Year to date, the Dow is higher by 4.8%, S&P 500 +6% and the fag-heavy Nasdaq +10%. The top 5 performing sectors were Home Improvement stores ($BLDR, $LL, $LOW, $HD), Nuclear ($URRE, $UUUU, $UEC, $URG), Aluminum ($AA, $CENX), Semi Equipment ($AEHR, $LPTH, $COHU, $BRKS) and Hospitals ($CYH, $JYNT, $SSY, $THC)

The losers were Department Stores ($BONT, $JCP, $KSS, $SHOS), Oil and Gas Drillers ($NADL, $PACD, $PES, $BBG), Apparel Stores ($SMRT, $SSI, $CBK, $ASNA), Home Furnishing ($TPX, $FLXS, $HOFT, $ETH), Pollution and Treatment Controls ($CECE, $ERII, $HCCI, $FTEK).

The great thing about Presidential elections is the predictability of the policies and how they might affect share prices.

Take, for example, $PRSC. This is literally a play on American welfare and entitlements.

The Providence Service Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides critical healthcare and workforce development services in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Non-Emergency Transportation Services (NET Services), Workforce Development Services (WD Services), and Health Assessment Services (HA Services). The NET Services segment offers covered healthcare related transportation services for individuals with limited mobility and/or people with financial resources that hinder them from accessing necessary healthcare and social services. The WD Services segment offers workforce development and offender rehabilitation services, including employment preparation and placement, apprenticeship and training, and other health related services comprising employee assistance programs for unemployed, disabled, and unskilled individuals, as well as individuals coping with medical illnesses. The HA Services segment provides care optimization and delivery solutions, including comprehensive health assessments, as well as in-home and community-based care management offerings. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona.

When Obama took office, the share price was under $2. By the end of his term, it was north of $50. I found the stock during Obama's second term, when it was $15. Regrettably, I never held my position long enough to benefit from their growth.

On the currency side, Bitcoins rose by 10% and the Mexican peso by 10% -- recovering some the losses it endured during the American elections.

Lumber is up 20%, Palladium +16% and Lead +16%, while Orange juice dropped by 20%, Natural Gas by 14% and Sugar by 14%.

Going forward, providing Trump isn't impeached and removed from office, expect more of the same -- bullish on infrastructure, commodities and nuclear, while bearish on retail, big pharma, and anything environmental.

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

First published here: http://j.mp/2ojxi1n

Below looks at the DAX index from Germany over the past decade. The DAX index looks to be creating a bullish continuation pattern, that the Power of the Pattern feels, is important to investors in Europe and the St

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

The lower left of the chart above reflects what an ideal “Cup & Handle” pattern looks like. These patterns historically take place in bull markets and are viewed as “continuation patterns.”

Below looks at the DAX/SPY ratio over the decade and why the ratio could be forming an important pattern too.

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

Since the lows in 2003, the DAX has been much stronger than the S&P 500. Since 2008, the ratio has traded sideways, reflecting that the DAX and S&P have been traded off being stronger than another, no clear winner. At this time the ratio could be forming a reversal pattern (bullish inverse head & shoulders pattern) near the bottom of a 6-year trading range.

Joe Friday Just The Facts; A breakout above the top of the Cup & Handle pattern would send a bullish price message to the DAX. Strength in the DAX has historically been a positive for stocks in the states.

Bulls in Germany and the States have fingers crossed that the DAX breaks above 2015 highs!

 

Blog:  http://j.mp/2mQZ55V

Get our daily research posts delivered to your inbox here

Website: KIMBLECHARTINGSOLUTIONS.COM

Questions: Email [email protected] or call us toll free 877-721-7217 international 714-941-9381

First published here: http://j.mp/2nTjnyw

Via The Daily Bell

Space tourism industry has a chance to show benefits of less regulation

If space truly is the final frontier, then it won’t be long until the first pioneers are making the journey, as several companies race to take paying passengers out of the Earth’s atmosphere and beyond. And true to form, right on its heels will be the regulators, red tape lassos in hand.

But like any brand new industry, the slight head start of the businesses will give them the opportunity to show the high standards that can be accomplished absent government control — and with any luck, they can do it in a way compelling enough to cast doubt on the “necessity” of regulation.

A March 20 article in Quartz about space tourism details the thus-far minimal regulatory burden on the burgeoning industry and questions how passengers will be protected without the “benefit” of tight regulations.

The first spaceflight participants will be guinea pigs in an experiment that asks: Just what does it mean to be safe in space when the government isn’t in charge?

The obvious answer, to those who believe in the power of market-driven incentives, is that space tourism will likely be safer with minimal government intervention than it would be with tight regulations and oversight, since the companies will police themselves, as Blue Origin Executive Erika Wagner says in the article.

Wagner recently told an audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘ . . . in terms of us having a safe place in the market, we take that seriously, we want to put our own families on board, we take that very seriously. So we are holding ourselves to internal standards.’

The case for strict government regulation is built on some faulty beliefs about humanity and behavior. It assumes that people in business are at their core unconcerned about other people and are motivated solely by profit. It assumes in contrast, that those people in government are the complete opposite, motivated only by altruism and never by self-interest. On this questionable foundation is built the assertion that the people in government must regulate the people in business so that the interests of customers and the public at large are protected.

