tv Keiser Report RT December 1, 2020 7:30am-8:01am EST
better because like, you know, my hair, the situation with my hair, 10 months until lot down people commented on it. a la in the comments on you tube and it's a big topic of discussion. stacy's hair should have its own twitter feed. right . speaking of twitter, i saw this little dialogue happened between andrew neil and danny blanchflower engineer as a b.b.c. presenter, i think he's now gone off on his own. is a journalist from the spectator and other, you know, right wing, conservative sort of press in the u.k. and any blanchflower was a member of the open market committee in the bank of england for many years. so ok, he's a bet. he's a central banker down, a blanchflower, and an economist, an academic at dartmouth. and i really like him because he's always so open and honest like he doesn't try to be depleted us about what they do as central bankers . he agrees with what we've said here on price report essentially. so andrew neil had 1st tweeted dinner tonight with somebody who thinks he's
a great market. do room said it is mad that the dow passed $30000.00 and current circumstances. i said no equity prices reflect future, not past 2021 will be a great rebound. i'm optimistic. u.k. stocks, especially under price. so engine yell like everybody else. what people are expected to do with the participants and economy are expected to do through fed speak through the fed manipulate in prices, is that they're supposed to think that these are the animal spirits. the fed tries to incur, well responded. actually, stocks are mostly being driven by global q e, quantitative easing, which really has one major purpose, which is to raise asset prices. we've been talking about this for a while day by far is one of the central bankers who speaks openly and honestly about what's going on here. so who governs business along over there in the u.k.?
doesn't want to recognize that stock prices are a function of money printing. in fact, how much our stock price is a function of money for entering. according to recent analysis, about 50 percent of the dow jones is attributable solely to money printing not from earnings, which are in fact going down. but from stock buybacks and other tricks accounting tricks. so this idea that somehow there's going to be a glory days ahead based on economic growth, is fallacious of best, and flower calls it out the way it is. that is for sure, this is all the product of money printing. i mean, it's amazing, like this is what we talk about. this is part of the problem that has been going on since 2008 since the 4th turning since the arrival of the new generation into the marketplace of jobs and the economy and they find out it's a burnt out wreck of cantillon effect and over priced assets, right that all the young people, the 20 year olds,
a 25 year olds having to enter the market with central bankers for the past 10 years, especially 12 years, especially have been pumping up asset prices. well, that locks out the young generation. so we're like, what good is that at the benefit of all the people who the boomers, especially who became of age, who came of age, got their 1st jobs, bought their 1st houses at the beginning of this cantillon effect at the beginning of this ponzi scheme. since $1071.00, when the u.s. went off the gold standard, so why you're trying to keep that pumped up instead of like, let it shift away from those who are elderly to those who are young and starting out right with the world. well, let's break this down a little bit. so if you are borrowing money from the bank to speculate in stocks, they'll lend you as much as you want trillions. in fact, if you're trying to borrow money from the bank to start a business, a family business, for example though, would build the klein, your loan. now what the economists will tell us is that they need to keep pumping money because they need to increase the play ssion. because for some reason,
there's not enough demand for credit out there. what they don't tell you is that when people come to the bank to demand credit or borrow money to start a business, a restaurant, a family restaurant, or a family business, the bank says no. and why does the bank say no? because they lend all the mot possible lending capacity, they have to speculators who are expecting laving in stocks, bonds and commodities in an almost no risk situation. because if they get any kind of a loss, of course, the state then bails them out. now what happens there is the case shaped recovery. bankers continue to improve, have seen this during lockdown. trillions of dollars have been made and everybody who's not getting the free money is of course, horribly suffering. so, and that's why we hear this all the time that they're trying to have the have an inflation target that they're trying to reach. that is constructed by the fact that
they do not lend to the folks that could actually increase the productivity of the economy. they only lend to the speculators. well, right. as dr. michael hudson has told the show, that's what after he was an academic, learned how to be an economist. and i was hired at. i think it was city banker or chase smith, chase bank and how and he said he went there thinking he was being a banker and lending to business and what he was surprised to learn at the end of the year. and he kept their balance of payments and their accounts, and you say we just lent 2 mortgages like we're property, speculation, business and, but that's what they did. they don't teach you that in business school. but speaking of speculation, this is a remarkable story because one thing we've, we've, we've been covering here on kaiser for years is that mad speculation and financialization of the oil market in the united states, whereby we pump oil and natural gas through fracking. and it has funny,
no matter how high or high the price of natural gas, no matter how price high the price of oil, it was always losing money. but interest rates kept on declining. more and more free money was being pumped into the economy. pension funds were having to chase yield wherever it was, and that was in these bonds in the fracking sector. well, saudi arabia bizarrely has the largest oil fields in the world. kawar has been pumping for like 50 years. and, you know, over the last few say the last decade they have, they're having to pump more more water in there to get more, more force, more and more oil out. but they have turned to financialization and got wrecked. i mean, this isn't saying the story. saudi aramco is landmark, i.p.o. is costing the kingdom billions, the initial public offering of saudi aramco, that was heralded by crown prince mohammed bin salman m.b.'s as being a showcase floatation for raising massive new capital for the kingdom. and anchoring a major expansion of its international equities. markets presence has proven only
