugal: 125%
• Ireland: 117%

The projection in the chart above is based on the 9.4% average annual rate of debt-to-GDP growth since the US embarked on its current course in response to the crash of 2008. If the rate persists, the U.S. will be deeper in debt relative to its GDP than Ireland next year, deeper than Portugal in 2016, Italy in 2017, Greece in 2019, and even Japan in 2023 (and the US does not have the advantage of decades of trade surpluses Japan had).

Granted, the politicians and bureaucrats say they will slow this runaway train, but we’re not talking about Fed tapering here. Congress will have to embrace the pain of living within its means. We’ll believe that when we see it.

But let’s take a more conservative, 10 year average growth rate (an arbitrary standard many analysts use): 5.3%. At this rate, the U.S. will still be deeper in debt than Ireland and Portugal in 2017, Italy in 2019, Greece in 2024, and Japan in 2030.

Either way, this is still THE crisis of our times; all of the countries mentioned above are undergoing excruciating economic and social pain. It’s no stretch to imagine the kind of social and political turmoil that has resulted from the European debt crisis coming to Main Street USA, as American debt goes off the charts.

It’s also important to understand that the debt charted above excludes state and local debt, as well as the unfunded liabilities of social entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

This ever-growing mountain—volcano—of government debt is a long term, systemic, and extremely difficult to alter trend. Unlike the crises in Ukraine and Syria (at least, so far), it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future. While some investors have grown accustomed to this government created phenomenon and no longer regard it as dangerous as outright military conflict, make no mistake—in the mid to long term, it’s just as dangerous to your wealth and standard of living.

Still think it can’t happen here? To fully understand how stealthily a crisis can sneak up on you, watch Casey Research’s eye-opening documentary, Meltdown America.

The article A Crisis vs. THE Crisis: Keep Your Eye on the Ball was originally published at Casey Research

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

The Problem with Keynesianism

By John Mauldin

“The belief that wealth subsists not in ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines but in identifiable and static things that can be seized and redistributed is the materialist superstition. It stultified the works of Marx and other prophets of violence and envy. It frustrates every socialist revolutionary who imagines that by seizing the so-called means of production he can capture the crucial capital of an economy. It is the undoing of nearly every conglomerateur who believes he can safely enter new industries by buying rather than by learning them. It confounds every bureaucrat who imagines he can buy the fruits of research and development.

“The cost of capturing technology is mastery of the knowledge embodied in the underlying science. The means of entrepreneurs’ production are not land, labor, or capital but minds and hearts….

“Whatever the inequality of incomes, it is dwarfed by the inequality of contributions to human advancement. As the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote, ‘Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances that permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of society, the people slip back into abject poverty. This is known as bad luck.’

“President Obama unconsciously confirmed Heinlein’s sardonic view of human nature in a campaign speech in Iowa: ‘We had reversed the recession, avoided depression, got the economy moving again, but over the last six months we’ve had a run of bad luck.’ All progress comes from the creative minority. Even government financed research and development, outside the results oriented military, is mostly wasted. Only the contributions of mind, will, and morality are enduring. The most important question for the future of America is how we treat our entrepreneurs. If our government continues to smear, harass, overtax, and oppressively regulate them, we will be dismayed by how swiftly the engines of American prosperity deteriorate. We will be amazed at how quickly American wealth flees to other countries....

“Those most acutely threatened by the abuse of American entrepreneurs are the poor. If the rich are stultified by socialism and crony capitalism, the lower economic classes will suffer the most as the horizons of opportunity close. High tax rates and oppressive regulations do not keep anyone from being rich. They prevent poor people from becoming rich. High tax rates do not redistribute incomes or wealth; they redistribute taxpayers – out of productive investment into overseas tax havens and out of offices and factories into beach resorts and municipal bonds. But if the 1 percent and the 0.1 percent are respected and allowed to risk their wealth – and new rebels are allowed to rise up and challenge them – America will continue to be the land where the last regularly become the first by serving others.”

– George Gilder, Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

– John Maynard Keynes

“Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview – nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.”

– Stephen Jay Gould

I think Lord Keynes himself would appreciate the irony that he has become the defunct economist under whose influence the academic and bureaucratic classes now toil, slaves to what has become as much a religious belief system as it is an economic theory. Men and women who display an appropriate amount of skepticism on all manner of other topics indiscriminately funnel a wide assortment of facts and data through the filter of Keynesianism without ever questioning its basic assumptions. And then some of them go on to prescribe government policies that have profound effects upon the citizens of their nations.

