While I can never be completely sure, I suspect today's edition will be rather short due to the competing work load associated with producing the next edition of The Casey Report.
Speaking of which, in addition to our usual assortment of coverage on powerful investment trends, the issue includes a special feature by our own Terry Coxon on the best ways to hold cash. (Learn more here.)
Of course, in time, as the inflation we see as inevitable kicks in, holding cash will be the last thing anyone will want to do. But for now, a healthy stash of cash ensures sufficient powder to snap up the bargains in everything from real estate to high-quality stocks we see becoming available in the months just ahead.
Specific timing, you ask?
Regrettably, theres no sure formula for that calculation. Especially given that these United States now operate on a quasi-command economic model. In a true free market, we'd be able to look at the pro forma of individual businesses, or the supply and demand picture for various commodities, and draw some fairly useful conclusions about where they are likely to head next. The business cycle and other aspects of the macro-picture, while worth a periodic glance, would warrant relatively little attention.
In the world we now inhabit, however, the macro-picture and even down to the micro-level is dominated by the Wizards of Washington. It is they who decide which constituents should do well (e.g., green energy, big banks, automobile companies, mortgage holders) and which should do worse (e.g., coal companies, mining, dollar holders). Then they attempt to enforce their preferences through new or enhanced bodies of regulations that serve much the same function as a cattle chute in a slaughterhouse, forcing businesses and even the economy in the desired direction.
Christopher Whalen of The Institutional Risk Analyst just published what I thought was a very cogent paper titled Are the Fed, the Congress and the Primary Dealers an Alliance of Convenience, which touches on related topics
The evolution of the US from a democratic republic into a more statist, more corporate formulation that looks more and more like the states of Europe and Asia every day, is what makes concepts such as too big to fail ("TBTF") and "systemic risk" viable. The migration of the US from a society based on individual liberty, work and responsibility, to a society where a largely corporate and socialist perspective holds sway, in my view, is changing the way we look at our financial and monetary system. Because of the huge and some would say illegal subsidies provided to Wall Street firms during the early part of the crisis, particularly in cases such as the rescue of American International Group, the American electorate is engaged in an intense, sometimes angry debate about financial policy and government.
This debate is also very intense among the bank regulatory community, where you have FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, the FDIC and state regulators, and smaller banks supporting a traditional if somewhat legalistic American view of banks regarding issues like insolvency and resolution, on the one hand. Then we have the internationalist tendency represented by the large banks, the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury and White House, who like the leaders of the EU advocate a socialist and proudly statist perspective where banks are "too big to fail" and under the table subsidies to well-connected institutions are encouraged. Whereas in the 1800s the New York banks advocated hard money and sound banks, and the inflationists were among the agrarian populist ranks, today it is Washington, Paris and Berlin, among the largest dealer banks and their political allies, that are found advocates of inflation and public sector debt.
Our friends at the Fed and Treasury seem to know nothing about American values when it comes to insolvency or bank safety and soundness. Our founders embedded bankruptcy in the Constitution not out of generosity, but because they knew that prompt resolution and liquidation of claims benefitted all of society. The internationalist set, like their counterparts in Europe and Japan, talk of the ill effects of resolving zombie banks via traditional bankruptcy, but fail to notice the benefits with equal concern. If we do not have losers as well as winners in our society, then we shall have neither. For every loser in the case of the failures of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, there were winners at JPMorganChase and Barclays PLC, which bought the assets of the failed companies for pennies on the dollar and absorbed thousands of valuable employees.
#1
Of course, in time, as the inflation we see as inevitable kicks in, holding cash will be the last thing anyone will want to do.
Too many pensions to include Social Security are indexed to inflation. If you think SS takes up a hefty percentage of the budget, just wait and see what inflation will do to it then. Those governing will invoke Nixon's old wage and price controls before it gets rolling too high to protect their sorry asses. That will in turn lead to shortages, flatline any economy, and create a major black market, cutting tax revenue, particularly at state and local levels.
#3
Widespread bank insolvency is THE major issue now, and the rest of the government's shenanigans is to cover that up. holding cash will be the last thing anyone will want to do Yup, time for me to buy all the commodities I will ever need for the rest of my life, and a bigger yard. And a bigger safe. And pray harder.
Excerpts from Remarks by former Vice President Dick Cheney
Center for Security Policy
So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.
It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that -- with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.
You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire -- and thought they had -- a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.