It is easy enough to strike down these arguments. First, this stark divide between the values of businessmen and politicians does not exist. Good or bad personality traits can be found within any group, and I would argue that you’ll actually find disproportionately more politicians on the self-interested end of the spectrum than in other career paths, because politics either attracts or creates those kinds of people.

In any event, there is not a neutral ruling elite that can sit above the fray, benevolently handing down edicts to keep the otherwise-evil businesses in check. Politicians and regulatory agencies have a dog in the fight too, be it money, connections, political pressure, or desire for power.

But for argument’s sake, let’s assume the worst of businesses and the best of government. Even in this case, the goal for both parties is the same: safe space travel. At their most altruistic, regulators want it because they don’t want people to die. At their worst, space travel businesses want it because death and injury is bad for business.

Any company, whether they are building and flying rockets or simply selling sandwiches, needs to have customers to stay in business. Blue Origin, SpaceX, Boeing and Virgin Galactic — all companies planning to fly people out into space — won’t be able to keep customers if people aren’t flying back to Earth intact.

And unlike the mistakes of a sandwich shop, which might never make the front page news, in a pioneering industry like commercial space flight, you can bet every potential customer on earth would hear about the company’s missteps. As safety risks increase, customers will decrease, and if that balance gets out of whack, the company will fail.

Not all customers desire the same level of safety. And that’s OK. When regulations are minimal, companies can cater to whatever customer base they want. Riskier or more expensive products or services will  have a smaller customer base than those that are safer or cheaper.

Perhaps each space tourism company will use this formula to choose a different niche; companies could advertise that they tested their spacecraft the most, or offer the least expensive weightlessness experience, or orbit the earth the fastest.  In this way, less regulation gives the consumer more choices, while regulation would restrict some of these options, eliminating the preferences of some customers while simultaneously crippling those niche businesses.

“Minimal” Regulation

What does “minimal” regulation look like in the space tourism industry? Right now, it’s governed by the Commercial Space Act, which establishes the Secretary of Transportation as the governing authority. The Secretary has the power to grant launch licenses to rockets, which can include requirements on crew training and medical standards.

The license holder must inform crew and passengers in writing about the risks involved in space travel, and let them know that the United States Government has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants. The Secretary can also restrict rocket design features or operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal injury or a high risk thereof.

By many standards, that amount of regulation is already too much. It’s not that these rules are especially onerous or illogical; it’s just that they are unnecessary. Crew members and paying customers are voluntarily participating in space flight — a non-essential service, moreover — through the company. Therefore, customers and employees should work directly with the company to ensure a satisfactory experience. The company can then meet those demands or lose those customers and workers. They can cut out the middleman of regulation because there is no one to protect; all parties are already satisfied, and customers are signing up in droves. According to the article, Virgin Galactic has accrued 700 paid passengers since 2005.

The article cites Uber as a close example of how the space travel industry could expect to pave its own way:

Because the slate is still blank for how the federal government will treat the space business, the earliest companies will be in a position to set the tone, much as Uber’s regulatory battles laid the groundwork for the still tetchy relationship between cities and ride-hailing apps.

This is a fitting analogy, but frustrating if space tourism goes the way of ride-hailing apps. Because Uber and others like it are another example of a business in which regulators tried to fix problems that didn’t exist. Everyone involved was already happy. And yet because of pressure from the highly-regulated taxi companies, politicians implemented regulations to handcuff ride-sharing companies as well, under the guise of consumer protection.

In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, a bill regulating ride-sharing companies required Uber drivers to complete a two-part background check, carry insurance coverage of at least $1 million, and have their vehicles get a second safety inspection in addition to the annual inspection required of all registered cars. And—perhaps the biggest affront— the law required the companies to pay 20 cents per ride to the state, which will fund public transportation, including the taxi industry. The bill was signed into law last August, adding Massachusetts to the long list of states that punish and restrict the ride-sharing app companies while buoying their competitors.

Yet Uber and other ride-sharing app companies have largely survived the onslaught of regulations because the service they offer is so attractive, not only from a practical standpoint, but also a symbolic one. It gives both customers and drivers freedom and self-determination, the ability to set their own hours, choose their own route.

And that’s just ground transportation. It’s hard to imagine a more freeing experience than blasting off in a rocket to outer space, quite literally extricating oneself from earthly cares. So while we will likely see a shorter leash on space tourism companies as the industry matures and regulators catch up, these pioneering companies have a chance to demonstrate that they can be self policing. They can prove that private industry can safely, astonishingly, and beautifully launch people into the final frontier — and bring them home again.

A new age is dawning. Will governments be left in the dust?

First published here: http://j.mp/2oHXy1T

Via The Daily Bell

If you are flying a jet, and approaching a thunderstorm, is it better to go through the thunderstorm, or to fly above it, safely out of range? The thunderstorm exists, and is dangerous; you cannot change that. But what you can change is how you interact with that storm, and therefore how it affects you. Avoiding the danger still requires recognizing the storm, to understand it’s scope, and trajectory.

Last week The Daily Bell posted three articles about fear. Some readers may have mistook this for promoting fear; did The Daily Bell jump on the the mainstream media “be afraid” bandwagon? But take a closer look, and you will see that two of the articles were actually calling out the use of fear as a tool for control, and the third was alerting you to a real concern.