And when those policies create the conditions that engender the income inequality they so righteously oppose, they prescribe more of the same bad medicine. Like 18^th-century physicians applying leeches to their patients, they take comfort in the fact that all right-minded and economic scientists and philosophers concur with their recommended treatments.

This week, let’s look at the problems with Keynesianism and examine its impact on income inequality.
But first, let me note that Gary Shilling has agreed to come to our Strategic Investment Conference this May 13-16 in San Diego, joining a star-studded lineup of speakers who have already committed. This is really going to be the best conference ever, and you need to figure out how to make it. Early registration pricing goes away at the end of this week. My team at Mauldin Economics has produced a short, fun introductory clip featuring some of the speakers; so enjoy the video, check out the rest of our lineup, and then sign up to join us.

This is the first year we have not had to limit our conference to accredited investors; nor are we limiting attendance from outside the United States. We have a new venue that will allow us to adequately grow the conference over time. But we will not change the format of what many people call the best investment and economic conference in the U.S. Hope to see you there. And now on to our letter.

Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences. We started a series two weeks ago on income inequality, the current cause célèbre in economic and political circles. What spurred me to undertake this series was a recent paper from two economists (one from the St. Louis Federal Reserve) who are utterly remarkable in their ability to combine more bad economic ideas and research techniques into one paper than anyone else in recent memory.

Their even more remarkable conclusion is that income inequality was the cause of the Great Recession and subsequent lackluster growth. “Redistributive tax policy” is suggested approvingly. If direct redistribution is not politically possible, then other methods should be tried, the authors say. I’m sure that, given more time and data, the researchers could have used their methodology to ascribe the rise in teenage acne to income inequality as well.

So what is this notorious document? It’s “Inequality, the Great Recession, and Slow Recovery,” by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari. One could ask whether this is not just one more bad economic paper among many. If so, why should we waste our time on it?

(Let me state for the record that I am sure Messieurs Cynamon and Fazzari are wonderful husbands and fathers, their children love them, and their pets are happy when they come home. In addition, they are probably outstanding citizens who are active in all sorts of good things in their communities. Their friends and colleagues enjoy convivial gatherings with them. I’m sure that if I were to sit down to dinner with them [not likely to happen after this letter], we would have a lively debate and hugely enjoy ourselves. This is not a personal attack. I simply mean to eviscerate as best I can the rather malignant ideas that they are proffering.)
That income inequality stifles growth is not simply the idea of two economists in St. Louis. It is a widely held view that pervades almost the entire academic economics establishment. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has been pushing such an idea for some time (along with Paul Krugman, et al.); and a recent IMF paper suggests that slow growth is a direct result of income inequality, simply dismissing any so called “right wing” ideas that call into question the authors’ logic or methodology.

The challenge is that the subject of income inequality has now permeated the national dialogue not just in the United States but throughout the developed world. It will shape the coming political contests in the United States. How we describe income inequality and determine its proximate causes will define the boundaries of future economic and social policy. In discussing multiple problems with the Cynamon-Fazzari paper, we have the opportunity to think about how we should actually address income inequality. And hopefully we’ll steer away from simplistic answers that conveniently mesh with our political biases.

I should note that my readers have sent me an overwhelming amount of research on income inequality that I’ve been wading through for the past week. Some of it is quite discomforting, and a great deal is politically incorrect, at least some of which is almost certain to offend my gentle readers. Who knew that income inequality is not due to the greedy rich but to marriage patterns or the size of households or any number of interesting correlated factors? The research will all be thought provoking, and we’ll will cover it in depth next week; but today let’s stay focused on the ideas of defunct economists.

Why Is Economic Theory Important?

Some readers may say, this is all well and good, but it’s just economic theory. How does that matter to our investment portfolios? The direct answer is that economic theory drives the policies of central banks and determines the price of money, and the price of money is fundamental to the prices of all our assets. What central banks do can be either helpful or harmful. Their actions can dampen volatility in the short term while intensifying pressures that distort prices, forming bubbles – which always end in significant reversals, often quite precipitously. (Note that it is not always high asset values that tumble. It is just as possible for central banks to repress the value of some assets to such low levels that they become a coiled spring.)

As we outlined at length in Code Red, central banks have a very limited set of policy tools with which to address crises. While the tools have all sorts of unlikely names, they are essentially limited to manipulating interest rates (the price of money) and flooding the market with liquidity. (Yes, I know that they can impose changes in a few secondary regulatory issues like margins, reserves, etc., but these are not their primary functions.)