to put iran co into a death spiral and highlighted a myriad of problems in saudi arabia to international investors. now iran co is digging itself further into serious debt through bond issuance is simply to pay for the huge dividend payments promised by m.p.'s that were absolutely required to persuade anyone to buy into the on the toxic i.p.o. . at this rate. the debt taken on by around co and other saudi bond offerings to pay for the dividends will be far more than the amount of money raised in the i.p.o. . right? so as you point out, this is the financialization has its limits. the accounting tricks of stock buybacks in money printing have their limits in saudi arabia. we see a brilliant example of what happens when a country decides to go into financialization, instead of what say diversifying into actual productive economic activities. so what the oil price down as it has been saudi aramco society do know, we don't want to accept the lower yields from our oil revenues. instead,
we're going to take this whole thing, public and parasols, a dividend. and that dividend will be better than the cheaply sourced revenues from our oil business, because the oil business is not for vibing, that same level of income. and by the way, they're already leveraged to begin with, and they needed income to pay down that debt to begin with. so they do the i.p.o. . what they find is that the dividend is unsustainable. saudi aramco, so to keep that cash flow going, they're going into the wholesale debt market. so to solve the debt problem, they went into an i.p.o. initial public offering, which has resulted in intensifying the debt problem. and this is the limits of financialization. it's similar to i.b.m. i.b.m. what back $130000000000.00 of its own stock in the companies now worth like $110000000000.00, right? so they bought themselves to death. they financed themselves to death. so saudi arabia has financed that some of into oblivion because they swallowed the
financialization kool-aid to the point now where the entire country is at risk of going under. because these princes that run the place never put a pencil to a spreadsheet and figured out that you cannot deck yourself into growth. well, in the fracking sector we have the red queen syndrome, whereby the oil wells deplete after a year or 2 here, their oil field is still go in 50 years later. but we have the bonsall prince syndrome where he can't add up. he can't figure this out, that he's, they're losing money on every barrel now because of financialization, and they're having to massively cut back cap ex and oil. the oil sector is one of the hugest in terms of capital expenditure required to keep these things going. so they're having to diversify, you know, get out of petrochemical business to cut back on their expenditure to pay these dividends, which is more than their profits they're making quarterly at the moment. exactly. right. you know, that's just that the accounting tricks that work for decades. working just like
burning, made off eventually, as he said, there is no innocent explanation for his ponzi scheme. the saudi arabian economy is an oil based ponzi scheme, based on ponzi scheme, underlying currency and an underlying global central bank led ponzi scheme. he's definitely managed to turn it into that like using financialization. well, speaking of, don't go away. we'll be back right after this. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy. let it be an arms race. really? i don't see how you sit down
the pandemic. no, certainly no borders and is blind to nationalities as americans, we don't come with the we don't have the facts in whole world needs to be judged as commentary classes. we can do better, we should everyone is contributing way. but we also know that this crisis not go on forever. the challenges create the response, has been so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are in it together.
welcome back to the kaiser report, imax keyser time. now to continue our conversation with safety. intimacy is the author of this instant classic debate. quite standard. read by billionaires around the world safety and welcome back. thank you for having me. max. how does it? how do you feel like when michael saylor over there, michael started, he says he read your book and then he bought 425000000 dollars of the big calling. it, did he call you up and send you over a fruit basket or something? no, he has a set me food basket, but you know, i don't eat fruits anyway. i only accept gifts in the form of reply. i regard as a let us price, solemnised over there. he's the c.e.o. . he's the 2nd or 3rd richest man in mexico. he said, oh i read safety book, that's why 10 percent of my liquid for portfolio is now in bitcoin as he sent you. let's say, you know something from mexico, not yet, not yet. he did only that, he'd like to see if i go to mexico some keeping that in mind, but yeah,
i'm obviously astounded to have to have so many people read my book. i've honestly did not think this would be the case when i was writing this book. i meant i thought it would be something that would be popular in small circles of bitcoin. twitter. i did not envision wall street titans and billionaires hitting me up on twitter and telling me, hey, that was a great book. but here we are friends. interesting because in the book came out, academics in the intelligentsia around the world were quick to be critical of the book because it did not go down the orthodoxy that they were brought up on. it was, of course heterodoxy, and i would judge that impact by a book of how it actually affects society. and by that measure at this book is all frick and awesome, you know, world changing book. all right, so you got a new book out called the fia standard, the debt slavery alternative to human civilization. i, i would have, i guess, is a companion book. you know that you got, i gather you have
