CajunWin4's Blog

• 1. More US Soldiers Committed Suicide Than Died in Combat
• 2. US Military Manipulates the Social Media
• 3. Obama Authorizes International Assassination Campaign
• 4. Global Food Crisis Expands
• 5. Private Prison Companies Fund Anti–Immigrant Legislation
• 6. Google Spying?
• 7. U.S. Army and Psychology’s Largest Experiment–Ever
• 8. The Fairytale of Clean and Safe Nuclear Power
• 9. Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification
• 10. Real Unemployment: One Out of Five in US
• 11. Trafficking of Iraqi Women Rampant
• 12. Pacific Garbage Dump—Did You Really Think Your Plastic Was Being Recycled?
• 13. Will a State of Emergency Be Used to Supersede Our Constitution?
• 14. Family Pressure on Young Girls for Genitalia Mutilation Continues in Kenya
• 15. Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight
• 16. Sweatshops in China Are Making Your iPods While Workers Suffer
• 17. Superbug Bacteria Spreading Worldwide
• 18. Monsanto Tries to Benefit from Haiti’s Earthquake
• 19. Oxfam Exposes How Aid Is Used for Political Purposes
• 20. US Agencies Trying to Outlaw GMO Food Labelling
• 21. Lyme Disease: An Emerging Epidemic
• 22. Participatory Budgeting – A Method to Empower Local Citizens & Communities
• 23. Worldwide Movement To Ban or Charge Fees For Plastic Bags
• 24. South Dakota Takes Extreme Measures to Be the Top Anti–Abortion State
• 25. Extension of DU to Libya

The economy could use a good dose of “aggregate demand”—new spending money in the pockets of consumers—but QE3 won’t do it. Neither will it trigger the dreaded hyperinflation. In fact, it won’t do much at all. There are better alternatives.

The Fed’s announcement on September 13, 2012, that it was embarking on a third round of quantitative easing has brought the “sound money” crew out in force, pumping out articles with frighting titles such as “QE3 Will Unleash’ Economic Horror’ On The Human Race.” The Fed calls QE an asset swap, swapping Fed-created dollars for other assets on the banks’ balance sheets. But critics call it “reckless money printing” and say it will inevitably produce hyperinflation. Too much money will be chasing too few goods, forcing prices up and the value of the dollar down.

All this hyperventilating could have been avoided by taking a closer look at how QE works. The money created by the Fed will go straight into bank reserve accounts, andbanks can’t lend their reserves. The money just sits there, drawing a bit of interest. The Fed’s plan is to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) from the banks, but according to the Washington Post, this isnot expected to be of much help to homeownerseither.

Why QE3 Won’t Expand the Circulating Money Supply

In its third round of QE, the Fed says it will buy $40 billion in MBS every month for an indefinite period. To do this, it will essentially create money from nothing, paying for its purchases by crediting the reserve accounts of the banks from which it buys them. The banks will get the dollars and the Fed will get the MBS. But the banks’ balance sheets will remain the same, and the circulating money supply will remain the same.

When the Fed engages in QE, it takes away something on the asset side of the bank’s balance sheet (government securities or mortgage-backed securities) and replaces it with electronically-generated dollars. These dollars are held in the banks’ reserve accounts at the Fed. They are “excess reserves,” which cannot be spent or lent into the economy by the banks. They can only be lent to other banks that need reserves, or used to obtain other assets (new loans, bonds, etc.). As Australian economistSteve Keen explains:

[R]eserves are there for settlement of accounts between banks, and for the government’s interface with the private banking sector, but not for lending from. Banks themselves may . . . swap those assets for other forms of assets that are income-yielding, but they are not able to lend from them.

This was also explained by Prof. Scott Fullwiler, when he argued a year ago for another form of QE—the minting of some trillion dollar coins by the Treasury (he called it “QE3 Treasury Style”). He explained why the increase in reserve balances in QE is not inflationary:

Banks can’t “do” anything with all the extra reserve balances. Loans create deposits—reserve balances don’t finance lending or add any “fuel” to the economy. Banks don’t lend reserve balances except in the federal funds market, and in that case the Fed always provides sufficient quantities to keep the federal funds rate at its . . . interest rate target. Widespread belief that reserve balances add “fuel” to bank lending is flawed, as I explainedhereover two years ago.

Since November 2008, when QE1 was first implemented, the monetary base (money created by the Fed and the government) has indeed gone up. But the circulating money supply,M2, has not increased faster than in the previous decade, and loans have actually gone down. (Seechart belowfrom Richard Koo, Nomura Research Institute.)

