Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts

Friday, February 24, 2017

Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia, and the Petrodollar

By Nick Giambruno

Obama pulled out his veto pen 12 times during his presidency. Congress only overrode him once. In late 2016, Obama vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The bill would allow 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts. With only months left in office, Obama wasn’t worried about the political price of opposing the bill. It was worth protecting Saudi Arabia and the petrodollar system, which underpins the US dollar’s role as the world’s premier currency.

Congress didn’t see it that way though. Those up for reelection couldn’t afford to side with Saudi Arabia over US victims. So Congress voted to override Obama’s veto, and JASTA became the law of the land. The Saudis, quite correctly, see this as a huge threat. If they can be sued in US courts, their vast holdings of US assets are at risk of being frozen or seized.

The Saudi foreign minister promptly threatened to sell all of the country’s US assets. Basically, Saudi Arabia was threatening to rip up the petrodollar arrangement, which underpins the US dollar’s role as the world’s premier currency.

Donald Trump and the Saudis

Unlike every president since the petrodollar’s birth, Donald Trump is openly hostile to Saudi Arabia.
Recently he put this out on Twitter:


Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected.

The dopey prince that Trump is referring to is Al-Waleed bin Talal, a prominent member of the Saudi royal family. He’s also one of the largest foreign investors in the US economy, particularly in media and financial companies. The Saudis openly backed Hillary during the election. In fact, they “donated” an estimated $10 million–$25 million to the Clinton Foundation, making them the most generous foreign donors. Besides Hillary Clinton, the single biggest loser from the US presidential election was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis did not want Donald Trump in the White House. And not because of some bad blood on Twitter. There are real geopolitical issues at stake. At the moment, Trump seems determined to walk back on US support for the so called “moderate” rebels in Syria.

The Saudis are furious with the US for not holding up its part of the petrodollar deal. They think the US should have already attacked Syria as part of its commitment to keep the region safe for the monarchy.
Toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a longstanding Saudi goal. But a President Trump makes that unlikely. That’s not good for Saudi Arabia’s position in the Middle East, nor its relationship with the US.
This is just one of the ways President Trump will hasten the death of the petrodollar.


Saudi Arabia, Islam, and Wahhabism

I loathe quoting a neoconservative historian like Bernard Lewis, but even a broken clock is right twice a day:


Imagine if the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nation obtained total control of Texas and had at its disposal all the oil revenues, and used this money to establish a network of well endowed schools and colleges all over Christendom peddling their particular brand of Christianity. This is what the Saudis have done with Wahhabism. The oil money has enabled them to spread this fanatical, destructive form of Islam all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the West. Without oil and the creation of the Saudi kingdom, Wahhabism would have remained a lunatic fringe in a marginal country.

This is actually an apt description of Wahhabism, a particularly virulent and intolerant strain of Sunni Islam most Saudis follow. ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and a slew of other extremists also follow this puritanical brand of Islam. That’s why Saudi Arabia and ISIS use the same brutal punishments, like beheadings.
Many Wahhabis consider Muslims of any other flavor—like the Shia in Iran, the Alawites in Syria, or non-Wahhabi Sunnis—apostates worthy of death.

In many ways, Saudi Arabia is an institutionalized version of ISIS. There’s even a grim joke that Saudi Arabia is simply “an ISIS that made it.” After living in the Middle East for three years, it’s clear to me that many people in the region despise everything about Wahhabism. Yet it flourishes in certain Sunni communities, among people who feel they have nowhere else to turn.

It’s also widely believed in the Middle East that Western powers deliberately fostered Wahhabism, to a degree, to keep the region weak and divided—and as a weapon against Shia Iran and its allies. That includes Syria and post-Saddam Iraq, which has shifted its allegiance towards Iran. Thanks to WikiLeaks we know the Saudi and Qatari governments, which are also the two largest foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation, willfully financed ISIS to help topple Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Julian Assange says the email revealing this is the most significant among the Clinton related emails his group has released.

Here’s an excerpt of the relevant interview with Assange:


Interviewer: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?
Julian Assange: Yes.
Interviewer: That’s extraordinary….

