The Economist

How did our financial system weaken to the point where a quarter of a percent increase in rates is more than it can handle?

Late last year, Paul Krugman took a field trip to Japan to observe Keynesian insanity prowling around in its natural habitat. While he was there, he gave Prime Minister Shinzo Abe some sage advice which can be roughly summarized as follows: "Abenomics is working so why would you screw it up by getting fiscally responsible all of the sudden?" Nine months later, Japan is still a deflationary deathtrap and Krugman is "really, really worried"...

If one considers that the next major interest rate manipulation by the Fed appears to hinge on a notoriously unreliable report about a lagging economic indicator, it should immediately become clear on what a flimsy foundation modern central economic planning rests. How much more ridiculous can it possibly get? Incidentally, it also serves to demonstrate how far off the reservation economists have veered in their desperate and laughable attempts to transform economics into a discipline akin to the natural sciences.

The REAL RISK currently is not missing some of the upside if the bull market does begin to resume, but rather catching the downside if this correction turns into a full-fledged bear.

Leading Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump appears to have just gone 'all-in'...

*TRUMP SAYS HE'S SIGNED PLEDGE NOT TO RUN AS 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE

And while he was at it, he took a jab at Hillary as "the worst secretary of state in the history of the world." . Maybe The Economist is on to something.

The fundamentals for the US dollar are terrible, but people keep dumping money into it like trained monkeys simply because nothing else in financial markets makes any sense. This perception of 'safety' is based on a complete myth - every credible fundamental suggests that the dollar is dangerously overvalued; but if not the US dollar, then which currency is the safe haven? The euro is garbage, the Chinese are fighting a depression, Japan is a disaster. And that’s precisely the point. When every option in the financial system is grounded in absurdity, the only solution is to start looking for safety outside of it.

Look out below... literally!

Having recently explained (in great detail) why QE4 (and 5, 6 & 7) were inevitable (despite the protestations of all central planners, except for perhaps Kocharlakota - who never met an economy he didn't want to throw free money at), we found it fascinating that no lessor purveyor of the status quo's view of the world - Citigroup's chief economist Willem Buiter - that a global recession is imminent and nothing but a major blast of fiscal spending financed by outright "helicopter" money from the central banks will avert the deepening crisis. Faced with China's 'Quantitative Tightening', the economist who proclaimed "gold is a 6000-year old bubble" and cash should be banned, concludes ominously, "everybody will be adversely affected."

At the risk of sounding like a broken record we'd like to say a bit more about economists' tendency to get their monetary history wrong; in particular, the common myths about the gold standard. If there's one monetary history topic that tends to get handled especially sloppily by monetary economists, not to mention other sorts, this is it. Sure, the gold standard was hardly perfect, and gold bugs themselves sometimes make silly claims about their favorite former monetary standard. But these things don't excuse the errors many economists commit in their eagerness to find fault with that "barbarous relic." The point, in other words, isn't to make a pitch for gold.  It's to make a pitch for something - anything - that's better than our present, lousy money.

"He’s now saying 'I won’t listen to the laws or constitution.' This is a very dangerous period. He wants to give a legal foundation to this coup he’s carried out. Those who carry out coups always do this: First they carry out the coup, then they give it a legal foundation.'"

The purpose of austerity is to create insecurity and instill fear in the general population in order to protect the finance and banking sector from popular rage against the crimes the participants of this sector have committed against ordinary people. This rage ought to have given rise a long time ago to legal actions and desperately needed fundamental reforms to take away from bankers the right to create money, a right which they have abused at tremendous cost to ordinary people. Instead of collective reforms, what we are being subjected to is a policy of deliberately spreading insecurity together with the scapegoating of vulnerable people.

• China central bank tries to soothe global markets, says no reason for yuan to fall further (Reuters)
• Huge blasts at Chinese port kill 44, with hundreds injured (Reuters)
• China efforts to slow yuan fall hoist Europe shares, bond yields (Reuters)
• Greek Economy Unexpectedly Surged Before Capital Controls (BBG)
• Joe Biden Is Sounding Out Allies About a 2016 Bid (WSJ)
• U.K. Tries to Kick-Start Shale Gas With Planning Speedup (BBG)

Scaremongery... or maybe the whole point, as Obama's former chief economist noted, is to lose reserve status. Take That China!!

• Grim China data keeps stimulus hopes alive (Reuters)
• Berkshire Hathaway to Buy Precision Castparts for About $37 Billion (BBG)
• Greece, lenders in final push to seal new bailout (Reuters)
• Quantitative Easing With Chinese Characteristics Takes Shape (BBG)
• Greece nears €86bn accord with creditors (FT)
• Oil Futures Signal Weak Prices Could Last Years (WSJ)
• Drop in long-term investment hinders eurozone recovery (FT)
• Two shot in Ferguson amid standoff between police, protesters (Reuters)

"The future is unknown and we are not dealing with markets that are free markets anymore...now we have government interventions everywhere. [But] in the last say twelve months, I have observed an increasing number of academics who are questioning monetary policies. That's why I think they will take the gold away and go back to some gold standard by revaluing the gold say from now $1000/oz to say $10,000 dollars. An individual should definitely own some physical gold. The bigger question is where should he store it? because... the failure of monetary policies will not be admitted by the professors that are at central banks, they will then go and blame someone else for it and then an easy target would be to blame it on people that own physical gold because - they can argue - well these are the ones that do take money out of circulation and then the velocity of money goes down - we have to take it away from them... That has happened in 1933 in the US."