You could say two were trying to stop the mainstream media from dragging you into the thunderstorm, an the third was trying to help you recognize the nature of the storm, in order to avoid it.

Warning: The Media is Trying to Kill You certainly sounds like it would be promoting fear. But the article was actually about the influence the media has on humanity to the extent that their reporting on things like suicide and murder can actually increase suicides and murders. It was a warning about the amount of power the media can exert over people through their reporting. The article actually warned not to let the media scare you into taking the action they want (being engulfed in the thunderclouds).

Another article was sarcastically titled, 3 Exciting New Ways to Destroy Humanity That Everyone is Talking About. In it, we were actually pointing out how ridiculous the three scenarios were that the media was promoting as possible extinction events for humanity. We assumed the title would be understood as a joke; as if it was exciting and popular to discuss the end of humanity. The scenarios discussed, while possible, had no basis in reality. The point was despite their unlikelihood, that didn’t stop the media from reporting them in a way which spreads fear of those events, even giving absurd percentage chance of the extinction events occurring, making them seem like a plausible threat (the fear of lightning striking you at any moment).

But a third article was actually warning about something that should be on your radar. What Everyone Should Know About the New Quarantine Regulation, was meant to inform you about a threat to your rights. The government has granted itself the power to ignore due process under certain circumstances, when they deem the public health to outweigh your individual rights (recognizing the storm gathering around a supposed epidemic).

This all brings up an interesting point: when should we report things which should be kept on your radar, without going too far to end up promoting fear, and keeping you pinned down by the storm?

Media “Fear Porn”

When the mainstream media makes up a percentages for the likelihood of different cataclysmic events wiping out humanity, that is what is called “fear porn” as at least one commenter put it. Some people, apparently, get a rise out of the doom and gloom. They love a good thunderstorm.

Another mainstream article I would classify as “fear porn” is an article from Bloomberg called Fears Grow of Terror in U.S. With Weaponized Civilian Drones.

(Like this one!)

Does the article ever give evidence of these supposedly growing fears? No, not unless you think the opinion of the Deputy Director of the National Counter-terrorism Center is a good indicator of U.S. fears. He is the only person the article talks about being fearful of private drones being used in terrorist attacks.

And why is he fearful of this? Of course one possibility is that he is not fearful of this, he simply wants everyone else to be fearful of it. But another possibility is that because he has been involved in the U.S. effort to spread fear and terror via drone bombings, he sees this as a threat. He is in the midst of the storm. It’s like how power-hungry people who nefariously undermine their opponents are paranoid that they will be targeted in the same way.

Clearly the government wants you to be scared of personal drone attacks, even though it has never happened inside the U.S. before. But why?

And here is where the line becomes blurred between rejecting all fear mongering and making sure we stay abreast of their tactics for control.

We should be aware that when the government starts to promote fear of a certain event, they themselves may be planning to exploit those fears for more power. Do they want people to clamor for more regulation of private drones? Do they want the public to be primed for a false flag carried out with a personal drone?

This is like yet another article we have recently published called Another DHS “Exercise” Planned: The Risk of Terrorism Drills Becoming Reality. If we can recognize patterns seen in government, we can stop the events we fear from happening. We are not trying to spread fear of possible false flag attacks from government, rather recognize the danger in order to prevent them. If we see the storm on the horizon, we can fly over or around it, rather than through it.

Government fear plays into their goals; get citizens to accept their protection and safety net in order to maintain power and control.

Unless you think The Daily Bell is part of a government PSYOP (which apparently some readers do believe) then anything we share that seems fearful is only intended to warn of actual dangers, and not attempted to influence your behavior to run to the government for salvation. I don’t think that would work on the healthy skeptics who read The Daily Bell.

I think Daily Bell readers are far past the point of allowing the government to scare them into certain behaviors, so this probably wouldn’t be the most efficient use of CIA resources.

Nefarious Conclusion

I think the behavior most at risk of being induced among The Daily Bell readers is a paranoia about just how much control the government has, which can paralyze any productive action that would give power back to the individual.

Sometimes if we feel overwhelmed by the evil powers that supposedly dominate the earth, we may become depressed, and give up all hope of progress.

Keep in mind how incompetent the government is in almost any area. Do we really think they excel when it comes to the total control many fear they have, coupled with their uncanny ability to keep it under wraps?

In reality, the government probably wants us to think they have more control than they really do. It is like the South Park episode where Bush wants people to think he carried out 9/11 so that they will fear him, giving him more power, when in reality (in the South Park episode) he had nothing to do with it.

So remember that: among our demographics, the government may benefit more from the fear that they are all powerful megalomaniacs bent on world domination, even if such is not entirely the case (or even if their world dominance is more segmented and less organized than we are sometimes led to believe).

So the real question is, to what extent should we inform you of actual threats, and at what point does this have the opposite effect of promoting the fear we want to avoid influencing behavior?

We want to help you fly above the storm, which requires alerting you to where lightning is striking, and in what direction the storm is moving. And we want to alert you to these dangers without dragging you into the thick of the turbulence.

We try to strike a balance, but sometimes we miss. Let’s have a discussion in the comments below. Tell me what you think is the proper scope of reporting on fear, versus avoiding fear mongering.

