Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter contends, “The entire system is based on debt.
The entire system is a liability. So, some people are getting some of their money out of the system into real money (gold and silver) which is no one else’s liability.
The biggest thing is there is too much debt in the system. Everybody owes everybody, and all you need is one link in the chain to break. All you need is one entity that cannot make good on what they promised.”
Are you being told there's a perfect storm converging on our financial lives from all sides?
Just at the credit cycle is peaking, the real economy from housing to retail and beyond is creaking and straining, the stock market is starting to roll over, President Trump and the Chinese are escalating a full-on trade war.
Add to this that China and Russia are pivoting at record speed away from the USD, dumping US treasuries, creating non-Dollar trade, and most ominously - hoarding gold as never before in history - all in preparation for what is coming.
Alasdair Macleod, head of research at GoldMoney.com, returns to Reluctant Preppers to report on the international economic trends and to ask, "What will you do if you wake up one morning and your the US Dollar isn't worth anything?"
Join us for this mind-opening examination of what comes next!
China’s state planner wants to ban bitcoin mining, according to a draft list of industrial activities the agency is seeking to stop in a sign of growing government pressure on the cryptocurrency sector.
China is the world’s largest market for computer hardware designed to mine bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, even though such activities previously fell under a regulatory grey area.
The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said on Monday it was seeking public opinions on a revised list of industries it wants to encourage, restrict or eliminate. The list was first published in 2011.
The draft for a revised list added cryptocurrency mining, including that of bitcoin, to over 450 activities the NDRC said should be phased out as they did not adhere to relevant laws and regulations, were unsafe, wasted resources or polluted the environment.
It did not stipulate a target date or plan for how to eliminate bitcoin mining, meaning that such activities should be phased out immediately, the document said. The public has until May 7 to comment on the draft.
State-owned newspaper Securities Times said on Tuesday that the draft list “distinctly reflects the attitude of the country’s industrial policy” towards the cryptocurrency industry.
Last week, the price of bitcoin soared nearly 20 percent in its best day since the height of the 2017 bubble, and breaking $5,000 for the first time since mid-November, though analysts and traders admitted that they were puzzled by the surge.
On Tuesday, bitcoin was trading at $5,190.
The cryptocurrency sectorhas been under heavy scrutiny in China since 2017, when regulators started to ban initial coin offerings and shut local cryptocurrency trading exchanges.
China also began to limit cryptocurrency mining, forcing many firms — among them some of the world’s largest — to find bases elsewhere.
Chinese companies are also among the biggest manufacturers of bitcoin mining gear, and last year three filed for initial public offerings in Hong Kong, looking to raise billions of dollars.
However, the two largest, Bitmain Technologies, the world’s largest manufacturer of bitcoin mining gear, and Canaan Inc, have since let their applications lapse.
People familiar with the deals said that Hong Kong regulators had many questions about the companies’ business models and prospects.
According to Canaan’s IPO prospectus filed last year, sales of blockchain hardware primarily for crypto currency mining in China were worth 8.7 billion yuan ($1.30 billion) in 2017, 45 percent of global sales by value.
The prospectus forecasts that sales in China would rise to 35.6 billion yuan by 2020.
With President Donald Trump’s apparent plans to nominate Stephen Moore and Herman Cain to the Federal Reserve Board, attention has turned once again to the gold standard, a policy option once advocated by both men. Trump himself has expressed admiration for the gold standard.
To be clear: I don’t at all favor a gold standard. Still, it is worth thinking about why anyone might ever have favored a gold standard, and what the case for one might look like. I am also somewhat of a natural contrarian, to put it mildly, and each time I see rude remarks about the gold standard I ask myself: Is it a completely crazy idea? Finally, and more generally, I don’t like the idea of twisting research knowledge to fit the preferred political message of the day.
