Zuckerberg decides what news is fake and what news is real with new Facebook rating system

(INTELLIHUB) — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on on Tuesday announced that he will begin screening and censoring news outlets on the social media platform based on their credibility and trustworthiness which Zuckerberg says, his team will decide.

The social media CEO testified before Congress back in mid-April where he vowed that news outlets need to rated and ranked after he was held under the bus for the Cambridge Analytica data privacy leak.

“We put [that data] into the system, and it is acting as a boost or a suppression, and we’re going to dial up the intensity of that over time,” Zuckerberg said. “We feel like we have a responsibility to further [break] down polarization and find common ground.”

The CEO says that he will spend “billions” to implement both artificial intelligence and human gatekeepers to keep propaganda at bay.

It looks like this could be the beginning of the end for any independent journalist or news outlet who dares to challenge the official narrative.

Will Facebook use the new rating and ranking system to suppress real news that challenges the official narrative?

Will #Facebook use the new rating and ranking system to suppress real news that challenges the official narrative?

— Intellihub (@intellihubnews) May 2, 2018

©2018. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

The post Zuckerberg decides what news is fake and what news is real with new Facebook rating system appeared first on Intellihub.

Maxine Waters Used Gala Honoring Her To Tell Trump To Resign: ‘Just Get Out!’

Left of left democrat Maxine Waters took an event meant to honor her and turned it into a bizarre anti-Trump show. At the TIME 100 Gala on Tuesday night, Waters called on President Trump to “please resign” so that she “won’t have to keep up this fight of your having to be impeached.”

Waters was prompted by a questioner who asked her if she had some advice for Trump, According to Fox News.  But instead of being genuine, she immediately reacted with an angry emotional outburst most liberals are known for.  “I don’t think you [Donald Trump] deserve to be there,” Waters said, referring to the current sitting president. “Just get out.”

Enjoy the “Best of the Worst of Maxine Waters” by watching the video below.  Be ready to laugh and contemplate crying that this person was somehow elected to political power.

Waters isn’t exactly known for her intelligence or integrity, and doubled down on that when using an event meant to honor her to tell Trump to “get out.” She has even called for a “paternal advisory” warning before Trump goes on TV to speak.

The annual TIME 100 gala in New York assembles celebrities and prominent figures to celebrate the world’s 100 most influential people according to TIME. In the 2018 TIME 100, Waters was named as one such influencer. Actor Yara Shahidi praised Waters as “so eloquent in letting the world, particularly the white men of Congress who dare test her acumen, know that she is not here for any nonsense.”  (It’s difficult not to laugh at that one. Waters probably has no idea what “acumen” even means.)

Of course, Tuesday night’s comments were relatively tame for leftists, and especially Waters, who has previously called Trump the “most horrible man I’ve ever seen in my life.” Last month, Trump said Waters suffers from a “very low IQ” and called on her to take an IQ test.  She responded by saying she would not be intimidated by him [president Trump].

House Monetary Policy Committee Member Questions Treasury and Fed about Their Gold Activities

By Activist Post

A Member of Congress posed some pointed questions to the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury this week about their activities involving America’s gold reserves, including, apparently, efforts to “drive gold out of the world financial system in favor of the Federal Reserve Note or Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund.”

In a letter dated April 24, Representative Alex Mooney (R-WV) wrote to Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, raising concerns about their formal policy to devalue the Federal Reserve Note (e.g. “inflation targeting”) and requesting information about the United States’ use of, and position on, gold.

“The purchasing power of our currency has fallen some 97% since Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, with an acceleration in the rate of decline occurring since the early 1970s when the final link to gold was severed,” wrote Mooney while also pointing out there had been almost no inflation in the U.S. prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve System.

“This Fed policy of creating inflation has the effect of driving up the cost of virtually everything my West Virginia constituents consume, while simultaneously reducing the real value of their pensions, savings, and fixed income payments,” Mooney continued.

In his capacity as a member of the House Financial Services Committee and its Monetary Policy and Trade subcommittee, Mooney has asked the Fed and Treasury to answer the following questions in writing:

1. Records in the archives of the historian of the U.S. State Department describe U.S. government policy in recent decades as aiming to drive gold out of the world financial system in favor of the Federal Reserve Note or Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund.

Is this still U.S. government policy toward gold? If not, what IS the U.S. government’s current policy toward gold?

2. I have heard complains that the U.S. gold reserve has not been fully audited for many decades, particularly as there seems to have been no acknowledgement of – or account for – “swaps” and leases of gold or arrangements for such to which the U.S. government has been a party.

Does the U.S. government, through the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve System, or any other agency or entity, transact in gold or gold derivatives either directly or through intermediaries? If so, what are those transactions and what are their objectives?

3. Does the U.S. government undertake any transactions in gold or gold derivatives through the Bank for International Settlements, Bank of England, or other central banks or governments? If so, what are these transactions and their objectives?

Stefan Gleason, Executive Director of the Sound Money Defense League said,

In recent decades, government officials and central banks have almost entirely kicked gold out of the monetary system with disastrous effects, particularly for the average American.

A return to sound money, i.e. gold and silver, would usher in a new era of investment, savings, stable prices, and fiscal discipline.

We look forward to an explanation from Secretary Mnuchin and Chairman Powell regarding the government’s activities using America’s gold, including to what extent America’s gold reserves have been put at risk or used for what might be viewed as dubious purposes.

Congressman Mooney’s letter can be accessed here.

Image credit: Daily Coin

Capture the Flag and Send a Message to Your Representative

This is not a message my gun-grabbing Congressthing wanted to promote…

April 19 is, among other things, Patriots’ Day. Of particular significance were the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Whenever this day comes around, it reminds me of a project from two decades ago that allowed me to make a statement of defiance to a gun-grabbing politician and get a valued souvenir in the bargain.

This is a project I did several years ago that I’ve written about a few times over the years–I resurrect it from time to time because I believe it makes a good statement of defiance, plus most of you have probably never seen it.

My U.S. Representative at the time, Jane Harman, was one of the most anti-gun members of Congress. Holding press conferences with Sarah Brady to promote more citizen disarmament (where I was threatened with arrest for asking a question), she campaigned on the slogan “I wear my opposition [to believers in the Second Amendment] like a badge of honor.”

