Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Many believe Winston Churchill coined the phrase: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Others think it was President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual, who said, “You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste” during the financial crisis. Regardless of who first spoke those words and whether the crisis is “good” or “serious,” the Fed may be planning on heeding their crisis advice.

On February 19, 2025, the Fed made a confounding statement about QT, aka balance sheet reduction. Per its latest FOMC minutes: “several participants suggest halting or slowing balance sheet reduction pending debt ceiling resolution.”

If the government were to stop issuing debt because of a debt ceiling impasse, financial liquidity would increase as the Treasury would spend down its roughly $800 billion piggy bank known as the Treasury General Account (TGA). Due to its positive impact on liquidity, some people call a potential TGA withdrawal “Not QE, QE.”

Thus, if a government shutdown results in additional, albeit temporary, liquidity to the financial system, why halt or slow QT, which drains liquidity?

The timing of the Fed’s confounding statement aligns with an essential gauge of excess liquidity. Might the Fed be offering investors a liquidity warning cloaked as a reaction to a fiscal crisis?

To help answer the question, we review two popular liquidity gauges. In the postscript, following our summary, we share some measures of liquidity and reserves the Federal Reserve monitors.

What Is Water?

Before progressing, it is worth emphasizing how vital and underappreciated liquidity is to the financial markets. We lean on Chris Cole at Artemis Capital to help you appreciate liquidity.

In his piece, What Is Water In The Markets, Cole uses a commencement speech by David Foster Wallace to make an analogy between liquidity in the financial markets and water for a fish. Likely, fish don’t pay attention to the water that surrounds them. Similarly, how often do we think about the air we breathe? 

Financial markets, like fish and humans, exist in a medium that sustains its being. Yet, despite the grave importance of liquidity, the market medium, few investors pay much attention to it. Without water, a fish will die. When liquidity fades, volatility often spikes, and market fragilities are exposed. Thus, measuring liquidity, the medium investors struggle to quantify and rarely discuss, is warranted.

The Roots Of The Current Liquidity Omen

In the pandemic crisis of March 2020, the Federal Reserve and the government opened the liquidity floodgates to combat the shuttering of the global economy. As we share in the first graph below, courtesy of Longtermtrends, in 2020, the percentage growth of M2 money supply (black) grew at a higher rate than at any time in history. The second graph shows that deficit spending as a percentage of GDP was 15% in 2020. The only time since 1930 it was higher was during World War II.

The covid crisis shut down the global economy and sent financial markets plummeting. Liquidity fled the markets, and significant volatility ensued. Consequently, the Fed and government did everything possible to restore economic and market liquidity.

What is now most important to grasp is how much of that extra liquidity still exists. One big clue is the Fed’s Reverse Repurchase Program (RRP).

Reverse Repurchase Program (RRP)

Had the Fed not managed excess liquidity, its monetary policy in 2020 and 2021 would have sent short-term interest rates well into negative territory. The Fed’s RRP was employed to soak up the extra liquidity.

The program allows banks and money markets to lend money to the Fed, and in exchange, the Fed provides them with risk-free Treasury collateral. The “risk-free” money market surrogate effectively met the massive demand for short-term investments and kept rates positive.

We should consider the RRP balance as the financial market’s excess liquidity. The liquidity warning we allude to in the opening is the current negligible RRP balance. As shown below, the once $2.55 trillion storer of excess liquidity has dwindled to near zero. While liquidity may not be an issue today, there is no longer a massive bank of liquidity for the market to draw on.

With RRP largely evaporated, tracking liquidity becomes much more critical.

Market Monitors of Liquidity

One of the more straightforward gauges of liquidity is the sum of the RRP balances and bank reserves held at the Fed. Bank reserves approximate the potential liquidity banks could provide.

As the data below shows, liquidity, using this measure, is steadily declining. However, it is still well above pre-pandemic levels. The question worth asking but lacking an answer is how much more liquidity our economy and markets require today than before the pandemic.

We use a similar liquidity model that takes the size of the Fed’s balance sheet and subtracts the total of the RRP balances and the Treasury General Account (TGA). The graph below shows that the amount of liquidity (gray), using this measure, has been constant for the last two years. The liquidity from declining RRP balances have thus far offset the Fed’s QT liquidity removal.

With little excess liquidity remaining in the RRP program, this measure of liquidity should start to decline as QT will no longer be offset. However, liquidity could temporarily rise if the Treasury drains its TGA account to help fund the government. Such an increase would be relatively short-lived, thus postponing, not canceling, the eventual decline of liquidity due to QT.  

Summary

We surmise the Fed follows the gauges we share and profoundly understands that the potential for a liquidity shortfall will increase as the RRP disappears. Consequently, they may not let the debt ceiling “crisis” go to waste and could use it as an excuse to stop QT.

