unknown

AGAINST ECONOMIC-FINANCIAL CHICKEN LITTLES

November 14, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

Today I depart from my usual practice of selecting an article and commenting on it, so today is something of a critique, and I mean in it to share some thoughts I've been entertaining for some time.

By titling this article-editorial "Against Economic-Financial Chicken Littles," I mean to address that trend in financial analysis that sees the financial sky falling any day now, and the collapse of the dollar. I am not, of course, a financial expert (nor, really, any other kind of expert). But for years - decades really, if we get right down to it - we've been hearing the analysts predicting "collapse," hyper-inflation. The talk began, in my memory, when President Nixon took the USA off the Bretton-Woods agreement. We heard more of it during the Reagan era, as even his own budget manager David Stockton weighed in. We've been hearing it since the bailouts of 2008 and the popping of the housing bubble. And, of course, we've been hearing it since the Fed's various "quantitative easing" schemes. On some models and predictions, we should have already seen hyperinflation (or, on other models, hyper-deflation). We've yet to see either.

And this to my mind constitutes a fundamental problem: the models by which analysts have been making their predictions are broken, and their assumptions are in need of revision. Some analysts look at gold or other bullion prices, others focus on the peak oil problem, others on growing population, others on the amount of American debt owned by other nations, and so on.. Other operate from economic models owing much to their origin in the industrial revolution and the depression-era of the last century. One need only think of the Keynesian or Austrian (Mises and von Hayek) schools. Yet other analysts focus on the dangers of "central banking". Each of these, to my mind, reflects too narrow a data set on which to make any such macro-economic prediction. Indeed, by focusing their model only on the USA, rather than on the global picture, a skewed framework results. Do the liabilities exceed the assets in the case of the USA? Yes. But on a global scale, especially with new technologies coming on line? In my opinion, probably not.

They all, however, share one fundamental flaw, in my opinion, and it's high time that financial analysts begin to incorporate this into their thinking, for this flaw could potentially be the reason their predictions - many of which were supposed to have happened already - like predictions of "the Rapture", have failed. That flaw is that none of them take into consideration these three things, and their interrelationships: (1) the black budget, (2) the international underground criminal economy, largely drug based, and its associated money laundering and various schemes of mortgage fraud, and finally (3) the hidden system of finance that I have attempted to detail in my more recent books and talks (most notably in Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations), a system that had three enormous consequences for standard financial analyses of the types I've outlined above.

The first of these consequences was that it put the national security apparatus into banking, and international banking, directly. The second consequence was that because of the necessity to keep secret the enormous amounts of liquidity in the system that this covert mechanism (relying in part of captured Axis loot after the Second World War), the system began to deliberately obfuscate in dramatic fashion the estimated amounts of various types of bullion actually in existence. (How this could not be a factor in the analysis of those who watch the bullion markets like hawks for the slightest quiver in prices or amounts purchased, escapes me. For example, I recently saw an article where the Chinese want to purchase 10,000 tons of gold, which exceeds some estimates of the total bullion reserves by about 2,000 tons, yet, there was absolutely no comment on this conundrum by the analyst in question! The arithmetic here is simple: what if those figures are off by an order of magnitude or some large percentage of an order of magnitude?) This second point - a covert system utilizing Axis loot - is a matter of historical record, but I have yet to see any financial analyst refer to it in their models, and hence their predictions, as Catherine Fitts has so often suggested, are subject to having committed a material omission. Thirdly and finally, most of these analyses similarly ignore the signs and signals not only of massive rehypothecation of those hidden funds, but also the size, scale, and influence of underground criminal money flows related to the international drug trade, and so on.

So this is a plea: we need the financial expertise of these analysts; we need those analysts to pull their head out of the sand, and to begin to look at these things, to question their models, and to begin to take into their models, analyses, and considerations, the two huge missing pieces that seem to dog their predictions, these pieces being a truly global picture (and the role of technologies in that picture), and the huge size of black budget and hidden systems, and how these impact the public financial sector. This means they will have to shelve their favored economic dogmas - Keynesianism, Austrianism, bullionism, or any of the other favored ideologies - and look at some things that do not normally enter into the picture. We need to remember that these economic models were (1) the products of an historical era that is now long past, and (2) that they did not account for the rise of enormous "hidden states" with their black projects and black budgets during the Second World War, both in Nazi Germany, and in the USA, where that black projects world not only continued, but continues to this day. Untill they do, their analyses and predictions are simply not to be taken seriously.

See you on the flip side.