So why in the world did I send her a check? And why do I encourage all RKBA supporters to follow suit with their own representative, especially if they’re oath-breaking gun-grabbers?

One of the constituent services that Congress provides to “We the People” is a program which lets you fly a commemorative flag over the nation’s Capitol building. For a nominal fee (I paid about thirteen bucks at the time) you can specify one of a couple different flag sizes and materials, the date you want your flag flown, and why you are flying it.

I asked for my flag to be flown on April 19 with the notation:

“In tribute to the Citizen Patriots of Lexington and Concord who resisted confiscation of their armaments on this date in 1775, and in continued defiance of all who would infringe on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

I can think of many other dedications, such as “In loving memory of the children of Mount Carmel,” or “For Vicki and Sammy Weaver,” or numerous other events warranting commemoration. I’m sure you can, too.

Whether your Representative chooses to process the orders or return them, a point will have been made (and I’m still not clear what their options are for refusing to do so, and it could even be the basis for further exposure, possibly up to and including legal action).

Anybody unfortunate enough to live under Nancy Pelosi’s gun-grabbing tyranny? $19 is the least expensive flag you can get, and note selecting “Customize” and “additonal text” lets you append personalized sentiments to the preset “Dedication Message.” Now the question becomes “Will she?”

It can be a powerful point. Their choice will be to fly our flags in defiance of their statist policies, or to create a public record of suppressing alternative political sentiments. And it will either cost you nothing, or, for a nominal price you’ll get a beautiful flag and a commemorative certificate signed by the Architect of the Capitol (and hopefully, yours won’t misspell “armaments.”)

You’ll also have the satisfaction of knowing that you sent your Congressthing a strong, no-compromise statement of principle, and maybe even made him or her squirm. Why not contact your Representative, send in an order form and fly a flag for freedom?

If anyone tries this and get rejected, please forward, copy or take a screenshot of the refusal to let me know.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Capture the Flag and Send a Message to Your Representative appeared first on Oath Keepers.

After Increasing Nat’l Debt a TRILLION in 6 Months, US Gov’t Just Gave Themselves a Massive Raise

By Matt Agorist

This week, the US Congress passed the massive 1.3 trillion-dollar Omnibus spending bill. Then, early Friday morning, the Senate did the same thing. None of these politicians in Washington likely had any time to read it because the 2,200-page legislation was given to them only hours before they voted on it.

The Senate passed the proposal by a bipartisan 65-32 vote. The House approved the bill Thursday afternoon by a 256-167 vote with bipartisan backing. Exactly why this massive spending bill would receive such large bipartisan support by hundreds of politicians who never read it would be a mystery to those who don’t understand how broken Washington is.

However, to those paying attention, the reason is obvious—it gives the State more money. Both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate increased their own budgets in the $1.3 trillion Omnibus spending package.

Well here it is, all 2,232 budget-busting pages. The House already started votes on it. The Senate is expected to soon. No one has read it. Congress is broken… pic.twitter.com/izvJlUEgUM

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 22, 2018

The Senate alone increased its total salaries of officers and employees by $12.6 million.

As the Free Beacon reports,

Salaries of staffers in the Senate are also set for an increase. Division I of the legislation breaks down the total salaries of officers and employees, which are being raised from $182 million in 2017 to $194.8 million in the final bill, an increase of $12.58 million. The Senate also increased its expense account, as expense allowances are going from $177,000 to $192,000, an increase of $15,000.

It wasn’t just the Senate, though. Every single government agency (except for the Government Publishing Office, which remains the same), has increased their department’s budget in this bill—to the tune of hundreds of millions.

When you allow people to vote themselves raises twice a year, what else would you expect?

These are the same people who just increased the national debt by a trillion dollars—in only six months. Last week, the national debt exceeded $21 trillion for the first time ever, a little more than six months after it hit first $20 trillion on Sept. 8, 2017.

These people are addicted to your tax revenue and their addiction is ensuring the future debt slavery of our great-great-grandchildren, and their children.

During a Tweetstorm Thursday night, as he tried to read as much of the bill as he could before he was forced to vote on it, Sen. Rand Paul pointed out some of the most ridiculous points he found in it so far.

According to Paul, the US government has become so disgustingly gluttonous that they spend $1.7 billion a year to maintain 770,000 EMPTY buildings—all the while, purchasing more property.

page 550:

$9 billion for Govt Services Admin that oversees federal properties

Fed government spends $1.7 billion a year to maintain 770,000 empty buildings while continuing to buy new properties.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 23, 2018

As American college students dig themselves a never-ending pit of debt as they progress through higher education, the US is doling out tens of billions of dollars to pay for college in other countries as well as support their militaries.

Also contained in this bill is the legislation that has the potential to strip millions of law-abiding Americans, including veterans, of their 2nd Amendment rights.

As The Free Thought Project reported in December, the Fix NICS Act will pressure federal agencies and states to report as many names as possible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, “making it only a matter of time before this list becomes so large that nearly any activity could serve to remove your Second Amendment rights.”

Although versions of the bill have been proposed in both the Senate and the House, and have received support from Republicans, Democrats and even the National Rifle Association, Rep. Thomas Massie warned that Congress will try to pass the Fix NICS Act by rolling it into another bill that looks harmless.

He was right, and both the House and the Senate have now passed it, hidden away in a massive raise for all of Washington.

Ah, but fret not free world, on Friday morning, Donald Trump said he is considering a veto of the spending bill.

The money pouring into foreign governments, the rights-violating gun control legislation, the bloated raises for an already-spoiled government, and the fact that it will add hundreds of billions more to the national debt in a very short time are areas where Trump seems most concerned. Just kidding. He’s fine with all that.

The reason Trump wants to veto the bill is that it doesn’t grant him the full amount of money he needs to turn America into East Berlin by constructing a useless and expensive wall along the US/Mexican border.

Apparently, freedom, fighting corruption, decreasing debt, and promoting the ideas of liberty all take a back seat to “muh wall.” Congratulations America, you are finally seeing what happens when we constantly vote in the lesser of two evils.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.

Congressional Art Contest a Way for Young People to Send Politicians a Message

This was Maxine Waters’ submitted student entry for 2016, so the competiton didn’t always nix political preferences, at least if the theme favored “progressive” ideology. [Congressional Art Competition]

“The 2018 Congressional Art Competition has officially begun!” an email from my congressman announces. “This is always such a great opportunity to showcase the artistic talent in the district.