What is your subconscious telling you about your surroundings? Intuition is real.

If you are flying a jet, and approaching a thunderstorm, is it better to go through the thunderstorm, or to fly above it, safely out of range? The thunderstorm exists, and is dangerous; you cannot change that. But what you can change is how you interact with that storm, and therefore how it affects you. Avoiding the danger still requires recognizing the storm, to understand it’s scope, and trajectory.

Last week The Daily Bell posted three articles about fear. Some readers may have mistook this for promoting fear; did The Daily Bell jump on the the mainstream media “be afraid” bandwagon? But take a closer look, and you will see that two of the articles were actually calling out the use of fear as a tool for control, and the third was alerting you to a real concern.

You could say two were trying to stop the mainstream media from dragging you into the thunderstorm, an the third was trying to help you recognize the nature of the storm, in order to avoid it.

Warning: The Media is Trying to Kill You certainly sounds like it would be promoting fear. But the article was actually about the influence the media has on humanity to the extent that their reporting on things like suicide and murder can actually increase suicides and murders. It was a warning about the amount of power the media can exert over people through their reporting. The article actually warned not to let the media scare you into taking the action they want (being engulfed in the thunderclouds).

Another article was sarcastically titled, 3 Exciting New Ways to Destroy Humanity That Everyone is Talking About. In it, we were actually pointing out how ridiculous the three scenarios were that the media was promoting as possible extinction events for humanity. We assumed the title would be understood as a joke; as if it was exciting and popular to discuss the end of humanity. The scenarios discussed, while possible, had no basis in reality. The point was despite their unlikelihood, that didn’t stop the media from reporting them in a way which spreads fear of those events, even giving absurd percentage chance of the extinction events occurring, making them seem like a plausible threat (the fear of lightning striking you at any moment).

But a third article was actually warning about something that should be on your radar. What Everyone Should Know About the New Quarantine Regulation, was meant to inform you about a threat to your rights. The government has granted itself the power to ignore due process under certain circumstances, when they deem the public health to outweigh your individual rights (recognizing the storm gathering around a supposed epidemic).

This all brings up an interesting point: when should we report things which should be kept on your radar, without going too far to end up promoting fear, and keeping you pinned down by the storm?

Media “Fear Porn”

When the mainstream media makes up a percentages for the likelihood of different cataclysmic events wiping out humanity, that is what is called “fear porn” as at least one commenter put it. Some people, apparently, get a rise out of the doom and gloom. They love a good thunderstorm.

Another mainstream article I would classify as “fear porn” is an article from Bloomberg called Fears Grow of Terror in U.S. With Weaponized Civilian Drones.

(Like this one!)

Does the article ever give evidence of these supposedly growing fears? No, not unless you think the opinion of the Deputy Director of the National Counter-terrorism Center is a good indicator of U.S. fears. He is the only person the article talks about being fearful of private drones being used in terrorist attacks.

And why is he fearful of this? Of course one possibility is that he is not fearful of this, he simply wants everyone else to be fearful of it. But another possibility is that because he has been involved in the U.S. effort to spread fear and terror via drone bombings, he sees this as a threat. He is in the midst of the storm. It’s like how power-hungry people who nefariously undermine their opponents are paranoid that they will be targeted in the same way.

Clearly the government wants you to be scared of personal drone attacks, even though it has never happened inside the U.S. before. But why?

And here is where the line becomes blurred between rejecting all fear mongering and making sure we stay abreast of their tactics for control.

We should be aware that when the government starts to promote fear of a certain event, they themselves may be planning to exploit those fears for more power. Do they want people to clamor for more regulation of private drones? Do they want the public to be primed for a false flag carried out with a personal drone?

This is like yet another article we have recently published called Another DHS “Exercise” Planned: The Risk of Terrorism Drills Becoming Reality. If we can recognize patterns seen in government, we can stop the events we fear from happening. We are not trying to spread fear of possible false flag attacks from government, rather recognize the danger in order to prevent them. If we see the storm on the horizon, we can fly over or around it, rather than through it.

Government fear plays into their goals; get citizens to accept their protection and safety net in order to maintain power and control.

Unless you think The Daily Bell is part of a government PSYOP (which apparently some readers do believe) then anything we share that seems fearful is only intended to warn of actual dangers, and not attempted to influence your behavior to run to the government for salvation. I don’t think that would work on the healthy skeptics who read The Daily Bell.

I think Daily Bell readers are far past the point of allowing the government to scare them into certain behaviors, so this probably wouldn’t be the most efficient use of CIA resources.

Nefarious Conclusion

I think the behavior most at risk of being induced among The Daily Bell readers is a paranoia about just how much control the government has, which can paralyze any productive action that would give power back to the individual.

Sometimes if we feel overwhelmed by the evil powers that supposedly dominate the earth, we may become depressed, and give up all hope of progress.

Keep in mind how incompetent the government is in almost any area. Do we really think they excel when it comes to the total control many fear they have, coupled with their uncanny ability to keep it under wraps?

In reality, the government probably wants us to think they have more control than they really do. It is like the South Park episode where Bush wants people to think he carried out 9/11 so that they will fear him, giving him more power, when in reality (in the South Park episode) he had nothing to do with it.