They need a reasonable justification to end QT because of the term premium embedded in bond yields. Without such a “crisis”, bond investors might assume that ending QT is dovish, thus inflationary, and push yields higher.

Before concluding, it is imperative to state that there is no perfect liquidity gauge. It is incredibly complex and goes beyond the identifiable data we share in this article.

*  *  *

Postscript: Fed Measures of Reserves

If you want to learn more about the banking system and liquidity generation, the following postscript summarizes a recent white paper from the New York Fed.

Bank reserves are the funds a bank keeps on hand, either in its vaults or deposited with the Fed, to meet withdrawal demands and comply with regulatory requirements. Simply, the amount of reserves a bank has corresponds directly with its ability to lend money. Thus, the amount of liquidity they can provide.  

In late 2024, Roberto Perli of the New York Fed outlined five measures of bank reserves. They are worth a quick scan to appreciate the state of banking reserves.

The following quotes and graphs are from Perli’s speech entitled Balance Sheet Normalization: Monitoring Reserve Conditions And Understanding Repo Market Pressures. Our comments are added.

Fed Funds vs. Rate On Reserve Balances

A good starting point is to look at the spread between the effective federal funds rate (EFFR) and the interest rate on reserve balances (IORB). When reserves become less abundant, the cost to borrow federal funds tends to increase relative to IORB.

As the graph below shows, there is nothing to worry about with this metric.

 

The Sensitivity of Fed Funds To Changes In Reserves

When reserves are abundant, the demand curve is flat, meaning the federal funds rate is insensitive to short term changes in reserve supply. When reserves approach the ample level, that curve should start gently sloping down, and the federal funds rate will start to show some sensitivity to changes in reserves.

Like the first graph, nothing here warrants concern about the level of reserves in the banking system.

 

Domestic Bank Borrowing In The Fed Funds Market

We also carefully monitor the share of domestic bank borrowing in the federal funds market. Because domestic banks tend to borrow federal funds when they need liquidity, increased activity on their part would be a sign of reserves becoming less abundant.

The percentage of domestic bank borrowing is declining. Therefore, this, too, provides little reason for concern.

 

Late Interbank Payments

The timing of interbank payments is another useful metric. When reserves, which are the settlement instrument for these payments, are less abundant, banks will tend to tactically delay payments to keep their balance from dropping to uncomfortably low levels in the middle of the day. Therefore, late payment activity may be a useful indicator of the ampleness of reserve supply.

The chart below doesn’t point to any financial stress.

 

Average Intraday Overdrafts

Daylight overdrafts occur when short-term shifts in payment activity result in a temporarily negative balance in a bank’s reserve account. Higher average overdrafts are an indication that reserves are harder to come by in amounts needed to facilitate payments without intraday credit from the Federal Reserve. While peak intraday overdraft activity has occasionally spiked, average overdrafts have remained low and actually have declined in recent months.

The average remains near ten-year lows, thus denoting little to no stress.

 

Repo Market Pressure

Three of Perli’s gauges are focused on the Fed Funds rate. Accordingly, it’s important to monitor factors that may impact that rate. This next gauge indicates that the Fed Funds gauges could start causing those measures to change.

Because repo is collateralized, it should generally trade at or below the uncollateralized IORB rate. Thus, if many transactions occur at a premium to IORB, there could be a problem. That is the case, as the graph below shows. But Perli helps explain why this is occurring and why it may not be problematic.

In recent years, there has obviously been a large increase in securities issued by the Treasury. And while there is no lack of demand for those securities, many investors need financing to acquire them. The ongoing shrinking of the Federal Reserve’s SOMA portfolio also contributes to the higher demand for repo financing because it results in private investors absorbing (and potentially financing) more Treasury securities. But it also contributes to a diminished supply of repo financing because a smaller SOMA portfolio implies that less overall liquidity is available to the financial system.

There appears to be also a second important cause for higher repo rates—namely, frictions that have developed in the market that are interfering with the liquidity redistribution process….In other words, repo supply can be limited by counterparty risk limits.

 

2018-2019

In the graphs above, reserves started to show stress in 2018 and 2019. If you recall, in September 2019, liquidity dried up, and the repo market essentially broke. Despite stable financial markets and a solid economy, the Fed had to provide liquidity/reserves to the banking system via lower rates and QE.

The current situation does not show the same slow degradation in liquidity conditions as we saw in 2018 and 2019. We share the graph below summarizing the Fed gauges to highlight the difference further. The closer to the center of the circle represents the most abundant reserve conditions. Conversely, as you move out, reserves become scarce.

Comparing the current conditions (blue) to those in September 2019 (gold) highlights that reserves are abundant today. But will that change rapidly with the RRP balances no longer providing a ballast?