“The competition is open to all high school students in the district,” he explains. “Each student is allowed to enter up to four pieces of artwork … The 1st place winner piece will hang in the United States Capitol and the other winners are hung in my Congressional Offices.”

Here’s the website where you can learn more and find out how your young student can participate, assuming they’re not part of the Everytown and Planned Parenthood-sponsored #Marx for Our Lives mobs this weekend.

I’ve written about this before, back when California Rep. Maxine Waters was promoting an idealized student portrait evocative of Barack Obama. Since then, they’ve added some rules, which, if you think about it (and to nobody’s surprise), are probably unconstitutional, seeing as how this is a fegov project designed to enhance the rep’s political standing as a provider of subsidized benefits with his or her (or zir?) constituents:

“Artwork must adhere to the policy of the House Office Building Commission (the Commission). In accordance with this policy, exhibits depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature are not allowed.”

OK, so a picture of an AR-15 with the words “MOLON LABE!” is probably out. And even with Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald, chances are anything specifially Second Amendment-related would get the boot. Even though you and I might not find it “controversial,” the court was divided five to four in each case. Hell, let’s just stipulate all the lies and manipulation have succeeded in creating an unbridgeable gulf between those demanding citizen disarmament and those who believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

OK, so how close to the edge can a kid get? What about a poster celebrating citizen resistance to tyranny at Lexington and Concord? How is that controversial to any but America’s enemies?

Or get away from guns and militias altogether. It would be instructive to see contest teachers, judges or polticians nix a celebration of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion ought to also be safe,at least for some — my bet is no one would challenge a picture of a woman in a hijab and the caption “Our diversity is our strength.” It would also be fun to take a poke at the “safe spacers” with a “freedom of speech” entry. Or how about artwork commending keeping the oath of office?

True, in the scheme of things this is small potatoes, but not every advocacy effort need be big and important, and who knows? Seeing something that reflects traditional American freedoms rejected because it offends some repressive social justice warrior’s sensitivities might generate attention. It could also help others see how the vision that was once America has been perverted by those naively entrusted to be its leaders.

With the only voices from young people given media exposure being those demanding that government abridge liberty, you and your children might be in a position to help show that some still believe in the vision of the Founders.

If they like the idea – and that’s important, as we should leave the ideological pressuring of children to the Bloombergians and the Bodysnatchers, here’s how they can enter:

1. Contact your representative to confirm your district’s participation and obtain specific guidance.


2. Review the 2018 Rules for Students and Teachers.


3. Complete the 2018 Student Release Form.


4. Submit the Student Release Form and any other required materials to your representative by the deadline specified on their website.

If they do enter, please let us know how things went.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Congressional Art Contest a Way for Young People to Send Politicians a Message appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Dialing For Dollars: Members Of Congress Are Instructed To Spend 4 Hours A Day On The Telephone Raising Money

When I made the decision to run for Congress, I figured that I better learn how members of the House of Representatives actually spend their time, and what I learned chilled me to the core.  It turns out that both parties instruct their members to spend approximately four hours a day on the telephone raising money.  As a new member of Congress, I would be expected to raise $200,000 for the National Republican Congressional Committee, and that would require me to spend enormous amounts of time away from the job that I was actually elected to do.  Of course I have already pledged that I will not “dial for dollars”, and the establishment is not pleased about that at all.  To me, it is absolutely disgraceful what our system has become.  Today, members of Congress are essentially mid-level telemarketers for the NRCC or the DCCC, and it is time that we said enough is enough.

As I have traveled around Idaho’s first congressional district and shared how members of Congress spend much of their time “dialing for dollars”, many people have had a difficult time believing that it is true.  But of course many current members of Congress have spoken out about this, and that includes U.S. Representative Rick Nolan.  During a recent interview with CBS News, he explained that new members of Congress are expected to spend 30 hours a week “dialing for dollars”…

Rep. Rick Nolan: Well, both parties have told newly elected members of the Congress that they should spend 30 hours a week in the Republican and Democratic call centers across the street from the Congress, dialing for dollars.

Norah O’Donnell: Thirty hours a week?

Rep. Rick Nolan: Thirty hours is what they tell you you should spend. And it’s discouraging good people from running for public office. I could give you names of people who’ve said, “You know, I’d like to go to Washington and help fix problems, but I don’t want to go to Washington and become a mid-level telemarketer, dialing for dollars, for crying out loud.”

If you divide 30 hours a week by 7 days, that comes to more than 4 hours a day.

Is that how you want your representatives in Congress spending their time?

Not too long ago, U.S. Representative Ken Buck was interviewed by award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson, and he explained that a new Republican member of Congress would be expected to raise around $200,000 for the party, but that is just the base level.

In his recent book, Buck went on to share that committee chairmen are expected to raise far more than that.  The following comes from an article published by the Hill…

In his recently published tell-all book, Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck (R) exposed how these fundraising quotas have soared. Chairs of the so-called “A” committees — such as Appropriations, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — are now expected to raise $1.2 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). All the while, chairs of the so-called “B” committees — such as the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — are expected to raise $875,000.

When you start learning how things really work in Washington, it makes perfect sense why Congress only has a 15 percent approval rating at this point.

No member of Congress should ever have to “buy” a spot on any committee.

Fortunately, there are a few members of Congress that have spoken out against this very corrupt system.  One of them was former U.S. Representative David Jolly…

It is a cult-like boiler room on Capitol Hill where sitting members of Congress, frankly I believe, are compromising the dignity of the office they hold by sitting in these sweatshop phone booths calling people asking them for money. And their only goal is to get $500 or $1,000 or $2,000 out of the person on the other end of the line. It’s shameful. It’s beneath the dignity of the office that our voters in our communities entrust us to serve.

This is why we should ask every single person running for Congress to take a pledge that they will not participate in this system.

I have publicly taken such a pledge, but not a single one of my six opponents has done so.

Could you imagine being elected to Congress and then spending 30 hours a week cold calling people like some sort of crooked telemarketer?  This is precisely what is happening, and it is absolutely disgusting.  Here is more from former U.S. Representative Jolly…

Simply by calling people, cold-calling a list that fundraisers put in front of you, you’re presented with their biography. So please call John. He’s married to Sally. His daughter, Emma, just graduated from high school. They gave $18,000 last year to different candidates. They can give you $1,000 too if you ask them to. And they put you on the phone. And it’s a script.