So remember that: among our demographics, the government may benefit more from the fear that they are all powerful megalomaniacs bent on world domination, even if such is not entirely the case (or even if their world dominance is more segmented and less organized than we are sometimes led to believe).

So the real question is, to what extent should we inform you of actual threats, and at what point does this have the opposite effect of promoting the fear we want to avoid influencing behavior?

We want to help you fly above the storm, which requires alerting you to where lightning is striking, and in what direction the storm is moving. And we want to alert you to these dangers without dragging you into the thick of the turbulence.

We try to strike a balance, but sometimes we miss. Let’s have a discussion in the comments below. Tell me what you think is the proper scope of reporting on fear, versus avoiding fear mongering.

What is your subconscious telling you about your surroundings? Intuition is real.

First published here: http://j.mp/2nTmV3y

If you are actively involved in the markets as a trader or investors, you need to be intensely careful regarding your political bias.

Every single person has a political bias. Everyone. It’s not a bad thing. It’s just a fact.

But if you're looking to make money in today's market, BIAS is a four letter word.

However, the Trump Presidency is bringing out personal bias in ways we’ve never seen before. People on both sides of the political spectrum are literally losing their minds.

Trump supporters see no fault. Trump opponents see no benefit.

This is EXTREMELY dangerous if you are making investment decisions with this going on. No matter how sophisticated your model or framework is, if you’re pumping biased ideas into it, you’re going to get poor results.

Consider election night.

Building up to election night we were told that if Trump won the market would Crash. The media was in on this. Experts were in on this.

Then Trump won, and stocks erupted out to new all-time highs breaking out of a two-year consolidation range.

The media then flipped the script and began claiming that Trump had unleashed an economic utopia and that GDP growth of 5% would hit soon.

When I say, the “media” I mean the exact same groups claiming a Trump win would crash the markets.

My point is this: now more than ever if you’re trying to make money from the markets, you need to check your political bias.

Not everything Trump does is great and not everything Trump does is bad.

But if you have natural inclination to believe EITHER of those views tends to be true, you are in SERIOUS trouble.

On that note, we are already helping our clients successfully profit from Trump’s true impact on the markets with our Special Report titled How to Profit From the Trump Trade

In it, we outline how Trump’s Presidency will affect the markets in 2017 …which investments will perform best this year as a result of Trump’s policies… and three specific strategies that will outperform the market as a result of them.

You can pick up one of the few remaining copies here:

http://j.mp/2jqzroK

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

 

First published here: http://j.mp/2ojtKMP

Interested in precious metals investing or storage? Contact us HERE 

 

 

 

 

Fake News and Real Money

Posted with permission and written by Rory Hall and Dave Kranzler (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

 

 

 

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. – Adolf Hitler

 

Propaganda, also known as “fake news,” has become the norm in mainstream media reporting. Somehow the idea of Russia hacking the DNC computers morphed into the generic, “Russia hacked the election.” Per Hitler’s formula, Hillary Clinton introduced the idea during one of the presidential debates and kept repeating it until the press seized it and ran all the way with to the end zone with “Trump is a Russian ally.” Now Congress is pre-occupied with the fraudulent charge that Russia is controlling U.S. politics. The whole spectacle is beyond idiotic.

 

In a similar manner, the reporting of economic statistics has become another tool of propaganda. The Government, as we all well know by now, spits out economic reports based on shoddy statistical samples that are seasonally adjusted. Then the data that is cooked for any specific month is annualized. While the result might not be too far off base for any specific month, the errors aggregate over time so that some statistics, like the GDP report, bear no resemblance to reality.

 

A great example of using propaganda to promote an idea is the continuous mantra coming from the National Association of Realtors that “low inventory” is hampering home sales. It’s an effective device to make the public think that a lack of homes for sale is the explanation for declining sales. It’s also a lie. Homebuilders are sitting on a record level of inventory. Flippers and investors bought 37% of all existing homes that traded in 2016. Many are sitting on homes they can’t sell for enough to cover their rehab expenses. The over $750,000 segment of the market is flooded with inventory.

 

The truth is that, if you examine the historical data in order to question the NAR’s assertions, the facts show that since 1999 – which is when the Fed began tracking existing home sales – relative inventory levels do not drive home sales:

 

 

In fact – if anything – there is an inverse correlation between inventory levels and home sales. In other words, since 1999, homes sales rise when inventories are low!

 

Thus propaganda is a tool used to manage public perception. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the population only consumes headlines and sound-bytes. It’s the perfect set-up for politicians to employ Hitler’s advice on administering propaganda. The commonly accepted idea is, in fact, the opposite of the truth.

 

The commandeering of a country by elitists begins by eliminating real money and replacing it with a fraudulent fiat currency. But the eastern hemisphere is moving in an opposite direction as the west. As reproduced in The Daily Coin, Russia and China have quietly struck an agreement laying the groundwork to replace the U.S. dollar’s reserve status with a gold-backed currency system: Moscow and Beijing join forces to bypass US dollar in world money market. In today’s episode of the Shadow of Truth we discuss the decline of the United States and the advancement of the new superpower bloc emerging in the east.

 

 

 

Questions or comments about this article? Leave your thoughts HERE.