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 11:55

Brent Crude Crashes To 2021 Lows After Surprise US Inventory Build

Oil prices extended their losses overnight to the lowest in almost six months as traders wrestle with conflicting signals on the longevity and effects of US tariffs on the country’s two largest external crude suppliers.

A mixed bag from API last night did not help but all eyes on the official data this morning for any signs of life.

API

• Crude -1.5mm

• Cushing +1.6mm

• Gasoline -1.2mm

• Distillates +1.1mm

DOE

• Crude +3.614mm

• Cushing +1.124mm

• Gasoline -1.433mm

• Distillates -1.318mm

US crude inventories rose for the 5th week in the last 6, with stocks at the crucial Cushing Hub rising for the 4th straight week. On the product side, both gasoline and distillates saw drawdowns...

Source: Bloomberg

For the third week in a row, the Trump administration did not add to the SPR...

Source: Bloomberg

US crude production remained near record higher as Trump's 'drill baby drill' plan prompted a jump in the rig count...

Source: Bloomberg

WTI traded back near 6-month lows on the surprise crude build...

Crude has trended lower since mid-January as Trump’s policies raise fears of multiple trade wars potentially hitting energy demand.

“Trump acknowledges that there will be an adjustment period for the tariffs,” said Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, chief analyst at A/S Global Risk Management. 

“This points to continued volatility and uncertainty in the economy and in financial markets over the coming months.”

Brent crude just broke below the Sept 2024 lows to its lowest since Dec 2021...

Oil options traders are the most bearish in five months amid concerns about the fallout from tariffs and OPEC+’s plans to revive halted production, while volumes of bearish put contracts surged Tuesday.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 11:11

Some Room Left?

By Benjamin Picton of Rabobank

Some Room Left?

President Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China took effect yesterday. Trump had said on Monday that there was “no room left” for those countries to negotiate on trade, but Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick walked back the hawkishness late on Tuesday by suggesting that some wiggle room may exist to reduce duties on goods covered by the USMCA trade agreement. Earlier in the week Mexico floated a proposition to apply 25% tariffs to imports from China as a quid-pro-quo for continued US market access. Could we see a united trade front against China on the table as the Trump Administration’s price for watering down duties on Canada and Mexico?

Lutnick said that Trump is considering lowering the 25% tariff rate if USMCA rules are followed, but threw a jab at the USA’s northern neighbours by saying that Canadians “like to cheat”. Similar accusations of foul play have previously been levelled by trade advisor Peter Navarro against Australia, specifically in relation to aluminium exports that were granted exemptions to trade restrictions during the first Trump term through a handshake agreement that Australian exports of aluminium to the USA would be informally restricted.

Canada and China have been swift to retaliate to the new tariff measures, in defiance of the orthodox economic prescription that tariffs are entirely self-defeating. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau addressed Trump directly, saying that “even though you’re a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do”, a comment that perhaps holds some irony given that Trudeau was in the process of confirming tariff measures of his own when he made it. Trudeau went even further to suggest that President Trump is attempting to crash the Canadian economy as a precursor to annexation(!).

China announced tariffs of 15% on US exports of chicken, wheat, corn and cotton, and 10% tariffs on soybeans, sorghum, beef, fish, fruit, vegetables and dairy. China’s Ministry of Commerce also said that it had added an additional 15 US companies to an export control list, and that additional US firms had been added to the ‘unreliable entity’ list that effectively serves as a sanctions registry for entities perceived to pose a threat to China’s national security.

Early this morning China announced that it is setting its economic growth target for 2025 at 5%, and its CPI inflation target at 2%. The fiscal deficit will widen to around 4% of GDP, which is the largest in over 30 years. The increased fiscal stimulus goes hand-in-hand with a loosening in the monetary policy stance from “prudent” to “moderately loose” – the first time that China had adopted such accommodative policy in 14 years -that was announced in December. By contrast, Donald Trump used his address to Congress yesterday to say that his Administration will aim to balance the Federal budget without giving firm details on how that would be achieved.

The Treasury curve bear-steepened on Tuesday with the 10-year yield rising 8.9bps to 4.25% and the 2-year up 4.1bps to 3.99%. The Canadian sovereign curve shifted even further upwards, while European yields fell at the short end and posted mixed-results further out the term structure.

Of course, despite the hints at détente from Lutnick, further salvos in the developing trade war are likely imminent. Trump used his address to Congress to indicate that reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on agricultural imports will apply from April 2nd:

"whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them. If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before."