a complete way to get your mom and dad bitcoin during thanksgiving. if you are christmas, if you've got a black belt and bitcoin, i'm ology by professor safety analysts. so let's talk about black rock. the largest asset manager in the world, they join j.p. morgan, the biggest bank in the war. they say that because it is displacing gold. do you think this is true? is gold 5000 year run over, as peter schiff about to perform serve only all separate coup in the middle of this trading floor? does because market caps own head truly and the dell, the safe did. it looks like it. i mean, this is the kind of crazy talk that only people like you and me were repeating on twitter a few years ago. now, all kinds of other less crazy people are repeating it. it seems, i think, i think the, the case for becoming to continue to grow is very compelling today because as near its all time high, i was almost at its all time high. and the fact that it had such
a massive crash and recovered, i think, is, is enormous. and having done it 3 times, it's going to start attracting real attention. i think the silly position of the academics you mentioned the ought to just dismiss it out of hand is i think neither the perfect complement to just how completely utterly insignificant the vast majority of academics are today. all of these people are just writing it for each other and with absolutely no relation to how the world is looking in the real world, i think. yeah, you know, gold is probably the new silver and if you know what i think about silver, i think silver is silver is been would be monetized, 450 years now. it's been crashing against gold for a 150 years and there's no way back from that because silvers main advantage was that it was used as a secondary scaling solution for gold at smaller levels. but then with the gold standard and then with the fiasco, all of that,
there was no use for it. so now there are a few people actually use silver as money. and those who do witness the value of their silver generally lose value over time. and i think when we might be seeing something similar with gold, because bitcoin has a higher stock flow than gold and gold is becoming the new silver. it's a higher stock to a lower stock of low now. and i think, you know, the way things are going a bit continues to appreciate. then gold effectively becomes cheaper in real terms, which makes it more economical to use it in industrial uses. and i know a lot of the gold bugs like to say, well, you know, we can make cufflinks out of our gold, as peter schiff says, or whatever. and they think that that's a good thing, but that is not a good thing. you don't want your money to have industrial uses in the ideal money has 0 industrial uses and is a purely monetary good. because the more industrial uses you have, the less of a market, the less of a monitoring medium you are actually using. and the more industrial uses you have,
the less, the lower the stuff to flow racial because because a lot of that stuff starts getting used up in jewelry and in industry and effectively it's like you've put it underground again. it's no longer part of the stock because you know, if you want to get gold out of electronics, you know, the cost of mining that is probably higher than the price of the cost of mining it out of the ground. so the more gold goes into industry, the lower the gold's stock, the flow racial becomes, and therefore it becomes more and more of an industrial metal. and, you know, when i, when i wrote the big points down, i was much less confident in this happening. but i think the last 23 years, you know, we see it continue to rise and gold continue to just essentially languish in this, you know, in this price range between 13 and 18 or 19 under whatever. and this continues for another 567 years. the gold will overtake bitcoin,
i think let me ask you this century professor and whatnot mises regression therapy . and it seems to think that, you know, you have to go backwards in time to a point where there was utility value and gold had utility value. and that's important, but it seems like it's that goes against mangas thought about having purely subjective value. and to your point, because because it doesn't really have any, you tell an evaluation other the fact that it's a perfect star about you. it's much more in keeping with the austrian school as originally envisioned by the founder of the austrian school. yes or no, i don't entirely because i think it goes along with both. and i think people misinterpret, amazes theorem as, as saying that this is how i think the important thing to keep in mind that with mrs there was throwing, she was showing how the market could produce a money without government having to mandate. and that was really the key point,
and so that's the, that's really the important point within that context. and so you could say that today, you know, bitcoin doesn't need to start off to bootstrap itself through the phase of going through being a market commodity 1st. in order to become money because we already have a money and so we can price bitcoin in money. but i think even, you know, you do, you don't have to go this far. i think there's a bit less of fear of still holds because bitcoin was not used as a medium of exchange in its 1st transaction. in the 1st one's actions because people were accumulating bitcoin and holding it and exchanging it for its own sake . not as a medium of exchange, so people were expanding processing power in order to buy bitcoin and then they kept their private keys on their computers. so they went through the cost of homesteading, bitcoin effectively in order to hold it. so that's a market that's
a good if you. but you know, if you, if it's actively can think about it as digital homesteading. you, you go to an empty land and you put a fence around it and you build your home and that becomes your land. because if nobody had claimed it, and now you've claimed and now it's become a scarce economic good that you own the same thing happened with bitcoin before because it was used as money. so then after about a year and a half of people trading bitcoin back and forth between january and may 28th, 2009 in may, 2010 may 2010 is when we 1st had somebody use bitcoin as a medium of exchange where somebody paid for those pizzas. so before that, bitcoin was a market good, people were buying bitcoin directly from one another. people were mining bitcoin and keeping it with one another. only after that did they use it as a medium of exchange? so i don't see how it contradicts mieses. there him and also doesn't contradict that because even though bit quinn has no industrial uses in the outside world, but one does have one non-monetary use,