With all this in mind, Vladimir Putin opened an unusual conference of Sunni Muslim clerics recently. It took place in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, a Sunni Muslim region within Russia’s southwestern border.
The conference, which included 200 of the top non-Wahhabi Sunni Muslim clerics, issued an extraordinary statement labeling Wahhabism “a dangerous deformation” of Sunni Islam. These clerics carry serious weight in the Sunni world. The imam of Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque, one of the most important Islamic theological centers, was among them. (Egypt is the Arab world’s most populous Sunni country.)

Basically, Putin gathered the world’s most important non Wahhabi clerics to “excommunicate” the Saudis from Sunni Islam. In other words, Putin is going for the jugular of the petrodollar system. Russia and Saudi Arabia have been enemies for decades. The Russians have never forgiven Saudi Arabia (or the US) for supporting the Afghan mujahedeen that drove the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan. And they haven’t forgiven the Saudis for supporting multiple Chechen rebellions. As far as I know, the British writer Robert Fisk was the only Western journalist to cover this extraordinary conference.

Here’s Fisk:
Who are the real representatives of Sunni Muslims if the Saudis are to be shoved aside? And what is the future of Saudi Arabia? Of such questions are revolutions made.

If the Saudis are shoved aside, it could strike a fatal blow to the petrodollar system. The truth is, the petrodollar system is in its death throes. It doesn’t matter if the Saudis willfully abandon it, or if it crumbles because the kingdom implodes. The end result will be the same. Right now, the stars are aligning against the Saudi kingdom. This is its most vulnerable moment since its 1932 founding.

That’s why I think the death of the petrodollar system is the No. 1 black swan event for 2017

I expect the dollar price of gold to soar when the petrodollar system crumbles in the not-so-distant future. You don’t want to find yourself on the wrong side of history when that happens. But that brings up another crucial point.

There’s also likely to be severe inflation
The petrodollar system has allowed the US government and many Americans to live way beyond their means for decades. The US takes this unique position for granted. But it will disappear once the dollar loses its premier status.

This will likely be the tipping point….

Afterward, the US government will be desperate enough to implement capital controls, people controls, nationalization of retirement savings, and other forms of wealth confiscation. I urge you to prepare for the economic and sociopolitical fallout while you still can. Expect bigger government, less freedom, shrinking prosperity and possibly worse. It’s probably not going to happen tomorrow. But it’s clear where the trend is headed. It is very possible that one day soon, Americans will wake up to a new reality.

Once the petrodollar system kicks the bucket and the dollar loses its status as the world’s premier reserve currency, you will have few, if any, options. The sad truth is, most people have no idea how bad things could get, let alone how to prepare. Yet there are straightforward steps you can start taking today to protect your savings and yourself from the financial and sociopolitical effects of the collapse of the petrodollar.

This recently released video will show you where to begin. Click here to watch it now.


The article Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia, and the Petrodollar was originally published at caseyresearch.com




Stock & ETF Trading Signals



Monday, October 10, 2016

One Giant Powder Keg… and the Fuse is Already Lit

By Nick Giambruno

Their mission was to capture, or more likely, kill. Dozens of renegade commandos in three Blackhawk helicopters swooped in on the holiday residence of the president. Immediately, they engaged in a fierce gun battle with the president’s bodyguards and killed a number of them. Tourists in a nearby five-star resort fled for their lives. Their idyllic vacations had turned into a war zone in the blink of an eye.

The president, however, was nowhere to be found. He had been tipped off about the plot and made it to the safety of his private jet. He had cheated death by mere minutes. The renegade soldiers got wind of the escape. They commandeered a couple of F16 fighter jets and sent them to the skies to shoot down the presidential jet. Aware the rebel F16s were hunting them, the president’s pilots were able to obfuscate the identity of their aircraft by altering the jet’s transponder signal.

The transponder is an electronic signal that shows an aircraft’s identity. It’s used by air traffic controllers to keep track of planes in the air. Somehow, the pilots of the presidential jet were able to set their transponder signal to make it appear as if they were instead a civilian passenger jet. The confused rebel fighter jets ran out of fuel and had to return to base before they figured out what happened.

The president had cheated death for the second time that day. This story sounds like something out of a Tom Clancy novel or a Hollywood blockbuster. But it’s not. It happened in real life earlier this summer. In Turkey.
The country is one giant powder keg and the fuse is already lit. When the next global crisis explodes, there’s a good chance Turkey will be involved somehow.