Some countries may stand to benefit in the short run from a reshuffling of the global trade deck, but all of this is likely to be bad news for growth in its totality. Speaking in Sydney, RBA Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser (formerly of the Bank of England) noted that there is now a chance that first quarter GDP growth in the USA prints negative. This lines up with the signal from the Atlanta Fed’s GDP nowcast model, which is signalling a contraction of 2.8% in the first quarter, versus a previous forecast of 2.3% expansion as recently as February 26th.

Hauser said:

“if companies and households come to conclude that trade policy uncertainty isn’t ‘classical uncertainty’ (i.e. “carry on until the fog lifts) - but genuine ambiguity- i.e. “anything could happen” – then they may choose to just batten down the hatches, postponing planned spending, particularly on long-term investment, until things become clearer. This sort of watchful waiting is pretty sensible, individually, but for an economy it can be bad news. As The Economist put it recently “tariff uncertainty can be as ruinous as tariffs themselves”.”

This echoes recent comments made by one of our favourite bears, Jeremy Grantham, on Bloomberg’s ‘Merryn Talks Money’ podcast. Grantham paraphrased John Maynard Keynes to point out that animal spirits are incredibly important to economic performance:

“You could line up all your economic stimuli, everything a wonderful plan, but if for whatever reason people become pessimistic, they sat on their money and they did not spend, you’re toast...”

Now that major US stock indices are all in the red year-to-date, the likelihood of creeping pessimism would appear to be growing.

On that theme, the “take Trump seriously, but not literally” meme that had been compressing equity risk premia and sending US stocks into the stratosphere late last year seems to be rolling over in Europe. Growing realisation that Trump means what he says and says what he means on trade sent European stocks sharply lower yesterday, while news that the USA would be halting arms supplies to Ukraine helped to continue the outperformance of European defence names.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a new lending instrument to provide EUR 150bn of loans to member states for defense investment. The new facility is expected to improve coordination and quality of expenditure on pan-European priorities (artillery, drones etc). The facility is also expected to help improve inter-operability, create economies of scale for new defence procurement and support a significant step-up in support for Ukraine.

Von der Leyen also announced the activation of an escape clause within the Stability and Growth Pact that will allow for defense spending to increase by 1.5% of GDP without triggering excessive deficit procedures. This relaxation of fiscal rules could be worth up to EUR 650bn over four years. In a similar vein, Germany is set to create a new EUR 500bn fund for defense and infrastructure spending, and to exempt defense spending of more than 1% of GDP from debt-brake rules. 

Fresh from being feted by international leaders after his confrontation with Trump and Vance last week, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy struck a conciliatory tone with the Administration yesterday by saying that he was ready to work under Trump’s “strong leadership” and that it was “time to make things right.” “We are ready to work fast to end the war...and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal.” 

President Zelenskyy appears to recognise that European pledges of support are nice, but it is real production and real firepower that really matters. On that score, the USA is still the only game in town.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 11:00

CPAC, Other Conferences Reveal Conservative Landscape On Russia, Ukraine

Authored by Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

If you wanted to take the temperature at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), you could do a lot worse than talking to Luke Twombly.

CPAC senior fellow Mercedes Schlapp and Vice President JD Vance speak during CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 20, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Twombly, a 31-year-old consultant who was once communications director for the Republican Party of Texas, was wearing a cowboy hat as he walked past the colorful booths at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center just outside Washington.

“I think people are tired of the Ukraine War,” he told The Epoch Times. He disagreed with the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to reestablish the Soviet Union, instead likening him to a tsar seeking “to influence, basically, Orthodox Slavic countries that were historically in the Russian zone.”

Under President Donald Trump, Twombly said, the United States is refocusing on the Western Hemisphere, where more of its core interests lie.

“America, it’s not [the] global policeman anymore,” Twombly added.

CPAC, held Feb. 19 through 22, took place amidst Ukraine-Russia peace overtures from the Trump administration, including talks between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Trump team also sought to forge a minerals deal with Ukraine ahead of a visit from its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Days later, the deal was in limbo after Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance devolved into a heated argument.

Two nearby conferences, the Principles First Summit and Freedom Conservatism, drew Ukraine hawks concerned about Russian aggression and, in many cases, Trump. Yet, CPAC—the main event for conservatives alongside AmericaFest—revealed a national and international right-of-center world that has grown increasingly skeptical of prolonging the conflict. Trump’s push for peace with Russia met with widespread, though not unqualified, support.

Early speakers helped set the tone. In his Feb. 20 remarks, Vance predicted a lasting peace would soon come, saying it was “in the interest of the American people” and would help cement Trump as a “peace president.”

On Feb. 21, Trump administration diplomat Ric Grenell questioned objections that have been raised to Trump meeting Putin without involving Zelenskyy, saying the Trump team had met with Ukrainians numerous times without Russians present.