Quantitative easing has had beneficial effects on the stock market, but these have been temporary and are evidently psychological: people THINK the money supply will inflate, providing more money to invest, inflating stock prices, so investors jump in and buy. The psychological effect eventually wears off, requiring a new round of QE to keep the game going.

That is what happened with QE1 and QE2. They did not reduce unemployment, the alleged target; but they also did not drive up the overall price level. The rate of price inflation has actually beenlower after QEthan before the program began.

Why, Then, Is the Fed Bothering to Engage in QE3?

If the Fed is doing no more than swapping bank assets, what is the point of this whole exercise? The Fed’s professed justification is that by buying mortgage-backed securities, it will lower interest rates for homeowners and other long-term buyers.As explained in Reuters:

Massive buying of any asset tends to push up the prices, and because of the way the bond market works, rising prices force yields [or interest rates] down. Because the Fed is buying mortgage-backed bonds, the purchases act to directly lower the cost of borrowing to buy a home. In addition, some investors, put off by the rising price of the bonds that the Fed is buying, turn to other assets, like corporate bonds – which, in turn, pushes up corporate bond prices and lowers those yields, making it cheaper for companies to borrow – and spend.

Those are the professed objectives, but politics may also play a role. QE drives up the stock market in anticipation of an increase in the amount of money available to invest, a good political move before an election.

Commodities (oil, food and precious metals) also go up, since “hot money” floods into them. Again, this is evidently because investors EXPECT inflation to drive commodities up, and because lowered interest rates on other investments prompt investors to look elsewhere. There is also evidence that commodities are going up because some major market players arecolluding to manipulate the price, a criminal enterprise.

The Fed does bear some responsibility for the rise in commodity prices, since it has created an expectation of inflation with QE, and it has kept interest rates low. But the price rise has not been from flooding the economy with money. If dollars were flooding economy, housing and wages (the largest components of the price level) would have shot up as well. But they have remained low, and overall price increases have remained within the Fed’s 2% target range. (See chart above.)

Some Possibilities That Might Be More Effective at Stimulating the Economy

An injection of money into the pockets of consumers would actually be good for the economy, but QE3 won’t do it. The Fed could give production and employment a bigger boost by using its lender-of-last-resort status in more direct ways than the current version of QE.

It could make the very-low-interest loans given to banks available to state and municipal governments, or to students, or to homeowners. It could rip up the $1.7 trillion in government securities that it already holds, lowering the national debt by that amount (as suggested a year ago by Ron Paul). Or it couldbuy up a trillion dollars’ worth of securitized student debtand rip those securities up. These moves might require some tweaking of the Federal Reserve Act, but Congress has done it before to serve the banks.

Another possibility would be the sort of “quantitative easing” first proposed by Ben Bernanke in 2002, before he was chairman of the Fed—just drop hundred dollar bills from helicopters. (This is roughly similar to the Social Credit solution proposed by C. H. Douglas in the 1920s.) AsMartin Hutchinson observedinMoney Morning:

With a U.S. population of 310 million, $31 billion per month, dropped from helicopters, would have given every American man, woman and child an extra crisp new $100 bill per month.

Yes, it would produce an extra $31 billion per month on the nominal Federal budget deficit, but the Fed would have printed the new bills, so there would have been no additional strain on the nation’s finances.

It would be much better than a new social program, because there would have been no bureaucracy involved, just bill printing and helicopter fuel.

The money would nearly all have been spent, increasing consumption by perhaps $300 billion annually, creating perhaps 3 million jobs, and reducing unemployment by almost 2%.

None of these moves would drive the economy into hyperinflation. According to the Fed’s figures, as of July 2010, the money supply was actually$4 trillion LESS than it was in 2008. That means that as of that date, $4 trillion more needed to be pumped into the money supply just to get the economy back to where it was before the banking crisis hit.

As the psychological boost from QE3 wears off and the “fiscal cliff” looms, perhaps Congress and the Fed will consider some of these more direct approaches to relieving the economy’s intractable doldrums.

What is the number one job of the U.S. government?  Well, at this point the federal government in spending more time and money on redistributing wealth than it is on anything else.  In fiscal year 2012, 62 percent of the federal budget will be spent on entitlements.  How much farther do we have to go until everyone finally admits that we have become a socialist nation?  Our government has become the largest engine of wealth redistribution in the history of the world, and the redistribution of wealth has greatly accelerated during the presidency of Barack Obama.  Yes, wealth redistribution as a share of the economy also grew under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, but Barack Obama has taken things to an entirely new level.  Back when Ronald Reagan took office, less than 30 percent of all Americans lived in a home where at least one person was receiving government benefits.  Today, an all-time record 49 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives government benefits.  Of course we always want to help the poor, the needy and those that cannot help themselves, but things in this country have gotten way out of balance.  And most Americans agree with me - according to a new Rasmussen survey, 64 percent of all Americans believe that too many Americans are dependent on government assistance.  We have become a nation that expects the government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave, and all of this government dependence is causing our debt to spiral completely and totally out of control.