which is you need bitcoin to pay the transaction fees of the bitcoin network. and that's the only, that's the only unsensible network in the world. so, you know, if it's, the suez canal have values the only place where you can go from europe to asia without having to go around africa. it's a scarce resource. and if you want to go through it, it's valuable, people pay for that, but what about this is being unimpeachable. the fact that big point separates money from the state, and that would seem to be in the history of money the 1st time we've really had that. and i mean, you could say gold is not necessarily bad gold. there are less a centralized by the state. your thoughts, you know, to be fair, like the gold under a gold coin standard before a gold standard than the one when, when people just using the physical coins, i was pretty decentralized. i think they, the more decentralized, the more you go back in history, the more decentralized it was,
anybody could make their own coins. and maybe the best example might be the islamic dinar of a decentralized currency because it was popular. it's still being used as been used or all over the world for around 1400 years now. and it's still a unit in which people actually conduct transactions. if you want to get married, are you pay your dowry in gold coins and a lot of transactions are being done in that islamic do not, which is a specific weight of gold that anybody can issue anywhere in any way you can verify anywhere on the seas not as easy to verify as it is with gold, as it is with bitcoin, but it was effectively decentralized. yes, islamic states where in charge of it and they minted in, they put sometimes they put the name of the caliph on it. but anybody could mint a coin like that in any way he could use it and it has been in use for 1400 years all over the world. so it's not entirely the bitcoin separates the money from the state money is existed before the state, but it separates this current iteration of money from the state because the state
was able to take it over because of its ability to clearance and settlement. the central banks. ok. speaking of states and other organizations and other world economic forum wants a great reset, is beginning it, they're going to get a bitcoin. that's what the coin does because it is the great reset. they just don't know it yet. what do they think they're going to get? i don't know. they want to give people a whole bunch of soil burgers and windmills and you know, test and trace and endless drugs and vaccinations and lockdowns and i'm not quite sure what they're trying to get at. it's a whole bunch of stupid, pseudo scientific ideas that are popular with people who have far more money than sense. somehow apparently, you know, using all these incredibly unreliable and extremely expensive sources of energy like solar and wind is somehow going to replace modern civilization which is reliant on hydrocarbons. good luck with that. i'd like to see somebody from the
people who wants to impose this greatly said go one year just one year without using any products from hydrocarbons. and then once they've completed and survived that year, and they can manage to get online without using hydrocarbons, they can send me an e-mail and tell me here i did it. and then i will, you know, i will gladly admit, i'm mistaken about this, but until then these people are just, so i'm just delusional. we can't get rid of all of those things. but a big point, standard image of twitter, where i've never read books anymore, is actually i book i read cover to cover. so i would imagine that the fear of standard sequel by safety analyst is equally compelling. now, how can i get my hands on it? i'm surprised, i don't have an advance copy right now. that was a glaring over oversight on the staffs part. but how can i get a copy? how can everyone get a copy of what's going on? well, if yes, that is not finished yet, i'm finalizing it as we speak, but you can subscribe on my website, say 15 dot com and you will be getting
a chapter from it every 2 weeks. and as i analyze it and put it into print, it'll be out in print around the middle of the 2021 until then i'm looking to be sending it out in email. so go to my website. if you do not subscribe and you'll get this book and you will also get my other book, which i've been working on for the last 2 years, principles of economics, a textbook in economics. and you will also get access to my 4 online courses in australia, economics as well, all of that on safety dot com for $15.00 a month or $100.00 a year. that's a fricken bargain. i can tell you that right now. anyway, saved a thanks so much for being comcast report as always. thank you so much for having me. max. always a pleasure. well, that's going to do it for this edition of kaiser report with me max hazare and stacey. i would like to thank our guests save data, most readers books because they stagger in the fair standard the next time they are .
we're segregated by social class, lower middle class people in poverty by 1st. if you're born into a poor family op, you're born into a minority family. if you're born into a family that only has a single parent that really constrains your life, chances people die. if you're born into generational poverty, it's a tough fight every day. soo meet your needs and the needs of your family. join me every thursday. and
or i'm a really shallow sea. and a landmark case in australia, authorities seize a child from parents who refuse consent for sex change treatment. we've put these issue up for discussion also this hour an investigative news website claims to have been blacklisted by british intelligence . after exposing government surveillance practices declassified u.k. says it's being targeted by g c, h q. i don't, we are the parents being born, but their rights are literally being stripped away from them. not somebody 15 or 16 making an informed, rational decision.
IN COLLECTIONSRussia Today Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on