Turkey was founded from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. It’s where Europe meets Asia. Today, it’s at the epicenter of many crises that are destabilizing the world the migrant disaster in Europe, the ongoing carnage in Iraq and Syria, the battle with ISIS, a conflict with the Kurds, and the new Cold War with Russia. It could soon also play a big role in the collapse of the world’s largest economy, the European Union (EU).

It’s hard to think of another place that has more tripwires for a global meltdown. In light of all these potential triggers as well as the recent failed military coup d’état that killed over 290 people, I thought it was time to take a closer look at Turkey. Doug Casey and I just returned from the crisis stricken country, the latest destination we visited with (literal) blood in the streets.

We put our boots on the ground in the same area where that hit squad of rebel soldiers nearly assassinated Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president. (In addition to all of the crises listed above, the Turkish military had invaded northern Syria just before our arrival.)

Perhaps most importantly, Turkey is at the heart of the migrant crisis that is tearing Europe apart. The migrant crisis will be one of the main issues on the minds of Italians as they vote in the upcoming referendum, which could very well decide the fate of the EU and the euro currency. That’s why I’ve spent weeks on the ground in Italy, watching these events unfold.

The Financial Times commented on what would happen if the Italian referendum fails:


It would probably lead to the most violent economic shock in history, dwarfing the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 and the 1929 Wall Street crash.

Like with the Brexit vote, the migrant issue and by extension Turkey may determine the outcome of the Italian referendum on December 4, 2016.


Turkey Holds the Keys to the EU’s Future

Parroting U.S. concerns about democracy and human rights, the EU has also harshly criticized Turkey’s response to the failed coup. This hasn’t endeared them to the Turkish government. It’s actually incredibly stupid for the Europeans. And by stupid I mean exactly that an unwitting tendency toward self destruction. The Europeans fail to see the indirect and delayed consequences of their decision to antagonize the Turkish government.

That’s because the Turkish government holds the trump card on what is perhaps the most explosive political issue on the continent right now: the migrant crisis. Concerns about the unprecedented flow of migrants into Europe over the past couple of years played a key role in the Brexit vote. It’s also acting as a political accelerant to the rise of anti-EU parties all over Europe. It’s a simple relationship. The more migrants come to Europe, the more popular anti-EU political parties become, and the weaker the EU itself becomes.

This is where Turkey holds the keys to the future political landscape of Europe. Turkey is a major transit point migrants use on their way to Europe. The Turkish government doesn’t want the migrants to stay in Turkey, so they haven’t really had much of a reason to stop them from leaving for Europe. They even enjoyed the situation because it gave them negotiating leverage with Brussels. The Turks essentially said “give us what we want or we’ll open the floodgates.”

What the Turks want is lots of money and to join the Schengen visa free zone, which allows unfettered access to most of Europe. Brussels partially gave in to the blackmail. They started giving the Turks money to the tune of $6 billion and agreed to hold talks about getting visa-free access to the continent. In return, the Turks would cut off the flow of migrants.

For a while this arrangement worked. But after the attempted coup and then the purge of suspected putschists, the EU cried foul. They deemed the purges to be an erosion of democracy and the rule of law.
They basically told the Erdogan government it can forget about joining the Schengen zone.

Unsurprisingly, the Turkish government not so subtly warned that if the EU walks away from its part of the deal, so will it. Specifically, the Turkish government has threatened to open the migrant floodgates just in time for the Italian referendum and other key European elections. The Italian referendum could very well lead to the end of the euro and the EU itself, while triggering a global financial meltdown of historical proportions.

Turkey sending a new wave of migrants into Europe just before this key vote will help seal its fate.
There are potentially severe consequences in the currency and stock markets. That’s exactly why I recently spent weeks on the ground in Italy getting the scoop on this explosive story that almost nobody else is talking about.

New York Times best selling author Doug Casey and I just released an urgent video with all the details.
Our video reveals how a financial shock far greater than 2008 could strike America on December 4th, 2016. And how it could either wipe out a big part of your savings or be the fortune building opportunity of a lifetime. 

The video describes specific ways to profit as well as which stocks to avoid like radioactive waste. You can get a first look at this video by clicking here.




Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Monday, January 4, 2016

How Saudi Arabia and OPEC are Manipulating Oil Prices

About eighteen months ago the international price of WTI Crude Oil, at the close of June 2014, was $105.93 per barrel. Flash forward to today; the price of WTI Crude Oil was just holding above $38.00 per barrel, a drastic fall of more than 65% since June 2014. I will point out several reasons behind this sharp, sudden, and what now seems to be prolonged slump.
Chart 1

The Big Push

Despite a combination of factors triggering the fall in prices, the biggest push came from the U.S. Shale producers. From 2010 to 2014, oil production in the U.S. increased from 5,482,000 bpd to 8,663,000 (a 58% increase), making the U.S. the third largest oil-producing country in the world. The next big push came from Iraq whose production increased from 2,358,000 bpd in 2010 to 3,111,000 bpd in 2014 (a 32% increase), mostly resulting from the revival of its post war oil industry.
The country-wide financial crunch, and the need for the government to increasingly export more to pay foreign companies for their production contracts and continue the fight against militants in the country took production levels to the full of its current capacity. In addition; global demand remained flat, growing at just 1.1% and even declining for some regions during 2014. Demand for oil in the U.S. grew just 0.6% against production growth of 16% during 2014.
Europe registered extremely slow growth in demand, and Asia was plagued by a slowdown in China which registered the lowest growth in its demand for oil in the last five years. Consequently, a global surplus was created courtesy of excess supply and lack of demand, with the U.S. and Iraq contributing to it the most.

The Response

In response to the falling prices, OPEC members met in the November of 2014, in Vienna, to discuss the strategy forward. Advocated by Saudi Arabia, the most influential member of the cartel, along with support from other GCC countries in the OPEC, the cartel reluctantly agreed to maintain its current production levels. This sent WTI Crude Oil and Brent Oil prices below $70, much to the annoyance of Russia (non-OPEC), Nigeria and Venezuela, who desperately needed oil close to $90 to meet their then economic goals.
For Saudi Arabia, the strategy was to leverage their low cost of production advantage in the market and send prices falling beyond such levels so that high cost competitors (U.S. Shale producers are the highest cost producers in the market) are driven out and the market defines a higher equilibrium price from the resulting correction. The GCC region, with a combined $2.5 trillion in exchange reserves, braced itself for lower prices, even to the levels of $20per barrel.

The Knockout Punch

By the end of September 2014, according to data from Baker Hughes, U.S. Shale rigs registered their highest number in as many years at 1,931. However, they also registered their very first decline to 1,917 at the end of November 2014, following OPEC’s first meeting after price falls and its decision to maintain production levels. By June 2015, in time for the next OPEC meeting, U.S. Shale rigs had already declined to just 875 by the end of May; a 54% decline.
usshale
The Saudi Arabia strategy was spot on; a classic real-life example of predatory price tactics being used by a market leader, showing its dominant power in the form of deep foreign-exchange pockets and the low costs of production. Furthermore, on the week ending on the date of the most recent OPEC meeting held on December 4th, 2015, the U.S. rig count was down even more to only 737; a 62% decline. Despite increased pressure from the likes of Venezuela, the GCC lobby was able to ensure that production levels were maintained for the foreseeable future.

Now What?

Moving forward; the U.S. production will decline by 600,000 bpd, according to a forecast by the International Energy Agency. Furthermore, news from Iraq is that its production will also decline in 2016 as the battle with militants gets more expensive and foreign companies like British Petroleum have already cut operational budgets for next year, hinting production slowdowns. A few companies in the Kurdish region have even shut down all production, owing to outstanding dues on their contracts with the government.
Hence, for the coming year, global oil supply is very much likely to be curtailed. However, Iran’s recent disclosure of ambitions to double its output once sanctions are lifted next year, and call for $30 billion in investment in its oil and gas industry, is very much likely to spoil any case for a significant price rebound.
The same also led Saudi Arabia and its GCC partners to turn down any requests from other less-economically strong members of OPEC to cut production, in their December 2015, meeting. Under the current scenarios members like Venezuela, Algeria and Nigeria, given their dependence on oil revenues to run their economies, cannot afford to cut their own production but, as members of the cartel, can plea to cut its production share to make room for price improvements, which they can benefit from i.e. forego its market share.