Since members of Congress are forbidden by law from making fundraising calls from their offices, they have to go somewhere else to make these calls.

Right across from the U.S. Capitol there are two very large call centers – one for Republicans and one for Democrats.  CBS News was able to get a hidden camera into one of these call centers, and it does not sound like a pleasant environment…

No photos exist of the inside of either the Democratic or Republican centers. But with the help of a staffer, we were able to get into the Republican center with a hidden camera.

About a dozen tiny offices, equipped with a phone and computer line a corridor. This is where members of Congress sit behind closed doors and plow through lists of donors dialing for dollars. Outside in the main hallway is a big board where the amount each member has raised for the party is posted for all to see and compare.

When I go to Washington I am going to introduce legislation to end this system.  Every member of Congress should be focusing on doing the job that they were sent there to do, but the current system will persist until we stand up and take action.

Like I have said so many times before, I am going to Washington to turn things upside down.  We are going to drain the swamp and clean up the corruption.

If you believe in what we are trying to do, please consider supporting us.  We are being supported by small grassroots donations from all over the country, and we believe that now is the time to take our government back.  If you would like to make a contribution to our campaign, here is how you can do it…

Donate By Credit Card Online: https://secure.anedot.com/michaelsnyderforcongress/donate

Donate By Paypal: https://donorbox.org/michael-snyder-for-congress

Donate By Check: Make your check out to “Michael Snyder For Congress” and send it to the following address…

Michael Snyder For Congress

PO Box 1136

Bonners Ferry, ID 83805

We plan to cause so much chaos in Washington, but we have got to win this Republican primary on May 15th first.  Right now we are in an extremely close race with a couple of other candidates, but we have all the momentum on our side.

We have a great plan for pulling ahead during these final two months, but we need your help.

Thanks again for helping us fight for the future of our country.  Together we got Donald Trump into the White House, and together we can take Congress back.

The post Dialing For Dollars: Members Of Congress Are Instructed To Spend 4 Hours A Day On The Telephone Raising Money appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

WATCH: Congressman Ominously Warns BOTH Parties Quietly Plotting to Take Your Guns

One congressman is warning that the upcoming "STOP School Violence Act" will include harmful gun control measures that would give unqualified government agencies unprecedented power.

The post WATCH: Congressman Ominously Warns BOTH Parties Quietly Plotting to Take Your Guns appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

Reckless Deficit Spending by Congress Set to Wreck the Dollar

By Clint Siegner

U.S. equities got a free ride on the Trump train after his election, even as Federal Reserve officials hiked interest rates. That ride may have ended last week.

If commentators are correct and the blame for recent selling in the stock market falls on the burgeoning fear of rising interest rates, it looks like Fed tightening is finally having the effect many predicted when the cycle began.

Most currently expect the FOMC to continue with hikes at about the same pace set in 2017. They have gotten away with several hikes, but attempting several more will be harder for them.

The question is whether the Fed’s tolerance for pain is any higher under new chairman Jerome Powell. We’d wager that it won’t take much in the way of flagging stock prices and slowing growth to have them reversing course and punching the stimulus button.

No one should bet that last week’s rally in the dollar means the bottom is in. The next few years look downright terrifying for the greenback. Here are some factors to consider:

• Congressional Republicans embarrassed themselves last week by proving the lip service they pay toward fiscal conservatism is nothing but lies. The Republican leadership shepherded through $300 billion in additional spending. Furthermore, they once again completely suspended the limit on borrowing;


• The Treasury will be issuing staggering amounts of new debt to fund the Congressional spending spree. Last fall’s tax cut may be good news for taxpayers, but it will also magnify federal deficits. Net new debt in 2018 is expected to be $1.3 trillion – the highest since 2010!


• President Trump will soon begin the push for a trillion-dollar infrastructure program. That will almost certainly be paid for with additional borrowing.


• The creditworthiness of the U.S. is once again back in the news. Rating agency Moody’s raised the idea of a downgrade for U.S. debt last week.

There is a tsunami of new Treasury debt coming to market in the coming years. Absent Fed intervention with a new bond purchase program and/or renewed stimulus, market forces are going to drive much higher yields. A whole lot of bond investors are going to need serious inducement to buy up all of the trillions in new debt that’s coming – probably more than either the markets or the federal budget can bear.

That’s why people should look for the Fed to soon start putting downward pressure on rates, not upward. And don’t let anyone tell you last week’s rally in the dollar has any kind of future. You can expect several trillion more dollars to roll off the printing presses over the next few years.

Clint Siegner is a Director at Money Metals Exchange, the national precious metals company named 2015 “Dealer of the Year” in the United States by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of Linfield College in Oregon, Siegner puts his experience in business management along with his passion for personal liberty, limited government, and honest money into the development of Money Metals’ brand and reach. This includes writing extensively on the bullion markets and their intersection with policy and world affairs.

Democrat: Trump Should Resign Or Congress Should Take Action

Democrat Kristen Gillibrand, a Senator from New York, claims that president Donald Trump should resign. She also said if he refused to do so, Congress should “hold him accountable.”

Gillibrand believes Congress should hold President Trump accountable for the numerous allegations (‘allegations’ being the key word here) of sexual misconduct leveled against him. “I think he should resign, and if he’s unwilling to do that, which is what I assume, then Congress should hold him accountable. We’re obligated to have hearings,” Gillibrand said in an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes.

Gillibrand, who was among the first to call for former Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) to resign due to sexual misconduct allegations, was also one of several Democratic senators who stated late last year Trump should resign due to sexual misconduct allegations that surfaced during the 2016 presidential campaign. But it’s fascinating that some forget allegations are just accusals, not guilty verdicts.

The report not only exposes the lengths that California lawyer Lisa Bloom was willing to go to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, it also points to the fact that she herself was attempting to make money off accusations that Trump sexually assaulted multiple women.

According to the report, Bloom’s efforts including arranging a liberal donor to pay off one of the accusers mortgage, offering to sell an alleged victims story to TV outlets, and even trying to secure a six figure payment for another women who eventually decided not to come forward with her supposed accusations.