Yes, without a doubt we will always need a safety net.  Nobody wants to see any American go without food or sleep under a bridge.

But we simply cannot afford to have more than 100 million Americans relying on that safety net.  It was never designed to accommodate so many people and the entire system is going to fail if we continue with this foolishness.

Sadly, a large percentage of the American people have become trained to vote for the politician that will promise them the most goodies.  Government benefits have become a way to "buy votes", and it is deeply corrupting our system.

In such an environment it probably should not be a surprise that we elected a president that has publicly declared that "I actually believe in redistribution."

A growing percentage of the American people are actually convinced that the job of the federal government is to act as some sort of cosmic Robin Hood.  They are convinced that the federal government should take money away from the rich and give it to them.

But what kind of a society will we have if we continue down this road?  Will we have a society where the "dependent class" is always clamoring for more and where the "working class" has no ambition to work hard and make money because the government is just going to come along and take most of it away?

Socialism does not work.  But that is where the United States (along with most of the rest of the world) is headed.

The following are 17 numbers that prove that the redistribution of wealth has greatly accelerated since Barack Obama has been president....

#1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives financial assistance from the federal government.  Back in 1983, that number was less than 30 percent.

#2 Right now, more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.  And that does not even count Social Security or Medicare.  Overall, there are almost 80 different "means-tested welfare programs" that the federal government is currently running.

#3 The number of Americans enrolled in the food stamp program has grown from about 17 million in 2000 to 31.9 million when Barack Obama took office to 46.6 million today.

#4 The number of Americans receiving Social Security disability payments has risen by more than a million since Obama has been in office.

#5 The growth of government dependence is far outpacing job growth in the United States even though we are supposed to be in an "economic recovery".  Between the beginning of April and the end of June, the U.S. economy added only 200,000 new jobs, but 246,000 more Americans were added to the Social Security disability program and 265,000 more Americans were added to the food stamp rolls.

#6 Back in August 1967, there were approximately 65 workers for each American that was collecting Social Security disability payments.  Today, there are only 16.2 workers for each American that is collecting Social Security disability payments.

#7 Federal housing assistance outlays increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

#8 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for just 32 percent of all health care spending in the United States.  This year, it is being projected that the federal government will account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending for the first time ever.

#9 The number of Americans on Medicaid grew from 34 million in 2000 to 54 million in 2011.

#10 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#11 It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#12 Medicare is also growing by leaps and bounds.  As I wrote about the other day, if current policies continue it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

#13 Thanks to our foolish politicians (including Obama), Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.  That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.

#14 Real median household income has decreased by more than 4000 dollars since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#15 As I have written about previously, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has risen by 6 million since Barack Obama became president.

#16 Overall, the amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has risen by 32 percent since Barack Obama first took office.

#17 When you account for all government transfer payments and all forms of government employment, more than half of all Americans are now at least partially financially dependent on the government.

The other day, the mainstream media went crazy over the "scandal" that Mitt Romney said the following at a fundraiser....

There are 47 percent who will vote for the President, no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on the government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.... Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And so my job is not to worry about those people — I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

The mainstream media howled in outrage about this, but to a certain extent Romney was right.

Of course the Republicans should have never nominated Romney, and Romney is running one of the most inept campaigns in the history of American politics, but Romney actually hit on some truth in that quote.

You can debate about what the exact number is, but the reality is that a growing number of Americans are satisfied with being dependent on the government and believe that the government should have a responsibility to take care of them.

Not that it is wrong to help the poor.  Of course not.  There are many people out there that honestly cannot take care of themselves, and almost everyone needs a helping hand at some point in their lives.

But there is a balance, and as a nation we have gotten way, way out of balance.

Of course it certainly doesn't help that most of the burden for paying for all of this welfare always seems to end up falling on the middle class.

The wealthy have become absolute masters at avoiding taxes.  For example, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of only 14.1 percent for the 2011 tax year.

If I could pay an effective tax rate of only 14.1 percent to the federal government I would be screaming for joy.  So would most middle class Americans.  Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to hire expensive tax attorneys who know how to exploit the thousands upon thousands of loopholes in the tax code.