“I think the American people are really frustrated with Zelenskyy. I think that there’s a big frustration that he’s not making great choices for peace,” Grenell said.

He said that Putin is a dictator but added that the Trump administration’s foreign policy excludes regime change.

Away from the stage, American conservatives mostly voiced opposition to the ongoing conflict and support for Trump’s approach.

Luke Twombly at CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 21, 2025. Nathan Worcester/The Epoch Times

South Carolina Senate candidate Mark Lynch described the Ukraine war as “ridiculous.” He hopes to replace Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a longtime Ukraine hawk who, in recent days, has spoken critically of Zelenskyy’s Oval Office conduct and praised Trump.

“There’s a time for war, but there’s a time for peace,” Lynch told The Epoch Times. “We’ve got to take care of stuff right here on our home front.”

Betsy Pfund, who attended CPAC with the Republican Women of Baltimore County, described Trump’s anti-Zelenskyy rhetoric as “a negotiating strategy.”

“He talks big, and he throws an idea out there in the public square,” she said, adding that she found his style appealing despite its roughness around the edges. “I like the masculinity. I feel so much safer.”

Betsy Pfund at CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 21, 2025. Nathan Worcester/The Epoch Times

One American attendee who stood out was Clare Lopez. Lopez, the founder of Lopez Liberty LLC and a veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, told The Epoch Times she would be glad to assist the Trump administration.

Lopez said Russia’s invasion violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and demanded a response, particularly in light of its strategically critical location.

“Ukraine is Europe. On the other side of Ukraine is NATO,” she said, adding that a success for Putin would jeopardize Poland and the Baltic states. “Every piece of territory he conquers further to the west extends the border of his Russian Empire.”

She took exception to the talk of “negotiations” with Russia, saying compromise would embolden Putin to move west, potentially with the aim of building a land bridge across Eastern Europe to its Baltic Sea enclave, Kaliningrad.

World View From CPAC

For the most part, CPAC’s international crowd reflected growing skepticism of the continuation of the Russia–Ukraine war.

Robert Fico, Slovakia’s populist prime minister and a target of protests over his recent meeting with Putin, told the crowd that “it seems that President Zelenskyy actually needs this war.”

Miklos Szantho, who leads Hungary’s Centre for Fundamental Rights, praised Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for “pushing for an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine” and “going against the progressive warmongers.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni lauded work toward “a just and lasting peace” in Ukraine—“a peace that can only be built with the contribution of all, but above all with strong leadership”—before praising Trump.

Gabriel Durand, a member of French lawmaker Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, told The Epoch Times his party seeks “a Europe of cooperation and nations like [French President] Charles de Gaulle wanted.”

“I think we have to be at equal distance from [the] United States and from Russia,” he said.

Not all of the European Right seek the same equidistance. Though many parties on the scene were receptive to a Ukraine peace deal, and even to stronger ties with Russia, the Poles, repeatedly dominated and even partitioned by Russia in recent centuries, remain extremely wary of making deals with Putin.

In his CPAC speech, Mateusz Morawiecki, a Polish lawmaker and former prime minister from the conservative Law and Justice Party, described the Ukraine war as one of several “existing difficulties” before saying his country could be a stable bulwark “between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea,” allied with the United States to prevent Europe from bowing to Russian and Chinese dominance.

Alternative for Germany politician Christine Anderson, a member of the European Parliament from Germany, at CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 22, 2025. Nathan Worcester/The Epoch Times

Christine Anderson, a German member of the European Parliament from the Alternative for Germany party, told The Epoch Times that Polish worries about Russia are understandable given how much they suffered during the Soviet period. She seemed hopeful that her country could pursue a different approach despite values that diverge from those of Russia.

“If you as a nation take your own interest seriously, you have to secure energy. You have to make sure that you live in some kind of amicable way with your neighbors. And Russia is a neighbor of Europe,” she said.

Anderson said Russia’s invasion was “a no-go” but part of a longer story that includes the 2014 Maidan revolution, which saw the removal of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych.

She described Trump as “the only one that actually has the will” to end the war in Ukraine.

Geadis Geadi, a Cypriot MEP from the nationalist ELAM party, told The Epoch Times that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was reminiscent of Turkey’s 1974 invasion of Cyprus, which led to the establishment of North Cyprus, a country only recognized by Turkey.

“We must protect the international law,” he said. He added that the war likely would not have started with Trump in the White House and that “we must bring peace.” Geadi said the United States, like Cyprus, has its own legitimate interests.

Representing the other side of the Eurasian landmass, South Korean conservatives at CPAC warned of Chinese influence on their politics, alleging ties to the recent impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol following his brief declaration of martial law.

Chris Oh, a student at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, said he expected the Trump administration to support South Korea despite its less interventionist stance in some areas.