One of the Bloom clients who DID receive financial help in exchange for her allegations against Trump was New York City makeup artist Jill Harth who herself defended the revelations while claiming that the money had nothing to do with her coming forward in the first place. -SHTFPlan

If Trump does not resign, the senators and some of Trump’s accusers said Congress should investigate the claims of sexual assault. When asked on 60 Minutes by the leftist media, why it took until late last year to call for Trump to be held accountable, Gillibrand said “something changed” when he was elected, “and I think it changed for women.”

Trump went after Gillibrand on Twitter after she called for his resignation, saying she would “do anything” for campaign donations.

You Kristen Gillibrand are 100% hypocrite. You would have been under the desk for BillyBob Clinton! You took Clinton money for years knowing Bill’s history, that was PROVEN. You would have beaten down Bill’s accusers right beside Killary, who called them ‘bimbo eruptions’. https://t.co/C0BZiP26eI

— Sharonsharon Bobaron (@SharonK57237517) February 12, 2018

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused – life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2018

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway criticized Gillibrand on Sunday for protecting and defending former President Clinton when he was accused of sexual misconduct. Conway wasn’t the only woman seeing the hypocrisy behind the Democrats’ petty actions.  Gillibrand, who only recently said Bill Clinton should have resigned at the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, told 60 Minutes her perspective on the allegations against the former president has changed. “I think I’m not alone here. Like, how many of us were having this conversation even a year ago?” she said. “I think we’re all learning.”

She declined to say whether she’s spoken to the Clintons since she changed her stance, but added that Hillary Clinton is still her “greatest role model in politics.”

‘There is No Conservative Party’: Rand Paul Proves Both Parties are ‘Hypocrites’ in EPIC Senate Rant

Rand Paul called out Republicans for becoming the definition of "intellectual dishonesty" by supporting the same spending increases with a Republican in office that they condemned when a Democrat was in office.

The post ‘There is No Conservative Party’: Rand Paul Proves Both Parties are ‘Hypocrites’ in EPIC Senate Rant appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

Is Michael Snyder The Most Pro-Trump Candidate For Congress In The Entire Country?

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The Economic Collapse

The 2018 mid-term elections are going to be all about Donald Trump, and Republican candidates all over the nation need to make it clear where they stand. Either you are with Trump and want to support his agenda, or you are running for Congress for some other reason. Personally, I am making it exceedingly clear where I stand. My new campaign signs have “Vote Pro-Trump” emblazoned right across the top, and the first thing that visitors to my campaign website see is a pro-Trump slogan. Trump supporters all over Idaho are pouring into our campaign, and many of them are extremely enthusiastic. In fact, one of our supporters made some incredibly funny modifications to our new campaign sign, and you can see his work right here. When Meranda saw that, she literally couldn’t stop laughing.  And without a doubt that meme is quite over the top, but it just illustrates how people are feeling about our campaign.

I believe that any Republican that is running for Congress should be unashamedly pro-Trump, and I don’t understand those that are trying to distance themselves from the president. Here in Idaho, a number of my opponents have absolutely no intention of helping Donald Trump once they get into office, and that is why it is so imperative that we win this race. With less than four months to go, the numbers tell us that it is an extremely close race and up to two-thirds of the voters are still completely undecided. We need your financial support to help reach those undecided voters, and if you would like to help, you can donate online right here.

There are some that are now calling me “the most pro-Trump candidate for Congress in America”, and it is a title that I am fully embracing. I certainly don’t mean any disrespect to any of the other pro-Trump candidates that are running around the nation, and I hope that I end up having a lot of competition for that title. We need to get President Trump as much help in Congress as possible, and I have been very open about the fact that I want to be Donald Trump’s best friend in Congress once I get there.

In just a few hours I will be getting on a plane. I will be heading back down to south Idaho for yet another campaign trip, and we have a major campaign announcement tomorrow morning.

I don’t want to spoil the surprise, but let me just say that this is going to be huge. We will be holding a press conference on the steps of the state capitol building in Boise at 9 AM on Wednesday morning. If it is raining, we will move things inside, but at this point the forecast looks good. Supporters from all over south Idaho will be there, and if you are free I would love for you to join us.

In addition, the first major candidate debate will be held on January 28th. It will be held at the Coeur d’Alene Public Library from 1 PM to 3 PM, but we are encouraging our supporters to get there early because the good seating will go fast. You can find more details about the event right here.

At this point, we pretty much know who is going to win about 90 percent of the races for the House and the Senate around the country. We need to focus on the races that are still up for grabs, and my race is one of those.

Raul Labrador is moving on to run for governor, and so there is no incumbent in my race. There are six people running to fill that seat, and the numbers tell us that name recognition for all of the candidates is extremely low with less than four months to go until May 15th.

If we can even get up to 30 percent cold name recognition, we win  Right now the numbers tell us that we are about to pass several of the more established candidates in name recognition, and we have won the two most recent KIDO online polls by a very wide margin. We need to get our message to more than 400,000 registered voters over the next four months if we want to win this thing, and we desperately need more resources.

We need to print up more signs, more brochures, more mailers and more bumper stickers. Demand for campaign materials continues to grow, and that is a great problem to have. On our official campaign website, you can donate via credit card, Paypal or by mailing us a check.  This is a practical way that you can contribute to the effort to take our government back.

If you live in Idaho, this is crunch time. We need more volunteers, because the big push is right ahead of us. If you would like to volunteer, you can find our online form right here. I have been absolutely amazed at the incredible people that God has brought into this campaign, and it is a privilege just to get to spend time with this very special group. If you want to get to know some of the most remarkable people that you have ever come across in your entire life, come and join us.

If you would like to keep up with the latest news from the campaign, the best way to do that is by regularly visiting our official Facebook campaign page. We literally update it several times per day, and the latest updates will be posted there first.

When you stop by the page, please like, share and comment on the material that we post. When people start engaging with our material, it sends a signal to Facebook that they should start showing it to more people. And so when you like, share and comment, it helps get our message out to more potential voters.

And one thing that we want Trump voters all over the nation to understand is that the best way that they can support Trump right now is to support pro-Trump candidates for Congress. Because our district is so heavily Republican, whoever wins the primary on May 15th is going to be the next member of Congress from this district. And once someone gets in, it is nearly impossible to vote a Republican incumbent out in Idaho.