It’s Not Over Until I’ve Won

With news coming from Iran, and the successful delivery of a knockout punch to a six-year shale boom in the U.S., Saudi Arabia feared it would lose share to Iran if it cut its own production. Oil prices will be influenced increasingly by the political scuffles between Saudi Arabia and its allies and Iran. The deadlock and increased uncertainty over Saudi Arabia and Iran’s ties have sent prices plunging further. The Global Hedge Fund industry is increasing its short position for the short-term, which stood at 154 million barrels on November 17th, 2015, when prices hit $40 per barrel; all of this indicating a prolonged bear market for oil.
One important factor that needs to be discussed is the $1+ trillions of junk bonds holding up the shale and other marginal producers. As you know, that has been teetering and looked like a crash not long ago. The pressure is still there. As the shale becomes more impaired, the probability of a high yield market crash looks very high. If that market crashes, what happens to oil?  Wouldn’t there be feedback effects between the oil and the crashing junk market, with a final sudden shutdown of marginal production? Could this be the catalyst for a quick reversal of oil price?
The strategic interests, primarily of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia; the Saudis have strategically decided to go all in to maintain their market share by maximizing oil production, even though the effect on prices is to drive them down even further. In the near term, they have substantial reserves to cover any budget shortfalls due to low prices. More importantly, in the intermediate term, they want to force marginal producers out of business and damage Iran’s hopes of reaping a windfall due to the lifting of sanctions. This is something they have in common with the strategic interests of the U.S. which also include damaging the capabilities of Russia and ISIS. It’s certainly complicated sorting out the projected knock-on effects, but no doubt they are there and very important.    

I’ll Show You How Great I Am

Moreover, despite a more than 50% decline in its oil revenues, the International Monetary Fund has maintained Saudi Arabia’s economy to grow at 3.5% for 2015, buoyed by increasing government spending and oil production. According to data by Deutsche Bank and IMF; in order to balance its fiscal books, Saudi Arabia needs an oil price of$105. But the petroleum sector only accounts for 45% of its GDP, and as of June 2015, according to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, the country had combined foreign reserves of $650 billion. The only challenge for Saudi Arabia is to introduce slight taxes to balance its fiscal books. As for the balance of payments deficit; the country has asserted its will to depend on its reserves for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

The above are some of the advantages which only Saudi Arabia and a couple of other GCC members in the OPEC enjoy, which will help them sustain their strategy even beyond 2016 if required. But I believe it won’t take that long. International pressure from other OPEC members, and even the global oil corporations’ lobby will push leaders on both sides to negotiate a deal to streamline prices.
With the U.S. players more or less out by the end of 2016, the OPEC will be in more control of price fluctuations and, therefore, in light of any deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia (both OPEC members) and even Russia (non-OPEC), will alter global supply for prices to rebound, thus controlling prices again.
What we see now in oil price manipulation is just the mid-way point. Lots of opportunity in oil and oil related companies will slowly start to present themselves over the next year which I will share my trades and long term investment pays with subscribers of my newsletter at The Gold & Oil Guy.com
Chris Vermeulen





Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Origins and Strategy of the Islamic State

By John Mauldin

Today’s Outside the Box is from my good friend George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures. George, who founded the well known Stratfor, is one of the world’s top geopolitical forecasters. I’m very excited to welcome him as a Contributing Editor for Mauldin Economics.

Starting today and every Monday, we’ll publish a regular feature from George called This Week in Geopolitics. In this weekly letter written for Mauldin Economics, George will highlight the top international events that investors and those with an interest in geopolitics should monitor. I am amazed by how quickly George slices through the media’s superficial stories to reveal what is really important.

What you read in This Week in Geopolitics will be a small sample of the research George and his team publish. His Geopolitical Futures premium service is off to a great start and I highly recommend you try it. We have a special offer for Mauldin Economics readers. Click here for details.

As a reminder, I interviewed George in last week’s Thoughts from the Frontline. He had some fascinating thoughts on the connection between politics and economics, the European refugee crisis, China’s economic future and more. Click here to read it.

Today he examines the origins of ISIS and looks at why they see their behavior as rational. It is a disturbing viewpoint, and not one that will make us comfortable, but we do need to understand this. And it highlights the almost no-win position that the United States and the rest of the world (specifically the Middle East) is in.
In order to make sure this gets out Monday evening, I need to go ahead and hit the send button without further comment so…. with that, let’s go straight to George’s first weekly contribution.