The central banks of the US and England are beginning to wind down their extraordinary monetary policies. But whenever the next recession or crisis hits in the US, England, or Europe, their reaction to the problem – and subsequent monetary policy – are going to be based on Keynesian theory. The central bankers will give us more of the same, but it will be in an environment of already low rates and more than adequate liquidity. You need to understand how the theory they’re working from will express itself in the economy and affect your investment portfolio.

I should point out, however, that central banks are not the primary cause of distorted economic policy. They are reacting to the fiscal policies and political realities of their various countries. Japan’s government ran up the largest government debt-to-equity ratio in modern times; and now, as a result, the Japanese Central Bank is forced to monetize that debt.

Leverage and the distorted price of money have been at the root of almost every bubble in the postwar world. It is tempting to veer off into a soliloquy on the history of the problems leverage creates, but let’s forbear for now and deal with Keynesian thinking about income inequality.

The Problem with Keynesianism

Let’s start with a classic definition of Keynesianism from Wikipedia, so that we can all be comfortable that I’m not coloring the definition with my own bias (and, yes, I admit I have a bias). (Emphasis mine.)

Keynesian economics (or Keynesianism) is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy; instead, it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment, and inflation.

The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, during the Great Depression. Keynes contrasted his approach to the aggregate supply focused “classical” economics that preceded his book. The interpretations of Keynes that followed are contentious, and several schools of economic thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.

(Before I launch into a critique of Keynesianism, let me point out that I find much to admire in the thinking of John Maynard Keynes. He was a great economist and taught us a great deal. Further, and this is important, my critique is simplistic. A proper examination of the problems with Keynesianism would require a lengthy paper or a book. We are just skimming along the surface and don’t have time for a deep dive.)

Central banks around the world and much of academia have been totally captured by Keynesian thinking. In the current avant-garde world of neo-Keynesianism, consumer demand –consumption – is everything. Federal Reserve monetary policy is clearly driven by the desire to stimulate demand through lower interest rates and easy money.

And Keynesian economists (of all stripes) want fiscal policy (essentially, the budgets of governments) to increase consumer demand. If the consumer can’t do it, the reasoning goes, then the government should step in and fill the breach. This of course requires deficit spending and the borrowing of money (including from your local central bank).

Essentially, when a central bank lowers interest rates, it is trying to make it easier for banks to lend money to businesses and for consumers to borrow money to spend. Economists like to see the government commit to fiscal stimulus at the same time, as well. They point to the numerous recessions that have ended after fiscal stimulus and lower rates were applied. They see the ending of recessions as proof that Keynesian doctrine works.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. First, using leverage (borrowed money) to stimulate spending today must by definition lower consumption in the future. Debt is future consumption denied or future consumption brought forward. Keynesian economists would argue that if you bring just enough future consumption into the present to stimulate positive growth, then that present “good” is worth the future drag on consumption, as long as there is still positive growth. Leverage just evens out the ups and downs. There is a certain logic to this, of course, which is why it is such a widespread belief.

Keynes argued, however, that money borrowed to alleviate recession should be repaid when growth resumes. My reading of Keynes does not suggest that he believed in the continual fiscal stimulus encouraged by his disciples and by the cohort that are called neo Keynesians.

Secondly, as has been well documented by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, there comes a point at which too much leverage on both private and government debt becomes destructive. There is no exact number or way of knowing when that point will be reached. It arrives when lenders, typically in the private sector, decide that the borrowers (whether private or government) might have some difficulty in paying back the debt and therefore begin to ask for more interest to compensate them for their risks. An overleveraged economy can’t afford the increase in interest rates, and economic contraction ensues. Sometimes the contraction is severe, and sometimes it can be absorbed. When it is accompanied by the popping of an economic bubble, it is particularly disastrous and can take a decade or longer to work itself out, as the developed world is finding out now.

Every major “economic miracle” since the end of World War II has been a result of leverage. Often this leverage has been accompanied by stimulative fiscal and monetary policies. Every single “miracle” has ended in tears, with the exception of the current recent runaway expansion in China, which is now being called into question. (And this is why so many eyes in the investment world are laser focused on China. Forget about a hard landing or a recession, a simple slowdown in China has profound effects on the rest of the world.)

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts from the Frontline is a free weekly economic e-letter by best selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting Mauldin Economics.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: The Problem with Keynesianism was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.