So the destiny of this seat in Congress for the next 20 years could be decided less than four months from now, and if we want a pro-Trump candidate to fill that seat we have got to win this campaign.

If you stand with President Trump, please prayerfully consider supporting us financially. We desperately need more fuel in the tank, and even though we are winning the online polls, a couple of my opponents have built a little bit of a lead in fundraising.

You can help us close that gap by donating today. The 2018 mid-term elections are the most important mid-term elections in modern American history, and the fate of the Trump movement hangs in the balance.

The future of our country is worth fighting for, and the decisions that we make now will determine what kind of a nation this will be for our children and our grandchildren.

In Liberty,

Michael Snyder

Evidence Against Deep State Is Piling Up: MASSIVE Scandal At The FBI

The evidence continues to pile up against the deep state in the brewing FBI scandal. While the mainstream media assure the public through propaganda that there is no such thing as a “deep state,” the evidence shows otherwise.

According to The New York Post, each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive ongoing scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency: the FBI. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.

If either one is true, and we believe both probably are, it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president. 

During an appearance on CNN, counterterrorism analyst and former CIA agent Philip Mudd said on air that “the government’s gonna kill” Donald Trump because he disrespected the deep state.

More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link. -The New York Post

Separately, an FBI informant told Congress that a secret society within the FBI, which met the day after Trump’s election to plot his downfall, went on to hold clandestine meetings off-site. “That secret society — we have an informant that’s talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off-site,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) told Fox News last night. “There is so much smoke here. We have to dig into it — this is not a distraction. Again, this is bias — potentially corruption — at the highest levels of the FBI,” Johnson added.

These major and intertwined scandals all point to the one thing the media is dead set on indoctrinating into the minds of the public as fake: the deep state. There’s too much evidence to deny it, yet the media writes it off as a conspiracy or fake news and demeans those who seek answers to the questions they refuse to even ask. But how do they explain the missing text messages and the “secret society” comments between two top-ranking FBI officials? Very poorly, but the masses don’t seem to care that much and won’t even consider the fact that maybe the media and their own government fooled them.

Senate Renews NSA Warrantless Surveillance Bill

(ANTIWAR.COM) — FISA’s Section 702, which the NSA has been using for warrantless surveillance of Americans’ Internet communication, has been renewed, with a 65-34 vote in the Senate Thursday following up a similar passage in the House last week, and moving it to the White House for President Trump to sign, likely Friday.

The controversial surveillance scheme was passed almost entirely as it was previously written, with no serious reforms making it into the final bill. One minor provision requiring warrants related to ongoing crimes was added, though for Americans not involved in crime, warrantless surveillance will remain the norm.

Technically speaking, the NSA isn’t considered to be eavesdropping directly on Americans, but rather eavesdropping on the entire planet, and then, having incidentally captured the communication of Americans, is allowed to rummage through them without a warrant.

Congressional leadership largely shrugged off calls for reform on the grounds of national security, and complaints about the system being built to abuse were largely forgotten in efforts to renew it before the previous version expired.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

Lacy Hunt On The Unintended Consequences Of Federal Reserve Policies

Authored by Mike Shedlock via www.themaven.net/mishtalk,

The Financial Repression Authority interviewed Lacy Hunt, Chief Economist at Hoisington Management on Fed policies.

The interview below first appeared on the FRA website along with a video.

The emphasis in italics is mine.

FRA: Hi, welcome to FRA’s Roundtable Insight. Today, we have Dr. Lacy Hunt. He’s an internationally recognized economist and the Executive V.P. and Chief Economist of Hoisington Investment Management Company, a firm that manages over $4.5 billion USD and specializing in the management of fixed income accounts for large institutional clients. He also served in the past as Senior Economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, where he was a member of the Federal Reserve System Committee on Financial Analysis. Welcome. Dr. Hunt.

Dr. Lacy Hunt: Nice to be with you, Richard.

FRA: Great. I thought we’d have a discussion on a variety of topics relating to the economy and the financial markets. You recently mentioned that you thought this was the worst economic expansion recovery in U.S. history since 1790. Wow. Can you elaborate?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: If you calculate the average growth rate in the expansions since 1790, this is a long-running expansion, but it’s the slowest and in the last 10 years the household sector lagged very, very badly. The rate of growth in real disposable household income per capita is only 0.9 percent per year. And in the last 12 months, we’re up only 0.6 percent per year. So it’s a long-running expansion, but it’s been a poor expansion. There are certainly problems with some of the earlier data, but this appears to be the slowest expansion since the turn of the 18th Century and our households are the main problem for the growth rate lag.

FRA: And do you point a finger for this cause as primarily on the Federal Reserve or do you see structural changes happening to the economy?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: I think that the main element suppressing growth is the heavily leveraged U.S. economy. We have too much public and private debt, and this debt does not generate an income stream for the aggregate economy. As a result of the prolonged indebtedness, which is on the verge of going much higher because of problems in the governmental sector, the economy is now experiencing very poor demographics. We have a baby bust, a household formation bust, and the lowest birth rate since 1937. These demographics are exacerbating the problems because we have too much of the wrong type of debt and thus the velocity of money has been falling since 1997. Velocity this year is only 1.43 percent, which is the lowest since 1949. Furthermore, the debt creates a situation where monetary policy capabilities are asymmetric. In other words, a lot of action is needed to provoke even a muted impact on the economy, whereas the slightest monetary tightening goes a long way in depressing economic activity. So the root cause of this underperformance is extreme indebtedness.

FRA: And what about the Federal Reserve? How has it undermined the economy’s ability to grow?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: The Fed’s most serious mistake was made in the 1990s up until 2006 during which they allowed the private sector to become extremely over-indebted with the wrong type of debt. And, in essence, I think that quantitative easing, through the push for higher stock prices, created more problems than it has solved for the economy. QE caused the corporate executives to switch funds from real capital investments into financial investments through the paying of higher dividends, buying shares of their own companies, and buying back their shares from others. While this type of action does produce a higher stock market; it doesn’t generate a higher standard of living. And so, Federal Reserve policy has not improved the economy, although it certainly has well served components of the economy.