[Editor’s note: if for some reason you do not want to receive George’s new letter each week, click here and we’ll take you off the distribution list.]

Your watching the world closer with George analyst,
Each week, John Mauldin highlights a thoughtful, provocativeessay from a fellow analyst or economic expert. Some will inspire you. Some will make you uncomfortable. All will challenge you to think outside the box.

Origins and Strategy of the Islamic State

By George Friedman for Mauldin Economics
Al-Qaida struck the United States on September 11, 2001 in order to pave the way for the caliphate, a multinational Islamic state governed by a caliph. From Osama Bin Laden’s point of view, the Christian world—as he thought of Euro-American civilization—had made a shambles of the Muslim world. Most Muslim lands had been occupied or controlled by Christians. After World War I the British and French, in particular, had reshaped these lands to suit them. They invented new countries that had never existed before like Jordan, Lebanon, and (in their minds) Israel and installed rulers on others, such as the Saudis in the Arabian Peninsula.

After World War II, the United States inherited a world the British had largely created. Where the British were the architects of this world, the Americans became its maintenance men. Since the Americans were caught up in a Cold War with the Soviets, the Soviets sought to create pro-Soviets as well. A new wave of rulers arose under Soviet tutelage. These were secularists, socialists, and militarists imposing military regimes.

Men like Gamal Abdul Nasser in Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Hafez al-Assad in Syria were all Soviet allies. They were despised by Islamists, as were the monarchies allied with the Americans. The secular Arab rulers were simply apostates. The monarchies, like Saudi Arabia, were corrupt hypocrites—formally Muslim but clinging to the Christians (now the Americans) for power and safety.

Al-Qaida did not yet exist, but there were those who dreamed of reclaiming the lands, expelling the apostates and hypocrites, and creating the caliphate. These men had learned the art of war under American tutelage in Pakistani camps after being recruited by the Saudis. They believed they had destroyed the Soviets and, as a result, destroyed the Soviet Union. True or not, this is what they believed.

When the Soviet Union fell, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the Saudis asked the American Christians to save them. Men who had fought in Afghanistan held the Saudis in contempt and were enraged by the Americans. To a great extent, the Americans were unaware of the response. The men they had trained for war in Afghanistan now saw the Americans as an obstacle to the caliphate.

This is the soil that gave rise to al-Qaida. Al-Qaida’s primary goal was to overthrow one of the secular or hypocritical regimes, create a Sharia-based caliphate, and use it as a base for creating a broader, transnational entity. Al-Qaida actually means “the base” in Arabic. It had excellent relations in Afghanistan, given the role it played there, but Afghanistan was too backward and geographically isolated to be the caliphate’s capital. It instead became the base where al-Qaida would begin the war.

In al-Qaida’s analysis, the weak and corrupt Islamic regimes could be overthrown, but the Muslim masses were inert, beaten into submission by Europeans and Americans, and convinced of American invincibility. They had no love for the Americans outside of some of the regimes, but saw their cause to be hopeless.

Al-Qaida needed to convince the masses that America was both vulnerable and hostile to Islam. It sought to strike the United States in a way that the Muslim world would take startled note, and that would compel America to go to war in the Muslim world. Al-Qaida’s experience in Afghanistan convinced it that the United States, caught in a war of attrition regardless of casualties, would eventually withdraw. The September 2001 attacks were meant to draw the Americans into combat but, even more, to convince the Muslim world that Muslims could strike at the heart of America, and then, when the Americans invaded, encourage Muslims to rise up in a long war America couldn’t win.

Part of the strategy worked, part of it didn’t. The attacks did galvanize the Muslim world. The United States showed itself to be Islam’s enemy by invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. The Muslim world saw that Muslims could fight Americans and not suffer defeat like the Jews had defeated the apostate Nasser’s army in 1967.

What did not happen was the essential step. While war raged in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no uprising elsewhere in the Islamic world. When there were uprisings, as during the Arab Spring, they were put down (Egypt) or left in unending civil war (Syria and Libya). There was no foundation created for the caliphate, and over time American intelligence whittled down al-Qaida.