What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous "Reset" button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In the short of it, President Obama's cancellation of America's agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won't be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.
Big events turn on the credibility of the United States -- doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran. Click through to see video of the entire speech
And this quote by Frank Gaffney
Re: Cheney Last Night [Frank Gaffney]
Dick Cheney demonstrated last night before the Center for Security Policy audience that he is far and away the most competent, to say nothing of the most robust, statesman in the country today. His critique of Obama's conduct of foreign and national-security policies was both withering and absolutely on point. Now, we need those who are still in government to translate Cheney's admonitions and prescriptions into policy. And this about a report the Bush Adm did for the Obama transition teams --
Recently, President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President's chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn't asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.
In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision -- a good one, I think -- and sent a commander into the field to implement it.
Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.
#1
Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. At least Putin is thinking of what might be in the best interests of Russia. That's more than I can say for Obama wrt the USA.
#2
Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that -- with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.
But if you are inclined towards Marxism/Communism as many in the current administration seem to be, it make a lot of sense.
#1
--- After a congressional bill drawn up specifically in response to CAIR's and the imams' insistence on suing regular citizens reporting suspicious activity was passed, the passengers were dropped from the case. But Awad wasn't too happy about that, condemning the bill's sponsor, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.
"Now the allegation is that we are targeting innocent civilians," Awad said. "What we are trying to do is target those that knowingly made false allegations because of their anti-Muslim sentiments.
Terrorists always attack innocent civilians, otherwise they are not worthy of that designation. Allegations of anti-Muslim sentiments are an essential weapon of Muslim terrorists.
For ONCE, Congress came through on the side of good sense.
--- If everyone is sued, then everyone also gets a chance to force 'discovery', by subpoenaing everybody else remotely connected to the case.
#2
Without seeing the confidential agreement it is almost pure speculation to claim this as either a victory for terrorists or a defeat for terrorists.
The imans may have won a few thousand dollars (or maybe only a few hundred). If so, it doesn't begin to cover their legal costs.
There was no apology from any of the defendants and that is a good thing.
There doesn't seem to be a payment to the imans attorneys and that is also a good thing.
Probably both sides will go back to the drawing board. The law enforcement side will look to do a better job of documentation during their actions and will have to avoid using the word 'arrest'. The imans will look at a way of terrorizing infidels without goading Congress into passing another anti terrorism measure.
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/22/2009 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
Since you're probably not a regular reader of the trade publication Nucleonics Week, let me summarize an article that appeared in its Oct. 8 issue. It reported that Iran's supply of low-enriched uranium -- the potential feedstock for nuclear bombs -- appears to have certain "impurities" that "could cause centrifuges to fail" if the Iranians try to boost it to weapons grade.
Now that's interesting. The seeming breakthrough in negotiations on Oct. 1 in Geneva -- where Iran agreed to send most of its estimated 1,500 kilograms of low-enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment -- may not have been exactly what it appeared. Iran may have had no alternative but to seek foreign help in enrichment because its own centrifuges wouldn't work.
Or they could buy their enriched uranium from the Norks ...
"The impurities, certain metallic fluoride compounds, would interfere with centrifuge enrichment" at Iran's facility at Natanz, reported the newsletter's Bonn correspondent, Mark Hibbs.
This news strikes me as a potential bombshell. If the Nucleonics Week report is accurate (and there's some uncertainty among experts about how serious the contamination problem is), the Iranian nuclear program is in much worse shape than most analysts had realized. The contaminated fuel it has produced so far would be all but useless for nuclear weapons. To make enough fuel for a bomb, Iran might have to start over -- this time avoiding the impurities.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/22/2009 00:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like IRAN may have a simil problem as INDIA'S PAST NUCTESTS, i.e. nuke explosive yields not as great as calculated or occurred, ala BHARAT RAKSHAK.
#3
And maybe Iran just contaminated a sample to fool the rest of the world into believing this.
And couldn't France or whoever just recontaminate the Uranium when finished with it? Seems to me weapons grade is closer to 90%, but I'm probably wrong.
Operation Castle Bravo was a test of the first deliverable fusion weapon in the US arsenal. The predicted yield was 5 megatons, but, in fact, "BRAVO" yielded 14.8 megatons, making it the largest U.S. nuclear test ever exploded.
There were some fusion reactions taking place that were not predicted at the time.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/22/2009 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By David Ignatius