FRA: And due to that do you think that there’s been too much financial investment versus real economy investment in terms of diverting the economic financial resources away from the real economy?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: I think that’s the principal problem. Business debt last year reached a record high relative to GDP. As I said earlier, Fed policies have created a higher stock market but have not generated an improved standard of living. When the Reserve undertook quantitative easing, it was a signal to the corporate executives that the Fed preferred and would protect financial investments. But that meant financial assets were preferred over real side investments. And so QT is intermingling with the growth-depressing effects of too much debt. And the debt levels are getting ready to move substantially higher in our governmental sector. Government debt is already approaching 106 percent of GDP, a record high with the exception of a brief period during World War II. And by 2030, federal debt will be approximately 125 percent of GDP. For a long time, we’ve known about the issues that would inflate the entitlements — such as the prior-mentioned demographic problems — but there is an increasing likelihood that new federal programs with expenditure increases will further accelerate the growth in federal debt. I think there is clear evidence that increases in federal debt at these high levels relative to GDP over any measurable length of time, reduces economic activity. Thus, the multiplier is not a positive but negative figure, or otherwise exactly what economist David Ricardo hypothesized in his 1821 work. I have looked at the relationship between per capita changes in real GDP and government debt per capita and the relationship is negative, not positive. And so, we’re trying to solve an indebtedness problem by taking on more debt. You can get intermittent spurts of economic activity and inflation, but ultimately the debt is a millstone around the economy’s neck.

FRA: So would you say that we have migrated to a sort of financial economy?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: Let me give you a couple of examples. There’s so much liquidity in the financial markets, particularly the stock market, that a lot of the economic news is constructively interpreted even when it’s unconstructive. Virtually the world believes that the United States is experiencing large job gains and the idea that such productivity may be incorrect is hardly considered. But the rate of growth in payroll employment on a 12-month basis peaked at 2.4 percent in early 2015 and for the last 12 months, has sunk to 1.4 percent. What is even more critical — if you look at just the expansions and don’t include the recessions since 1968 – is that the average growth in employment in an expansion year was 1.9 percent. And in the last 12 months, we are half a percentage point under that figure. Yet, given these numbers, there is an erroneous perception that the employment gains are strong. And this view undermines the improvement in the standard of living. And because of the liquidity and the need of some investors to fully participate in the rising stock market, investors tend to overlook other important developments. If we go back to the 12 months ending November of 2015, real average hourly earnings were up about 2.5 percent. And in the latest 12 months, real average hourly earnings gained a miniscule 0.2 percent. The liquidity tends to push the focus away from the more realistic interpretation of the economy for certain types of assets.

However, the weak performance overall and the deceleration in some of the indicators that I just referred to is not unnoticed by the bond market. So, we have a dichotomy in which the stock market is strongly up but the long-term bond yields are down. Now, the short-term yields are up because they are under the control or heavy influence of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is in the process of raising the short-term rates and winding down their portfolio. They sold 20 billion dollars of government agency securities in October and November, pushing up the short-term rates. Erstwhile, the long-term rates — which look at some of the more important economic fundamentals — are actually declining.

Another element not in the public understanding, since the Federal Reserve no longer produces this sort of monetary analysis, is a very sharp slowdown in the money supply’s rate of growth, bank loans, and within important credit aggregates. Last year, the M2 money supply was up 7 percent. In the latest 12 months, it decelerated to less than 4.5 percent. The rate of growth in bank loans and commercial paper, which topped out on a 12- month basis about 9 percent, is now under 4 percent. So the Fed is raising the short-term rates, reducing the monetary base, and causing a tightening in the financial side of the economy. Some investors understand what is happening and yet it’s not in the general psyche because such monetary analysis is increasingly rare.

However, another more public indicator is the very dramatic flattening of the yield curve. And when the yield curve flattens in such a way, first of all, it’s a symptom that monetary restraint is beginning to bite. Now, the slowdown in money supply growth and the bank credit flattening of the yield curve will occur well before there is any noticeable impact on a broad array of economic indicators or long lags in monetary policy. But when the yield curve starts flattening, that intensifies the effect of the monetary tightening because it takes away or, at the very least, greatly reduces the profitability of the banks and all those that act like banks. Banks make a profit by borrowing short and lending long. When those spreads recede, bank profitability is hurt, particularly for the higher, riskier types of bank loans since not enough spread exists to cover the risk premium. So the banks begin to pull back, further intensifying the restraint pressing on economic growth. To the vast majority of investors, we have an economy that is apparently doing well, but in fact there are elements right beneath the surface that strongly suggest to me that the outlook for 2018 is considerably more guarded than conventional wisdom implies.

FRA: And do you see the potential for an inverted yield curve in the near future?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: I’m not sure that we will have to invert because the economy is so heavily indebted and the velocity of money is its lowest since 1949. Now, a number of people have pointed out that we typically invert before a recession and historically such inversions have been the case most of the time — but not always if you go back far enough in time — and you should since this is not a normal economy. For example, money supply growth since 1900 has averaged about 7 percent per annum, whereas, currently, the rate of growth in M2 is about 36 percent below the long-term average, indicating a very weak growth rate. And the velocity of money is lower than all of the years since 1942 — with the exception of 7 years — and the economy has never been this heavily indebted. And so the yield curve could possibly approach inversion, but it may or may not occur or stay there very long because at that stage of the game, the flattening of the yield curve will greatly intensify all the other effects — the reduction in the reserve, monetary, and credit aggregates, as well as the weakness in velocity. And when this reduction becomes apparent, the Federal Reserve will not be able to reverse gears quickly enough to ameliorate the impact produced upon future economic growth.

FRA: So do you still see a secular low in bond yields on the long into the yield curve remaining in the future sometime?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: The lows have not been seen. The path there will remain extremely volatile. We will have episodes in which the long yields rise. My attitude is that the long yields can go up over the short run for any number of causes. While many elements work out of the system in the long end, yields cannot stay up. When yields go up — especially now that the yield curve is flattening — this intensifies monetary restraint, which puts downward pressure on commodities. This puts upward pressure on the value of the dollar and cuts back on the lending operations. Something I think has been somewhat overlooked in general euphoria over the strength of economic indicators, is the that commercial and industrial loans for all of the banks in the United States are now only up one-tenth of one percent in the last 12 months. There are forward-looking elements that have historically been very important for signaling that change is ahead. They don’t tell us the timing — timing is always difficult — but they are flashing signals that should be observed.