Our tax code is a complete and total abomination and should be immediately abolished.  Unfortunately, neither political party is suggesting that we do that.  In fact, both political parties seem to really like things just the way that they are.

So the middle class will continue to get the short end of the stick and our national debt will continue to explode.

You see, the reality is that socialism is really, really expensive.  In fact, the U.S. national debt has increased by 51 percent since Barack Obama took office.

Since Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. national debt has grown by more than it did from the time that George Washington became president to the beginning of Bill Clinton's second term as president.

That is no small feat.

The federal government continues to throw money around as if there is no tomorrow, but the truth is that tomorrow always comes and our children and our grandchildren are going to be less than thrilled that we expect them to pay the 16 trillion dollar debt that we have foolishly run up.

But the mainstream media says that everything is just fine.  They are constantly praising Barack Obama, and top financial journalists such as Paul Krugman of the New York Times are proclaiming that the answer to our problems is to borrow and spend trillions more.

Thankfully, an increasing number of Americans are waking up to this nonsense.

According to a new Gallup survey, an all-time record high 60 percent of all Americans have little or no trust in the mainstream media.

I think that is a good sign.

Please forword this to Everyone you know !!

Report: WH Staff May Be Involved in Prostitutes Scandal

• 0 inShare

Paul Sakuma/AP Photo

The after-effects of 2012′s summer drought are far from over.

According to a new analysis from Rabobank this year’s crop failure and premature slaughtering of pigs, cattle and other staple meats will lead to an average 15% surge in food prices in 2013.

It may not sound like much, but when you combine this with monetary easing that threatens to rapidly depreciate the value of the dollar and an already indebted U.S. consumer, we can expect even more participants to enter government nutritional assistance programs.

It’s more expensive than ever before just to stay alive.

The record US, and global, summer drought has come and gone but its aftereffects are only now going to be felt, at least according to a new Rabobank report, which asserts that food prices are about to soar by 15% or more following mass slaughter of farm animals which will cripple supply once the current inventory of meat is exhausted.

From Sky News: “The worst drought in the US for almost a century, combined with droughts in South America and Russia, have hit the production of crops used in animal feed – such as corn and soybeans – especially hard, the report said. As a result farmers have begun slaughtering more pigs and cattle, temporarily increasing the meat supply – but causing a steep rise in the price of meat in the long-term as production slows.

“Farmers producing meat are simply not making enough money at the moment because of the high cost of feed,” Nick Higgins, commodity analyst at Rabobank, told Sky News. “As a result they will reduce their stock – both by slaughtering more animals and by not replacing them.” Somewhat ironically.

Food prices are now being kept at depressed prices as the “slaughtered” stock clears the market.

However once that is gone look for various food-related prices to soar: a process which will likely take place in early 2013, just in time to add to the shock from the Fiscal Cliff, which even assuming a compromise, will detract from the spending capacity of US (and by implication global) consumers.

The “mass liquidation” of animals – which Rabobank said will pick up pace in the beginning of 2013 – will contribute to food prices hitting new highs.

The cost of pork is expected to rise at the fastest pace - by 31% by the end of June next year – while beef costs could increase by up to 8%.

“This record cost of meat and dairy will combine with already-high crop prices to increase food prices by 15% by the middle of next year,” Mr Higgins added.

This would see food prices reach their highest level on record, up by 175% compared to the year 2000.

But the report stressed that the current situation is very different to the crisis of 2008 – in which food stables of the world’s developing economies, like wheat and rice, were severely affected.

The bank’s research follows official figures that showed inflation had slipped back to 2.5% in the UK – closer to the Bank of England’s inflation target of 2%

But Mr Higgins warned that next year’s food price rise could push inflation in the UK higher, and so further away from the Bank’s target.

Via Zero Hedge

But inflation is only at 2% according to the CPI.

Ben Bernanke and his helicopter air force have everything under control, just like they said they would.

That 15% in food price increases doesn’t even include the new money that is sure to hit the system now that some $80 billion a month is being committed to maintaining the illusion of economic stability and recovery.

All the while American consumers, who assume everything is as it has always been, are going to be paying 175% more for food by summer of next year than they were paying in the year 2000.

The only investment strategy available to ensure that you don’t run out of affordable food as the US dollar loses value and climate effects deplete available food stores is to invest in hard assets today.

Hat tip Satori

Confirmed Again: DOJ Working With Media Matters to Squash Reporters

            Katie Pavlich       

Impeachment: The Unthinkable Process

It's the last thing you would ever think could happen to an American President. Since 1841, over one-third of all American Presidents have either died in office, became disabled, or resigned. However, no American President has ever been forced from office due to impeachment.