Historical data indicates that industrial production volatility was not higher before 1914, when the U.S. was on the gold standard, compared to after 1947, when it mostly wasn’t. And there are similar results for the volatility of unemployment. That’s not quite an argument for the gold standard, but it should cause opponents of the gold standard to think twice. Whatever the imperfections of a gold standard might be, monetary authorities make a lot of mistakes, too.
Furthermore, in the broader historical context, including the more distant past, the gold standard doesn’t look so bad. The age of the gold standard (and sometimes silver standard, and sometimes bimetallism) in the 19th century was largely one of peace and economic growth, running from 1815 until World War I. The fiat money era that followed was a disaster, as the 1920s brought monetary chaos, competitive devaluations, and even some hyperinflations and deflations, a few of which were driven by the desire to restore the old gold par at incorrect rates. It would have been better had the world managed to keep its gold-centered monetary order of 1913.
Even the Bretton Woods arrangement, which has a good record in terms of stability and growth, involved gold convertibility of a sort, albeit with no domestic convertibility and lots of pressures to discourage actual conversion from foreigners. Once the tie of the dollar to gold broke entirelyin the early 1970s, inflation and interest rates were high and again monetary chaos followed. From the vantage point of, say, 1979, some form of gold standard really did seem better.
What was not obvious then was that monetary policy was going to be so good and so stable for the next four decades, albeit with a number of mistakes. Today’s case for the gold standard is based on the view that these recent decades of good fiat money management are a historical outlier and cannot be sustained. I don’t share that opinion, but neither do I think it is crazy or a sign of extreme ignorance.
So why don’t I favor a gold standard? First, governments have a long history of interfering with gold standards, for better or worse. So it doesn’t really remove politics from monetary policy. Second, central banks should respond with extreme countercyclical pressure when a financial crisis hits, such as in 2008. That is harder to do with a gold standard, and usually it requires the suspension of gold convertibility. Third, the price of gold is now greatly influenced by demand from China and India, and it seems unwise for that to partially drive what is in essence U.S. monetary policy. Most generally, I still think central bank governance can do a better job than a gold-based system that sometimes creates excess deflationary pressures.
Nonetheless, the contemporary world is always testing my belief in central banking. Exactly how will matters unfold when so many world leaders are not behaving as responsibly as they should? Might that irresponsibility seep into monetary policy? After all, populations are aging and debt is accumulating. Surely it is reasonable to worry that some of these governments will seek to monetize their debts and move toward excessively easy money.
Oh, but wait — I forgot one big new argument in favor of a gold standard: President Trump himself. Perhaps his management of central bank affairs is somewhat … erratic? Might it not be a good idea to have the operation of monetary policy protected by a greater reliance on rules? My personal preference is for a nominal GDP rule, but the irony is this: At the end of the day, the advocates of the gold standard, and their possible presence on the Federal Reserve Board, are themselves the best argument for … the gold standard.
Senior Analyst Jeff Clark knows the world of gold. Growing up in a mining family, he learned the best practices of investing in physical precious metals long ago.
So when it came time for him to store his own gold at home, he knew exactly how to go about it quietly, discreetly, and as safely as possible.
is to embrace sound money, gold.
has been arrested.
has been under heavy scrutiny in China since 2017, when regulators started to ban initial coin offerings and shut local cryptocurrency trading exchanges.
in China were worth 8.7 billion yuan ($1.30 billion) in 2017, 45 percent of global sales by value.
doesn’t look so bad. The age of the gold standard (and sometimes silver standard, and sometimes bimetallism) in the 19th century was largely one of peace and economic growth, running from 1815 until World War I. The fiat money era that followed was a disaster, as the 1920s brought monetary chaos, competitive devaluations, and even some hyperinflations and deflations, a few of which were driven by the desire to restore the old gold par at incorrect rates. It would have been better had the world managed to keep its gold-centered monetary order of 1913.
, he knew exactly how to go about it quietly, discreetly, and as safely as possible.
(or at least, within the U.S.), how do we get there?
and a crisis is ahead. 
.