FRA: And as this plays out, do you see monetary policy and fiscal policy is changing, like will we get fiscal policy stimulus? Will there be a change in monetary policy and how will that look like?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: Here’s my attitude: the new federal initiatives, whether tax cuts or infrastructure or otherwise will not provide a boost to the economy if they are funded with increases in debt — that’s where we’re at. And by the way, it’s been that way for some time. If you go back to 2009, we had a one-trillion-dollar stimulus package that was said to be inflationary and was going to boost economic growth, but yet we still had this very poor expansion and little inflation except for intermittent bouts here and there, largely from highly-priced inelastic goods. All the while, the inflation rate has trended lower.

For example, when President Reagan cut taxes, government debt was 31 percent of GDP and now that’s 106 percent on its way to 120-125 percent. And so if you go back and if you read Ricardo’s great article in 1821, he was asked whether it made a difference as to whether the Napoleonic wars were financed by taxes or by borrowing. Ricardo said that, theoretically, either way private sector activity was going to be suppressed. Now we have a lot of evidence, including some that I produced, that the government multiplier is negative, not positive, over a three-year period. Thus, the tax cuts may work for a very short while, but not on balance. And if the tax cuts were revenue-neutral and financed by reductions in government expenditures that would be a positive since the evidence shows tax multipliers are more favorable than expenditure multipliers. Such a theoretical proposal would provide greater efficiency for private sector spending and government spending. There’s also evidence that you would lower the cost of capital, but that’s not what we’re talking about is it? We’re talking about a debt-financed tax cut and we’re not talking about a revenue-neutral infrastructure plan, just as we were not talking about a revenue-neutral stimulus package in 2009. We’re talking about the debt-financed variety of tax cuts and at this stage of the game, this will make us more vulnerable, except for a few fleeting instances.

I will say this: when you have a debt-financed infrastructure program or tax cut, there will be pockets within the economy that will benefit, but the aggregate economic performance will not benefit and so fiscal policy, as I see it, is not really going to be helpful. The risk is that the debt buildup will add to the problems. There is extensive academic research indicating that when government debt rises above 90 percent of GDP for more than five years, this trend will reduce the economy’s growth rate by a third. Remember, we’re at 106 percent debt to GDP and there’s evidence these higher levels of debt have a non-linear effect. In other words, we use up growth at a faster pace. And there’s a lot of evidence from the available data that we’re even losing a half of our growth rate from the trend. For example, GDP has risen at 2.1 percent per capita since 1790. The latest 10 years produced a reduction to 1.0 percent. And so we should have lost only seven-tenths or come down at 1.3 over 1 but we didn’t and this is a consequence that we have to deal with. We’re not in a position to ignore the debt levels. Fiscal policy can be talked about, we can debate about it, and we can proclaim its benefits, but I don’t see them in the current environment just as I didn’t see them in 2009. I would change my tune if they were revenue-neutral, but that’s not the issue here.

To me, inflation is a money-price-wage spiral not a wage-price spiral as with the Phillips curve. The way inflations begin is by money supply growth acceleration not being offset by weakness in velocity, which shifts the aggregate demand curve inward. Remember, the aggregate demand curve is equal to money times the velocity by algebraic substitution as evidenced in all the leading textbooks on macroeconomics. So you have declines in the money supply and velocity, which will make the aggregate demand curve shift inward over time. This shift gives you a lower price level and a lower level of real GDP. It doesn’t happen every quarter or even every year, but it’s the basic trend. Thus, monetary policy is in the process not of decelerating money supply growth and by a significant amount. If the Fed adheres to their schedule of quantitative tightening, I calculate M2 will grow by the end of the first quarter – it’s currently running around four and a half percent – and the year over year growth rate will be down to less than 3 percent. And so monetary policy is taking steps to lower the reserve monetary and credit aggregates, and these actions will further flatten the curve because they can press the short rates upward. But I think the long-term investors will understand that the inflationary prospects on a fundamental basis are weakening not strengthening.

FRA: And do you see these trends as being exacerbated on the emerging government pension fund crisis? Could there be more debt used to solve that like for bailouts? Do you see that potentially happening?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: Well the main problem with government debt is that we’re going to have approximately one million folks a year reach age 70 in the next 14 to 15 years and we’ve known that this was coming, but we didn’t prepare for it. We’ve made a lot of promises under Social Security Medicare and the Affordable Care Act and government debt will have to be used to fund the entitlement benefits — I don’t see any other way around it. Another overlooked problem is that the actual federal fiscal situation is much worse than these surface numbers. For example, in the last three years, the budget deficit worsened each year. If you sum the budget deficits for 2015, 2016 and 2017, the sum is 1.2 trillion, but a lot of what was previously called “outlays” have been moved off budget — we call them investments (such as student loans) and there are other examples. The actual increase in federal debt in the last three years is 3.2 trillion. So the budget deficit is actually greatly understating what is happening to the level of federal debt which wasn’t always the case. Furthermore, the deficit was made worse by a 2015 bipartisan deal between Congress and the White House. And while neither party is blameless — they both agreed on the deal — yet it doesn’t change the fact that the federal situation is deteriorating and at a much worse rate than the deficit numbers themselves indicate.

FRA: And what about for state and local jurisdiction locales, in terms of their government pension funds? Could there be federal level bailouts at that level?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: Again, what are they going to bail them out with? You’re going to have to sell Federal Securities. And one of the multipliers on new sales of Federal debt is negative, not positive. Forget what was taught you in your macroeconomic class 30, 20, or even 15 years ago. When I was in graduate school, I was taught that the government multiplier was somewhere between four and five percent. Now, it looks like the multiplier is at best zero and even possibly slightly negative.

FRA: Great insight as always. How can our listeners learn more about your work, Dr. Hunt?

Dr. Lacy Hunt: We put out a quarterly letter as a public service. Write to us at hoisingtonmgt.com and we’ll put your name on the subscription list. We don’t spam you with marketing so please go ahead and subscribe.

FRA: Okay, great. Thank you very much for being on the Program, Dr. Hunt. Thank you.

Dr. Lacy Hunt: My pleasure Richard. Nice to be with you

Economics as Taught

Note Lacy"s comments on what he learned in graduate school. Lacy once told me that he had to "unlearn" nearly everything he was taught in school about economic.

Multiple generations of economists have been trained to believe inflation is a good thing, saving is bad, that there are no consequences for piling up debt.