The End of the US Dollar as We Know It

 

For years I have written articles explaining how the US dollar and financial system is in a state of crisis and a collapse is inevitable—as early as 2016. Although I didn’t say it, I believed the collapse would occur in 2015. I was wrong and could be wrong again. However, a rapidly growing number of highly respected financial individuals and firms are saying the same thing, so I guess I am in good company. One of those institutions is Stansberry Research, whose founder has had an enviable record of forecasting major financial events.

 

The world has been on a spending binge by going into debt. That includes the US. Consider that:

·        In the six months that have passed since then-retiring House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cut a budget deal with President Barack Obama that suspended the legal limit on the federal debt until March 15, 2017, the federal debt has increased by more than $1 trillion.

 

·        It took the US 216 years to create the first $8.5 trillion in debt... then just 8 more years to double that amount.

 

·        The US National Debt, now at $19.26 trillion, is on schedule to nearly double during the Obama administration. 

·        If you include local, state, corporate and personal debt, Stansberry warns that our total debt is an unbelievable $65 trillion, up from $55 trillion in 2009.

·       Even more alarming is the realization that the Federal Reserve (Fed) is buying up to 70 percent of US Treasury Bonds with money it created out of thin air. That’s like loaning yourself a million dollars that you don’t have and never will.

  ·   Consider that the Fed literally increased the dollar money supply by 400 percent since 2006—again out of thin air. The adjacent graph shows what has taken place over the past few years with the U.S. dollar is something straight out of Weimar Germany... or the last 20 years in Zimbabwe

  ·   The number of families on food stamps has essentially doubled during the Obama administration.

  ·     Roughly 75% of all Americans live from paycheck to paycheck with essentially no savings.

  ·    “We're looking at a collapse in corporate bonds” claims Stansberry, “plummeting oil and commodity prices.”

·       Research shows the "too big to fail" banks, the top five largest financial institutions (the ones that were bailed out in 2008), are now 25% bigger than they were back then, and more dangerous than ever.

·       Private businesses have taken on more debt than any time in the past 12 years, and an incredible 863 companies that have had their credit rating downgraded last year... the most since 2009.

·       Globally since 2009 world debt has increased by $57 trillion. Twenty years ago global debt of the G20 was $40 trillion. It skyrocketed to $230 trillion today—nearly an 800 percent increase.

·    In recent months Stansberry has seen nearly $8 trillion disappear from world stock markets... and a whopping 70% of investors lost money in 2015. Even Warren Buffett lost $11 billion dollars.  

Lear Capital has been warning for more than a year that “something big” is about to happen. They provide a list of banks and financial institutions that are stockpiling massive amounts of gold and silver while telling their customers that investing in precious metals is not a good idea. Goldman Sachs and HSBC have both stockpiled 7.1 tons of gold by mid-summer, 2015. At $1268 per ounce (price on May 9, 2016), 7.1 tons is $263 million.

This is only a small part of the suicide cliff the US is racing towards. How did it happen? Stansberry states the obvious: “This is what happens when our government embarks on a gross, out-of-control experiment, expanding the money supply 400% in just six years, and more than doubling our national debt since 2006.”

American citizens may not know the details of the rot our politicians of both political parties have put us in. However, they know the ‘establishment’ is guilty of something massive. It is no wonder why the American people are rejecting ‘establishment’ candidates in this year’s presidential election.

Assuming Clinton and Trump will be the two candidates in the general election, which one would do better in minimizing the horrible consequences of a collapsing dollar and economy? Clinton seems more interested in women’s rights and big government, but has little experience dealing with hard financial issues. Trump has experience in business related financial issues but is constantly changing his mind on key problems impacting the nation. He has the best chance of getting the nation through this financial crisis, if he would stay on one path and not personally demonize those who disagree with him.

This is the choice you have. Choose wisely.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

Shocker: NASA and Columbia University Admitting CO2 has Benefits

NASA's depiction of the relative increase in earth's greening.
Notice that the Western US has greened by up to 50 percent.
Click on graphic to go to NASA article with larger picture.

For several decades now skeptics of man-caused (anthropogenic) global warming has a “fertilization” effect—it causes plants to grow faster and produce more leaves. Thousands of small enclosure experiments have shown this. However, global warming alarmists have ignored these research studies by claiming that increased disease, insects, drought, heat waves and other large-scale environmental downsides could negate the CO2 benefits. This has given the UN IPCC an excuse to ignore the benefits of CO2. Until now.

A new study published in Nature Climate Change on April 25, 2016 has blown this excuse out of the water and forced universities such as Columbia to acknowledge that CO2 does have real-world benefits. NASA agrees with them. The study involved 32 authors from 24 institutions collaborating with NASA to determine “leaf area index” for the past 35 years. Leaf area index is a relative index of the amount of leaf area in a particular location. The results are stunning as can be seen in the graphic at the top of the page.

The study revealed that 25-50 percent of the earth has experienced greening, of which at least 70 percent is attributed to increased CO2 in the form of CO2 fertilization. NASA puts this into perspective; “The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” In the U.S., the most stunning revelation is that the arid Western U.S. has shown up to a 50 percent increase in leaf area index. Why? The answer to this is found in another research study also reported in the same issue of Nature Climate Change.

Plants use water more efficiently with higher CO2

Columbia University reports a study published in Nature Climate Change involving 16 researchers from a half-dozen countries on the effects of CO2 on water-use efficiency with different temperatures and drought conditions. Prior small enclosure studies have shown that plants (and crops) exposed to higher levels of CO2 grow better in high temperature or drought conditions than those exposed to “ambient” (normal) levels of CO2. However, like the greening effect discussed above, proponents of CO2 “is an evil gas” did not want to hear this and developed a host of reasons why these results should be ignored. Hence, the IPCC and other promoters of man-caused global warming have ignored the benefits.

The current study undercuts those alarmists that have buried their heads in the sand. They have ignored the positive results of CO2 in helping plants to grow faster in higher temperature or drought conditions. This study not only reviewed decades of small enclosure studies, but also included emerging results from entire farm-field studies:

Based on the current biomass of these crops, water-use efficiency would rise an average of 27 percent in wheat; 18 percent in soybeans; 13 percent in maize; and 10 percent in rice. All things considered, the study projects that average yields of current rain-fed wheat areas (mostly located in higher latitudes including the United States, Canada and Europe), might go up by almost 10 percent, while consumption of water would go down a corresponding amount.

Imagine that. Crops would actually increase in biomass and food production with elevated CO2—something we have known for decades, but denied by politically correct, agenda driven politics. Even so, the study also found that irrigated wheat in China and India declined by 4 percent (perhaps a case of too much water?) and more study is needed for other crops.

While it is refreshing that an ultra-liberal university like Columbia finally acknowledges that CO2 can be beneficial, a disclaimer had to be written. Lead author Delphine Deryng, an environmental scientist at Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the University of Chicago’s Computation Institute dutifully cautions that the study should not be interpreted to mean that increasing carbon dioxide is a friend to humanity–only that its direct effects must be included in any calculation of what the future holds. Such a disclaimer makes the team eligible for the next $100,000 plus grant.

The point is that the politically correct UN, federal agencies and scientists have repressed this good news for decades in order for them to advance their agenda. That agenda includes income redistribution to developing nations and, more importantly, world government by controlling manufacturing and the economies of entire nations by controlling CO2 emissions. We in the USA have a chance of stopping this in our November elections. Vote wisely.