As CPAC was taking place, U.S. fighter jets and at least one B-1B bomber participated in a joint exercise with South Korea’s military over the Korean peninsula, the first during the second Trump administration.

“I don’t think the Trump administration would like China to take over Korea,” Oh said.

Chris Oh at CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 21, 2025. Nathan Worcester/The Epoch Times Ukraine Hawks

As CPAC unfolded at the Gaylord resort, the Principles First Summit kicked off on Feb. 21 at a Washington hotel.

Although the two conferences were separated by just a few miles, the rhetoric on Russia, Trump, and Ukraine was light years apart.

The three-day event attracted a mix of Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans, including businessman Mark Cuban, writer Jonah Goldberg, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and former congressman Adam Kinzinger.

Kinzinger, who was introduced with a quotation from the late Sen. John McCain, told the crowd that “one of the things that is most common here is support for Ukraine.” The statement was greeted with sustained applause.

“We know that it hasn’t been the model of liberal democracy over the last thirty years, but we would certainly say that it’s going in those directions,” Kinzinger added.

Amid Trump’s talk of a mineral deal with Ukraine that could help compensate the United States for its aid—now in limbo after the Oval Office exchange—Kinzinger urged pro-Ukraine Republicans to “say no” until Trump relents on Ukraine-related policies, including moves that would “force Ukraine to pay us back.”

Christie’s 2024 presidential run was marked by vocal criticism of Trump, which set him apart from most other Republicans in the race.

He was no less scathing at Principles First, asserting, among other things, that the president had authoritarian tendencies.

Republican presidential candidate and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie participates in the fourth GOP presidential primary debate at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on Dec. 6, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Stephen F. Hayes of the Dispatch asked Christie if the United States under Trump had changed its loyalties from Ukraine to Russia.

Christie replied, “There’s a lot there, but the answer is yes.”

He said he had warned Zelenskyy, whom he visited while campaigning, that a Trump victory would spell “big trouble” for the Ukrainian president. According to Christie, the leader responded with nods and a wink.

Unlike Principles First, the Freedom Conservatism Conference did not directly compete with CPAC. All its panels took place at the National Press Club on Feb. 24, two days after the big event ended.

The atmosphere was clubby, dominated by think tanks and policy mavens rather than the politicians and populist content creators at CPAC.

Many of the speakers had signed the Freedom Conservatism “Statement of Principles.” The document warns of growing authoritarianism “at home and abroad,” stating that individual liberty was under attack from “more and more people on the left and right.”

It advocates continued American leadership of the world, and it describes immigration as “a principal driver of American prosperity and achievement” while affirming the country’s right to defend its borders and maintain an immigration system tied to “the interests and values of American citizens.”

The Freedom Conservatism ended up somewhere in between CPAC and Principles First—neither an anti-Trump shindig nor a celebration of the new U.S. president.

While frequent Trump critics like Goldberg took to the stage, so did figures more sympathetic to the president, at least in recent years. One was social scientist Charles Murray, a Never Trumper in 2016 who in 2024 voted for Trump despite misgivings about “what he stands for.”

Another was Christian commentator Carrie Sheffield, author of the 2024 memoir “Motorhome Prophecies,” and a conservative who opposed Trump in 2016 but swung toward him during his first term.

Senior Policy Analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, Carrie Sheffield, in an interview with NTD on July 15, 2022. Screenshot via The Epoch Times

She likened the different conferences around Washington to different flavors of ice cream.

“I think it’s great to like an array of flavors,” she told The Epoch Times. “Iron sharpens iron, and that’s how we get the best ideas.”

Like others, Sheffield pointed out that Russia did not invade Ukraine while Trump was in office and said Trump wants peace. She disputed the notion that the president’s peace talk amounted to appeasement of Putin.

“In fact, I actually think Trump is very much like Winston Churchill,” she said.

On stage, Goldberg disagreed with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for not describing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as unprovoked. Hegseth instead described the genesis of the current war as “a very complicated situation.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who in the past has feuded with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) over his support for Ukraine aid, took aim at former President Joe Biden, saying he had failed to clarify to the American people “why we’re back in Ukraine” and adding that the Trump administration now had to “clean up as best they can.”

“The president is in a situation where he still needs Putin to come to the table. I think that’s where a lot of this excessive flattery had come from, because I’m not sure how else to explain it,” said Crenshaw, who endorsed Trump ahead of the 2024 race.

Asked about grounds for optimism, the Texas lawmaker said that it is extremely geopolitically challenging “to screw up our country, no matter how hard we try and how many stupid decisions we make.”

Another speaker, Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane, told The Epoch Times that the conservative world has its own “deep state,” in evidence at the Freedom Conservatism event.