 

 

 

 

Fake News and Real Money

Posted with permission and written by Rory Hall and Dave Kranzler (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

First published here: http://j.mp/2ojKseX

'Three wise men' are warning that the next financial crash is coming and that one of the ways to protect and grow wealth in the coming crash will be to own gold.

The men who have recently warned are Jim Rogers (video below), Martin Armstrong (blog below) and Tony Robbins (video below). Each come from somewhat different backgrounds and are respected experts in their respective fields.

Each has different views in terms of asset allocation and how best to weather the coming financial storm but all are united in believing that gold will act as a wealth preservation tool and will likely rise in value when other assets fall.

Jim Rogers is a world renowned investor who co-founded the Quantum Fund with fellow investor George Soros.  He is an investor, traveler, financial commentator and author who believes that this will be the 'Asian Century.'

In his usual plain speaking, honest manner, Jim Rogers warned on Bloomberg TV that

"the Federal Reserve... has no clue what they are doing. They are going to ruin us all." 

Central banks have driven rates to all time record lows and in the process, debt has "sky-rocketed."

Rogers slams the 'counterfactual' arguments that things would have been a lot worse if the Fed had not done all this, "propping up zombie banks and dead companies is not the way the world is supposed to work. ... It's been nine years and we have nothing to show for it [economically] except staggering amounts of debt."

Rogers is pessimistic about the outlook for America and thinks that Donald Trump will see the US continue on the path to bankruptcy - a path set by Bush and Obama before him.

He concludes the Bloomberg interview ominously by saying that "this is all going to end very, very, very badly."

In recent years, Rogers has consistently said that he wants to own more gold and silver and will continue to accumulate the precious metals on any price dips.

Watch Rogers on Bloomberg TV here

Financial analyst and trends forecaster, Martin Armstrong warned on his Armstrong Economics blog this week that governments are in increasing trouble and people will start to lose confidence in their governments:

"Gold and the stock market will take off when people realize that government is in trouble. When they lose confidence, that is when they will start to pour into tangible assets."

 

Armstrong is nervous about gold in the short term and thinks it could fall as low as $1,000 per ounce prior to surging to as high as $5,000 per ounce in the coming years.

Tony Robbins, performance coach and self help guru has warned that "The Crash is Coming."

Robbins, who is focusing more on finances and wealth in recent years and in his latest book, 'Money: Master The Game', says plan now for what's to come. Things may be looking rosy on Wall Street as of late, but the crash will come.

 

"We are in a really artificial situation. There is a new high, on average, every month. Feds around the world have been printing money," said Robbins in a tv interview.

Robbins has long advocated owning gold as part of a diversified portfolio and has cited Kyle Bass, Marc Faber and more recently Ray Dalio as his financial gurus. In his recent book, Robbins cited Dalio and recommended an asset allocation strategy that involves a 7.5% allocation to gold.

---

Given the increasing risks of another financial crash, the warnings from these very different three men should be taken heed of. They underline the importance of being prudent, of real diversification and of owning gold.

The smart money sees what is coming and is once again preparing.

 

Gold and Silver Bullion - News and Commentary

Gold to edge up in 2017 as risk-averse buying offsets oversupply - GFMS (Finance.Yahoo.com)

Gold firm despite dollar strength; political uncertainty supports (IndiaTimes.com)

Massive debt increase forecast by Congressional Budget Office (CBSNews.com)

EU to Trump: Mess With Brexit and We’ll Mess With Texas (Bloomberg.com)

The Fed Is Bedeviled by Keynes's Paradox (Bloomberg.com)

Low interest rates are likely to drive fresh investment in gold (Reuters.com)

Jim Rogers Says Fed Has No Clue, Will 'Ruin Us All' (Bloomberg.com)

Savers and Retirees "Impossible" Financial Choices To Make (Bloomberg.com)

CBO Warns Of Fiscal Catastrophe As A Result Of Exponential Debt Growth In The U.S. (ZeroHedge.com)

Why Brexit Makes Gold A Buy (Nasdaq.com)

Dubai begins GOLD-PLATING £35m frame, half the height of the Eiffel Tower designed to offer the perfect view (DailyMail.co.uk)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

31 Mar: USD 1,241.70, GBP 9,996.46 & EUR 1,161.98 per ounce
30 Mar: USD 1,250.90, GBP 1,005.72 & EUR 1,165.34 per ounce
29 Mar: USD 1,252.90, GBP 1,007.71 & EUR 1,161.19 per ounce
28 Mar: USD 1,253.65, GBP 996.15 & EUR 1,154.49 per ounce
27 Mar: USD 1,256.90, GBP 1,000.49 & EUR 1,157.86 per ounce
24 Mar: USD 1,244.00, GBP 996.20 & EUR 1,150.82 per ounce
23 Mar: USD 1,247.90, GBP 997.95 & EUR 1,157.93 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

31 Mar: USD 18.06, GBP 14.50 & EUR 16.91 per ounce
30 Mar: USD 18.10, GBP 14.53 & EUR 16.85 per ounce
29 Mar: USD 18.13, GBP 14.58 & EUR 16.81 per ounce
28 Mar: USD 17.94, GBP 14.29 & EUR 16.53 per ounce
27 Mar: USD 17.94, GBP 14.25 & EUR 16.51 per ounce
24 Mar: USD 17.63, GBP 14.11 & EUR 16.31 per ounce
23 Mar: USD 17.55, GBP 14.04 & EUR 16.27 per ounce