In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:

• Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.

• Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.

• Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.

• William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.

The Impeachment Process

In the House of Representatives

• The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...

• The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.

• Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.

• The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.

• Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.

In the Senate

• The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

• The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

• A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

• The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

• The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.

• The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

• The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

• Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.

• Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

• Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain

If you think the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing will only affect the US dollar, think again. Now that the United States has officially begun it’s third round of money printing to the tune of at least $40 billion monthly, central banks around the world will also act to ‘defend’ their currencies in kind.

Moreover, because everyone is joining the fray, all of that extra money will make its way into key resource stocks and commodities, adding further upside price pressure to essential goods like food and fuel.

It’s a race to the bottom, and the losers are the 99.9% of us who aren’t being kept in the loop.

Quantitative easing is really another word for currency wars. A weak U.S. currency puts continued pressure on the Japanese Yen, the Chinese Yuan, the South Korean Won, the Australian dollar and other currencies.

Cheap money also fuels speculation and this money quickly drifts into commodity markets and the ETFs that help propel commodity market speculation. This is inflationary for food prices.

The lower the U.S. dollar the greater the intensity of currency wars. The break below the key uptrend line on the Dollar Index chart was an early warning of the third round of quantitative easing (QE3).

The most important question now is to use the chart to examine the potential downside limits of a QE3 weakened U.S. dollar.

…

The weekly close below this uptrend line was the first signal of a major change in the trend direction. It came before the announcement of QE3, last week.

…

The third significant feature is historical support near 74.5. This is the upper edge of a consolidation band between 73.5 and 74.5. This is the downside target for the Dollar Index following a fall below 79.

This target can be reached very rapidly over three to four weeks. A rapid collapse of the U.S. dollar puts immediate pressure on other dollar-linked currencies.

There is a very low probability the U.S. dollar will resume its uptrend. The move below the value of the uptrend line and a fall below 79 confirm that a new downtrend has developed.

The weakness in the U.S. Dollar will hurt export dependent economies and companies.

CNBC

There are two ways this may end – neither of which is going to be good for the average Joe:

• The Fed et. al. continue to print, so much so that prices for food, gas, utilities and other key commodities that are linked to US dollar movements will rise exponentially. This rise in prices will accelerate the pressure on consumers as more jobs are lost in an ever progressing, self reinforcing economic death spiral. The pressure of rising prices, even though the Dow Jones may reach 20,000 or 50,000 points, will be so great that American consumers simply won’t be able to pay their bills or put food on the table.
• The Fed and their brethren around the world won’t be able to print fast enough to maintain stable financial markets, leading to stock market crashes in Europe, Japan, China and the United States, which then leads to a shift of capital to US Treasury bonds, ironically strengthening the dollar. A weak US economy that isn’t creating jobs and is adding tens of thousands of people to an already overburdened social safety net every week will eventually lead to confidence being lost in the US government’s ability to repay its debts. As we noted in 2012 Predictions of a Mad Tin Foilist, the end result will be a currency crisis, or de facto default by way of hyperinflating away our debt.

Both scenarios are virtually the same, as both will end with complete and utter destruction of Americans’ wealth.

Despite the mainstream notion that inflation is under control and most of the money is sitting on the sidelines with banks, all we need to do is look at the price increases for consumers since private and public bailouts begin in late 2008. Gas has doubled. Food is up over 25%. Electricity costs and the cost of just about every other non-debt based asset has steadily risen.

This is not going to stop.

While timelines remain elusive because of never ending government intervention into financial markets and economies, the policies being instituted by central banks around the world can only lead to continued degradation of paper currencies and the rise in prices of all goods linked to those currencies.

In January of 2010 we suggested a strategy of buying physical commodities at today’s lower prices and consuming those commodities at tomorrow’s higher prices. The trend for fiat paper money and physical assets has not changed and is, in fact, more pronounced now than ever before.

The US dollar is being systematically weakened until it no longer exists as a viable means of exchange. When this happens you’d better be prepared to operate in a society where traditional money is replaced with mechanisms of exchange like precious metals, food, critical supplies and production skills.

You can begin taking simple steps to prepare now. The collapse of the existing global paradigm is accelerating and if you’re not ready for it the price you’ll pay will be severe.

Coming Soon: Taxpayer-Funded ObamaCare Propaganda

            Leah Barkoukis       

Romney: 47% Of Americans Will Vote for Obama No Matter What

            Kevin Glass