“The deep state is libertarian free-market,” he said.

Geadis Geadi, a member of the European Parliament from Cyprus, at CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 22, 2025. Nathan Worcester/The Epoch Times

Speaking a few days after CPAC’s international cast descended on the Gaylord, Cochrane said Trump embodied a worldwide “vibe shift.”

“This is bigger than Reagan. This is bigger than Calvin Coolidge. This is the size of [Franklin] Roosevelt, in the opposite direction,” he said.

Cochrane was critical of Trump’s “dictator” comments about Zelenskyy, saying they marked the president’s “first major unforced error.”

“I’m usually not interventionist but a big Ukraine hawk,” he said, describing most post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy as “a bloody mess.”

Like Lopez, he suggested he would be happy to serve in the administration.

“I sit by the phone,” he said with a chuckle.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 10:20

US Services Sector Surveys Beat Expectations In February As Jobs & New Orders Jump

With 'hard' data in decline, and US Manufacturing surveys mixed (PMI up, ISM down), the US Services sector data this morning is sure to provide just as little clarity.

• S&P Global's US Services PMI fell from 52.9 (January) to 51.0 (final February) - better than the expected 49.7 and still in expansion (just) but the weakest since April 2024. Of note this is a big bump higher from the 49.7 flash print (contraction) for February.

• ISM Services also beat expectations, rising from 52.8 to 53.5, against expectations of a small decline to 52.5

Source: Bloomberg

So just as mixed as the Manufacturing data, but opposite (PMI down, ISM up).

Under the hood, Orders, Employment, and Prices Paid rose on the month with employment at it highest since Dec 2021!!

February was the third month in a row with all four subindexes that directly factor into the Services PMI - Business Activity, New Orders, Employment and Supplier Deliveries - in expansion territory, the first time this has happened since May 2022. 

"Slightly slower growth in the Business Activity Index was more than offset by growth in the other three subindexes. 

Anxiety continues; however, over the potential impact of tariffs. 

Some respondents indicated that federal spending cuts are having negative impacts on their business forecasts.”

Here's a fun one for you. This morning we saw ADP report that Services Sector job growth collapsed in February... which is weird because ISM Services employment hit a fucking 4 year high!!!

The S&P Global US Composite PMI Output Index fell to 51.6 in February, down from 52.7 in January. It was the second successive month in which the PMI has fallen, and the latest reading was the lowest since last April. 

Divergent trends were, however, seen at the broad sector level. Manufacturing output rose markedly, but service sector growth softened to a 15-month low.

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence:

"The final PMI is an improvement on the earlier flash reading but still paints a worryingly weak picture of service sector business conditions compared to the buoyancy recorded late last year. 

"Current output growth has downshifted markedly so far this year from a booming rate of expansion in December to a disappointingly sluggish pace in February.

S&P Global was careful to decouple Biden (current conditions) from Trump (future terrible, horrible world):

"Expectations for output growth have also been revised sharply lower as service providers have become increasingly worried over signs of slower demand growth and uncertainty over the impact of new government policies, ranging from tariffs and trade policy to federal budget cutting.

"The strong private sector hiring seen late last year has consequently gone into reverse, with a steep fall in backlogs of work hinting at further job losses to come. 

And soaring prices are all Trump's fault... even though the tariffs literally just went into place:

"Adding to the gloomier picture in February was a sharp rise in costs, which companies were often unable to pass on to customers due to weak demand. While this reduced pricing power is good news for inflation, it’s potentially bad news for profitability."

All that doom and gloom from S&P Global is exactly offset by the optimism discussed by ISM.

So to sum up:

• Services - both expanding (PMI down, ISM up)

• Manufacturing - both expanding (PMI up, ISM down)

Baffle 'em with bullshit continues.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 10:09

US Cuts Intelligence Sharing With Ukraine On Heels Of Halting Arms Flow

Despite much anticipation, especially after a premature Reuters article earlier in the day, President Trump's Tuesday night address before Congress didn't include any new unveiling or announcement of an agreed-to minerals deal. Trump only said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sent him a letter that affirmed Ukraine was ready to work toward peace with the US.

Zelensky in the letter indicated he stands "ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts." He wrote, "We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence." But new action announced Wednesday suggests otherwise.

Getty Images

Trump also in the speech explained that Zelensky informed the administration that he's ready to sign the deal which would grant the US access to revenue from his country's rare earth minerals and other natural resources "at any time that is convenient for you."

But clearly the details haven't been hammered out and fully agreed to yet, and there was no done deal to announce - it didn't even feel like a signed deal was on the immediate horizon, and Trump moved on from this topic rather fast in what was overall a whopping hour-and-forty minute long address.

