Archive for January, 2017

A Fascinating and extremely pertinent view expressed by MoneyWeek in the following article

A question which has certainly been raised in discussions about the nature and indeed, the durability, of this cryptocurrency, one must decide whether this trend will fall victim to many of the faults of other fiat currencies or does it take of the allure of precious commodities which can potentially outlast humanity itself?

On the surface I cannot think of Bitcoin as anything other than pseudo-fiat, however we may never even know the authority behind it, even if it is everyone of those that use it – can we not fall victim to the same whims of the State? Any man made invention will have its deep flaws and cannot be assumed to be beyond manipulation.

However, I understand the commodity like nature of it too, but as Buffet once remarked about gold, you certainly cannot eat bitcoin, you can’t even touch it, so how much of a commodity can we really think of it as?

..if someone were to hack the algorithm behind a bitcoin, that might have the same effect as a central bank printing money: it could lead to a loss of faith and value. Now there’s an irony! Central bankers are to fiat currencies what hackers are to cryptocurrencies!

My research will continue….

An article from the 2008 economic crises written by the two scholars above makes for worthy reading.

I see it as evidence of calling the bluff of practitioners who dabble in nothing more than conventional finance twisted to fool millions who are easily swayed by superficiality

Boom, Bust, Crunch..

Platforms are rarely provided to scholars who wish to take one step back and question some of the fundamental concepts that are being applied. Few questions are raised regarding the validity of Islamic debt financing, limited liability structures, speculative methods of market trading, or the nature of the monetary system. Such matters are given little attention in the headlong rush to copy interest-based methodologies and this has resulted in a number of embarrassing paradoxes

Poor countries don’t need charity. They need justice.

Is this another deception with our perception of ‘The World’?

One of the most comprehensive reports into the real financial transfers into and out of the developing world shows that the extraction of wealth from the third world, much of it former colonies, continues apace.

Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones

How Poor Countries Develop Rich Countries

I find the fact that some $4trillion since 1980 is attributed to debt interest repayments fascinating. The scale of this particular transfer is testament to the continued servitude of many nations states.

When many times more is sent back in exchange for every dollar received in aid, does this not sound like a familiar profit making enterprise at work?

Reading the original report, I find this sentence especially on point…

Much improved statistical compilation and reporting is required in order to have a more adequate picture of global financial flows; a task that urgently needs to be undertaken collaboratively by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Bank for International Settlements.

Is this a list of the usual suspect organisations?

 

This past week, the London School of Economics, hosted an event on the Nature of Money, see details here.

One of the speakers was Dr Waltraud Schelkle, part of the LSE, an Associate Professor of Political Economy.

Please play the audio from time stamp 52.05 for a question put to the panel regarding the fraudulent aspects of the system. Dr Schelkle answers that she disagrees that the system is indeed based on deceit and she points to the ‘success’ of the Capitalist nations….

I think Susan Steed, another panellist, does an excellent job of refuting her shallow argument, without mentioning by name what I think is most key when understanding how the rich became rich…the Transatlantic Slave Trade…

I would also point the Dr to the numerous posts examining this on this blog, and will make an effort to highlight other key counterarguments in future

Fortuitously, this week I received a post from MoneyWeek entitled…”A 92bn Scam

It went on to state;

The $92 billion was income generated on the Federal Reserve’s portfolio of US government bonds. It bought vast numbers of these bonds by expanding its balance sheet and printing money. The government then paid interest on those bonds. That interest is the Federal Reserve’s return. That return is then passed back to the government as an important source of income.

To be clear, this is the state creating money from nothing… to lend to itself… to then pay interest on… and then use that interest as another source of revenue. That’s Deep State financial policy.

Misrepresenting transactions, making it seem as though the government is solvent when it is using a glorified Ponzi scheme…..that’s Fraud in my book.

Imaging rights? Monetising the right to use your likeness…even when you are dead….they say money never sleeps, well it doesn’t much die either

Muhammed Ali sold his rights while he was alive….but now he has passed, it will continue to be used. Much like the rights of Elvis Presley which have financially benefitted his estate long after his death.

The ability to recreate an actors image from CGI…most recently seen by the reimaging of Peter Cushing’s Star Wars character is also not a new thing, but something which is becoming increasingly believable and sophisticated, and therefore a potential market exists which can only become more lucrative for the living celebrities who have distinctly popular images.

This allows people to ‘trade’ on their own image, in life and increasingly, in death. Creating revenue streams beyond your physical presence, or even your own labour, in this life.

In an earlier blog, I mentioned how money defies the some of the basic laws of the created realm, notably the way it is created…out of nothing

It seems it can cheat death now too

 

As the new calendar year opens and the prior year draws to a close, many media slots are filled with both reviews of the past 12 months and predictions for the coming period.

In a year which has shattered any pretence, if there was indeed any in the first place, that certain qualified professionals have an innate ability to understand and predict future events and trends more so than those not so versed, I find it bewildering how the routine of setting predications continues apace.

Yet, nothings changes with the time and space given to these commentators. Does this suggest that we are simply suffering the fall out of the media’s own making?

Does it become a necessary exercise in futility that cannot be undone. People are paid to ply their trade, plenty of investors hoping to be the early bird yearn for such opinion, however what fundamentals change with the ticking of the clock past midnight on the 31st of December….none. Events occur at various moments, they may be game changers, or just another part of an ongoing trend, but until such time, why do many of us become caught up, entangled, in the futility of reviewing for only the sake of review? Until material events take place, should the consensus be the same from one small moment to the next?

With the amount of opinions available, getting the right outcome then becomes a sure fire way to earn a name for yourself…and then ensure others listen to you the next time. It will also set yourself apart from others and thus raise your status even further, allowing one to earn a greater share of the pie.

But the emphasis seems to be to write for the sake of writing, to pick winners or make new observations, not because anything has changed, but because of the need to make a statement, an observation or raise an issue not already discussed. Because the machine is too bloated and it needs more junk to feed on, many are only too pleased to oblige, and before we know it, we don’t have quality research on the market, we have noise. Distracting garbage probably not worth the paper its written on, something to separate the herd from the those with an eagle eye.

No-one can be right all the time, and no-one can rightly claim to know more than their peers. And yet in a year such as 2016 when eggs have been freely spread over the faces of our esteemed experts no such change is thought to be appropriate this time around.

Sometimes, less is needed, not more. Sometimes no comments are more insightful than the need to fill a void, to sell more observations to the detriment of the ordinary investor. I find a great connection here to the fact that even in an information age, with so much growing information at the tips of our fingers, we are arguably becoming ever more ignorant, being drowned in distraction not clarity. Look at the clamour of reporters trying to decipher from the tiniest inferences from Central Bank Governors as to the perceived direction of rates and the economy….there is just too much at stake not to be overzealous in this regard.

Will we think back to the remarkable number of events throughout modern history when the herd were quite disastrously wrong (EU Single Currency argument ?), or is this too just many people buying the trash up for sale. Perhaps we have never been accurate at all but the blurred reality shown to us is one that most experts get it right… mostly, but who’s really keeping check?

I wonder how the future will pan out…..let me see what those in the know are saying….?