Recent Market Updates

- Brexit Gold Buying – UK Demand for Gold Bars Surges 39%
- ‘Most Secure Coin In the World’ ?
- Gold Bullion Coin Worth $4 Million, Stolen in Berlin Museum Heist
- Gold, Silver Rise 2.5% and 3.2% As ‘Trump Trade’ Fades
- Gold ETFs or Physical Gold? Hidden Dangers In GLD
- Gold Prices See Seventh Day Of Gains After Terrorist Attack In London
- Peak Gold – Biggest Gold Story Not Being Reported
- Silver 1/ 70th The Price of Gold – Silver Eagles Sales Jump
- The Best Ways to Invest in Gold Today
- Gold Cup – Horse Racing’s Greatest Show, Gambling and ‘Going for Gold’
- Gold Up 1.8%, Silver Up 2.6% After Dovish Fed Signals Slow Rate Rises
- Most Overvalued Stock Market On Record — Worse Than 1929?
- EU Crisis Is Existential – Importance of Tomorrow’s Vote

Access Daily and Weekly Updates Here

Interested in learning more about physical gold and silver?
Call GoldCore and speak with a gold and silver specialist today

First published here: http://j.mp/2mVNkyk

THE ban on taking large electronic devices into plane cabins, imposed on March 20th by United States on flights from ten Middle Eastern airports, is a particular headache for the four “superconnector” airlines. Etihad, Emirates, Qatar Airways and Turkish Airlines, like many carriers, depend on premium travellers for their profits. Those in business-class cabins like to get work done on long journeys; that is difficult without a computer. But, as their epithet implies, these airlines are also unusually dependent on on connecting traffic. By one estimate, 60% of Emirates flyers use Dubai as a layover on the way to somewhere else. As of last week, travellers heading, for example, from New York to Mumbai, must now choose between a superconnecter flight on which they will be without their tablets and laptops, or connecting through Europe on a European or United States airline which is not affected by the ban. (Or, perhaps, an Emirates flight connecting in Milan, which would also be exempt.) It is a fair bet that many are choosing to avoid the Middle Eastern hubs.

It felt a...Continue reading

First published here: http://j.mp/2mVSn1Y

The other candidate called them Deplorables, even if she herself was a card-carrying Despicable. Well, never mind her, as she lost and will never darken the halls of power again. Perhaps a more fair term for Trump’s key demographic, more accurate than what she coined, would be the Pitifuls. Pitiful they are.

Nothing is going right for them, with them being the white underclass. They face a host of problems, from the loss of the pricing power of their largely unskilled labor, to a more equitable society that has greatly increased competition by opening up opportunity for women and minorities.

The Nobel Economist Angus Deaton recently produced a study showing that since 1999, the life span of white underclass in America has declined, with males particularly hard hit. Death rates have jumped. In 1999, the death rates for white American males and German males were equal; today the death rate for American white males is 44% higher than for German white males. Equally compelling is that the life span for non-white females and minority Americans---plus highly educated white males---has increased over the same period to record highs. Poorly educated American white males, and to a lesser extent poorly educated white females, are alone on Earth in seeing their life spans decline.

The deaths result from a number of causes, including drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide, and obesity. Angus Deaton has labelled this trend Death by Despair.

The root cause of this despair is the key question. Obviously some of it is a result of labor’s loss of pricing power as outsourcing was merely a way station on the way to obsolescence via technology. Increased competition from within society is also part of it, with low skill white males now sharing the market with women and minorities. Re-training is a false hope, both because all labor---skilled and unskilled---is increasingly under pressure from technological progress, and also because this demographic simply lacks the intellect to move up the knowledge scale. Not everyone is capable of being a rocket scientist. Trump might say “I love the poorly educated”, as he did during the campaign, but the ever-competitive job market does not love them, because they have next to no use in the modern world.

Part of the despair is self-inflicted. The death spiral of white males is coincident with the rise of the internet’s legion of Despair Bloggers, to which much of the underachieving white male demo is drawn. Everybody knows what Despair Blogger means. Hundreds of websites have sprung into existence which not only offer excuses for failure, but provide daily doses of anger and bitterness that the Deplorables seem to need. People whose lives did not turn out as expected, but who seem to believe they have an entitlement to something beyond ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, can easily find sites where they can learn everything is some other person’s, group’s, or policy’s fault. If not for the repeal of the gold standard, or fractional reserve banking, or the Fed, or Bilderbergers, or that amorphous entity called the Deep State, all of those Deplorables would surely be bathed in material glory, tops in their field, and the object of lust by the hottest babes! (Hat tip Ras)

The anger and bitterness fostered by the Despair Bloggers eventually becomes a need. It is an addiction, requiring even more bizarre tales over time, moving into endless convoluted conspiracy theories constructed Goldberg-esque style, but finding a ravenous audience. Despair Bloggers rely on three primary sources for their work: their own fertile imaginations, other Despair Bloggers to whom they LINK and Crosslink (Internet Age Law: three LINKS turns a lie into a fact), and State Actor trolls such as those championed by the FSB and their cut-outs like RT. People who either are incapable of accepting personal responsibility, or else are simply below the mean in terms of Darwinian 'fitness', embrace each new excuse or conspiracy as if it is nectar from the gods.