Perhaps this is why the newest headlines covering the deteriorating Washington-Kiev relationship report that the US has now cut off intelligence sharing with Ukraine. "The US has cut off intelligence-sharing with Kyiv in a move that could seriously hamper the Ukrainian military’s ability to target Russian forces, according to officials familiar with the matter," Financial Times reports.

If accurate, this appears a direct punitive measure in response to Zelensky refusing the sign the minerals deal, and last Friday's blow-up in the White House with Trump and Vance.

The halt in intelligence sharing also follows on the heels of Monday's announcement by the White House it is suspending all military aid deliveries, or a major pause in arms without which Ukraine's forces cannot last for long against the vastly better armed Russian army.

"US intelligence co-operation has been essential for Ukraine’s ability to identify and strike Russian military targets," FT continues in its Wednesday report. "Three officials familiar with the decision confirmed that Washington had frozen intelligence channels with Kyiv."

"While the US has also formally blocked its allies from sharing US intelligence with Ukraine, two officials said that recipients with assets inside the country were likely to continue passing on relevant intelligence to Kyiv," FT adds.

But the report notes that allies are able to still provide "time-sensitive and high-value intelligence, such as that needed for Ukraine to conduct precision strikes on moveable Russian targets" - likely including assistance in the cross-border attacks using Western weaponry which have blown past Russia's red lines.

CIA Director confirms intelligence cut-off...

CIA Director John Ratcliffe just told @MariaBartiromo U.S. paused weapons shipments AND intelligence to Ukraine in the fallout of meeting in the Oval Office. Ratcliffe says he looks forward to lifting the pause and working with Ukraine towards peace following the letter to POTUS

— Edward Lawrence (@EdwardLawrence) March 5, 2025

Below are the key remarks of the CIA's Ratcliffe given to Fox News Wednesday morning

"Trump had a real question about whether President Zelensky was committed to the peace process, and he said let’s pause," Ratcliffe told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo in an interview on Wednesday.

"I want to give a chance to think about that and you saw the response that President Zelensky put out," Ratcliffe added, "So I think on the military front and the intelligence front, the pause that allowed that to happen, I think will go away."

Given how long NATO military and intelligence has been deeply embedded in Ukraine, helping build and improve its intelligence-gathering infrastructure, the flow of intel from the West is likely to continue for the time being. But certainly the US intelligence cut off will soon be felt by Kiev forces, and for now constitutes an even bigger blow on a symbolic level.

Meanwhile, CNN has separately detailed, "A senior US military official said the US has already curtailed some intelligence sharing, including carrying out fewer intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights that could impact both offensive and defensive operations including air defense, since Ukraine depends on US intelligence for overwatch." All of this could send Zelensky rushing to tell Washington he's ready to finalize a minerals deal, unless Europe has convinced him of an alternate plan - though the EU will unlikely be able to fill the defense and intelligence gap left by the US absence.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 09:40

"I Am Stunned" - SCOTUS Dissenters Rage As 'Liberals' Unfreeze $2BN USAID Foreign-Aid Payments

In a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court refused to bolster President Donald Trump’s foreign-aid freeze, reinstating a lower court order that requires the quick disbursement of as much as $2 billion owed to contractors for already completed work.

Over four dissents, the justices rejected Trump’s request to toss out the trial court order, which affects money owed by the US Agency for International Development and State Department. 

The dissent by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was extremely strongly worded:

Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?

The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.

I am stunned.

...

Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. 

The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. 

A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. 

Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. 

I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the liberal members of the court.  

The majority told the trial judge to reset the deadlines for paying the money since his original deadline has now passed.

This decision only affects completed work, not future freezes.

The ruling compels the Government to release funds for work that had already been completed before February 13, 2025. However, it does not block the administration from continuing to pause or cut future foreign assistance. Trump’s broader agenda of cutting USAID funding may continue for projects that were not yet underway.

Key Takeaways

• The ruling forces immediate payment of $2 billion for completed work but does not prevent broader USAID cuts.

• Future freezes and funding pauses are still possible but may face legal challenges under the APA.

• The ruling does not permanently restore funding, but it creates a legal pathway for future lawsuits if the Government halts disbursements unlawfully.

• Trump’s broader foreign aid policy remains largely intact, though judicial pushback may limit some of its implementation.

As Jonathan Turley notes;

The key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. What is clear is that there are four justices who were still prepared to do so and would obviously be likely to grant review in the next round.

That next round would come after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for March 6th.

It can then be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.

We cannot wait to see how Musk and Trump respond to this fucking farcical outcome...

*  *  *

Anza Knives are back In Stock! We just got a huge delivery (though just 2 Bowies left...)

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back, lifetime guarantee. If you're looking for a great daily carry, check this one out.

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/05/2025 - 09:08

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.