Despair becomes the steady state. It becomes home. Should a bright day sneak in somehow, those prone to despair know how to find the way back home to misery. The Deplorables cannot escape, and do not even seem to want to escape. Excuses are cold comfort, but still comfort. The Bloggers know it, feed it, and make a living off of it. Sure it’s cynical, but so was Trump University or just about any diet book ever written. The bottom line is the bottom line: profit.

Despair Blogging, though catching on in other parts of the world, began in the US and is more common in the US than anywhere. Its ascension exactly dovetails with the declining life span of poorly educated white males. It is their Black Plague. That may be a coincidence, but it might well be a contributing factor. Despair breeds despair (read any Comments Section).

Trump, either with malice aforethought or just serendipity, went after this demographic with both of his small hands. He gives voice and hope to society's loser demographic. As a populist, he had to find hooks into some under-marketed demographic in order to get elected. He found it in the forlorn, the left behind, the unsuccessful, the Eleanor Rigbys of America. He tells them they can be part of greatness, even if he has no real plan to achieve it, but so desperate are they that they buy into his empty words. He says it’s okay to hate those 'responsible' for the demo’s failure in life, and they love him for it. They need that excuse; they embrace it with a passion born from desperation, even if hope itself is a delusion. They can’t see that, just as they can’t see their Messiah is not only selling bottles that say Snake Oil in bold script, but also that the bottles are just sugar water. It satisfies the sweet tooth, but ultimately is bad for those who consume it.

There is always, in any society and at any time in human history, a segment of the populace that can't win for losing. Call it the dark underbelly of Darwin. Call it losing the Birth Lottery. There never has been, and never will be, a Lake Wobegon where 'everyone is above average'. Democracy, in a noble attempt to be fairer than anybody’s God, and holding itself to a higher standard than anybody’s God, grants even the Darwinian Unfit the same one vote given to those who won, in a relative sense, the Birth Lottery, and who were born with the minimum level of skill, intellect, drive, or dumb luck to succeed. One man, one vote is democracy’s Achilles Heel.

This concept is the great unspoken truth of existence. It’s treated as a secret, classified material whose disclosure may not be cause for imprisonment, but just societal censure. Those who dare speak it are arrogant, cold, or heartless, but anyone who landed in this Universe on the uptown side of the mean knows it is an undeniable truth.

The Founding Fathers knew of this great secret. The Romans knew of it, too, hence the term panem et circenses. (If Trump has any skill, it is knowing that even the silliest of songs by the most cartoonish of sirens, will find an audience. He found enough of an audience to take the Electoral College.) People such as H. L. Mencken and Winston Churchill also spoke of it, noting that someday, in some democracy, a Trump would be elected. Mencken said:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

Trump cannot help but eventually disappoint even those who still support him. He isn’t skilled enough to deal with simple problems, much less problems that may well be intractable, such as labor’s loss of pricing power, or religious fanaticism of all creeds. He is also his own worst enemy, childish and impulsive clown that he is, which is best exemplified in that one infamous silly Tweet...the cover-up and damage control of which now occupies most all of his non-golfing and Fake News-reading time. He can blow smoke out his ass or redirect the attention of those easily fooled, but even that has an expiration date. The jobs are not coming back. Losers are not going to miraculously become winners. The life many Deplorables think is their birthright will never be. What will they do when reality hits them?

All might be equal under the law, but all are not equal. Nobody’s God is truly fair. The Universe still survives. Democracy, flawed as it is, has survived so far. It may not survive Trump, for H. L. Mencken’s moron has arrived.

First published here: http://j.mp/2nr85hF

I haven't seen a cucking this thorough since the night a binder-wielding Kurt Eichenwald was nearly killed by a post-Tucker tweet...

Last night, Tucker Carlson effortlessly savaged attention craving Drexel University "professor" George Ciccariello - who made headlines in December after calling for White Genocide over Twitter.

On Tuesday, Ciccariello once again made waves after expressing his disgust on an airplane when a 1st class passenger gave up his seat to a uniformed soldier on an airplane. Rational minds on the internet did not take too kindly:

In his latest stunt, the "white genocide" advocate led a group of feeble-voiced children in a protest of writer Charles Murray on the grounds that he's a racist. The next stop for the Drexel degenerate; out of his safe space and into the lion's den...

A facially ticking Ciccariello tried his best to match forces with Carlson, who simply kept knocking him on his ass - over, and over, and over. It was absolutely brutal:

Nobody takes you seriously, I'm trying to take you seriously. You're accusing this guy of racial demagoguery and you called for white genocide, you also applauded the Haitian revolution for killing whites - look those are your views! I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to express them. I'm merely pointing out the irony that you're trafficking in race hatred and yet saying that Charles Murray shouldn't be allowed to speak because he trafficks in race hatred. Are you self aware enough to catch that?

Tucker then goes on to read one of Ciccariello's screeds, concluding "It's High School writing... it's crap!"

(that wasn't even the best part... just watch until you see Tucker use air quotes)

First published here: http://j.mp/2mVJLsl