Others stepped into the vacuum as al-Qaida declined. Their opening occurred in Iraq and Syria. The Arab Spring in 2011 created an uprising against Bashar al-Assad, son of Hafez. Like much of the Arab Spring, the public faces of the protests were secular liberals, but they were unable to overthrow Assad. The resulting chaos and stalemate opened one door to al-Qaida’s heir.

At the same time, the U.S. decision to withdraw from Iraq, first made by George W. Bush and accelerated by Barack Obama, allowed a Shiite government to take power there. This forced their enemies, the Sunnis, back against the wall. Al-Qaida was Sunni and regarded Shiite Iran as an enemy. The rise of a Shiite government in Baghdad left the Iraqi Sunnis nowhere to go. It was out of this that the Islamic State arose. Syria and especially Iraq were its recruiting office and its battle ground.

Al-Qaida wanted an uprising in an existing country, but IS had a different strategy. Rather than overthrowing an existing government, it decided to create the state in a region that paid no attention to existing borders. Its goal, unlike al-Qaida’s, was to hold territory in which the caliph could rule and from which it could expand and guide the caliphate’s extension into noncontiguous Muslim lands.

The IS goal, therefore, was not to strike at the Americans as al-Qaida did. The 9/11 strikes had done their work. Their job was to create an area ruled under Sharia law with a governmental structure, financial system, welfare system, and the other things a state needs. In addition, and before this, IS had to create a military force that could take and seize land against the weak opposition it would face in Iraq and Syria.

The first step in the Islamic State’s strategy, therefore, was to put the caliphate before everything by taking control of substantial and contiguous territory. IS did this by carrying out a series of extremely competent military operations, seizing Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq as well as Palmyra in Syria. The result was a new state, no less artificial than those countries the British and French created after World War I, and governed from the capital in Raqqa.

In carrying out this operation, IS deliberately created a series of highly publicized atrocities. There were two reasons for this. The first was to intimidate the new Islamic State’s population. This region consisted of a wide variety of groups, many potentially hostile to the new state. The ruthless acts served to make clear to the population that IS was not merely claiming control of the region, but was in sufficient control that it was indifferent to what the outside world thought.

Having fought the Americans, IS knew that apart from special operations teams (the principle threat to IS in both Afghanistan and Iraq) which could not by themselves threaten the existence of IS, the United States took months to deploy forces. IS needed to show not only how ruthless it was, but that it would not be challenged as a result.


The second reason for creating this core was to lure the Americans into attacking it. The United States had grown wary of occupation warfare that required deploying a military force against scattered and persistent guerilla operations.

The Islamic State presented, and was, precisely the type of force the United States should be comfortable attacking. First, it occupied a clearly defined territory. Second, it contained a conventional military force. IS was not a guerilla organization or terrorist group, although it had elements capable of both kinds of operations.

The size of IS’ main military force (a force large enough to seize, occupy, and defend an area as large as some countries in the region) meant it could not be a guerrilla force. It appeared to be a mobile infantry force, moving by foot and truck, armed with infantry weapons as well as some small artillery and anti-tank weapons.

The exact size of IS forces remains a mystery, and that is a testament to its skills at camouflaging its activities from the ground to the electromagnetic sphere. Estimates of the size of its armed and trained force range from 20,000 to 200,000. Based on the extent of its frontiers and the casualties it seems to have taken, I estimate the force at about 100,000.

This, of course, leaves another mystery: where this force was trained—since training even 20,000 is a conspicuous activity. Units must train together to be effective. There are many mysteries about IS for which there is no consensus save educated guesses. We know the extent of its power. We know when this frontier is attacked, the attacker tends to encounter resistance. Beyond that, IS has protected its capabilities professionally.

Given all this, it would appear to be ripe for attack by American forces, which excel at this kind of warfare. That is precisely what IS wants. There has been much talk about IS believing that an apocalyptic battle must take place in order to establish the caliphate. This is a metaphysical concept on which I have no opinion.

However, from a political and military point of view, the caliphate must be founded on a decisive battle that forces capitulation from its main enemy. This would convince the US to respect the caliphate and the caliphate’s citizens to respect the power of the state. By this I don’t mean the guerrilla wars in which the conventional force simply withdraws; I mean a battle in which the enemy is defeated in detail.

The Americans prefer conventional attacks with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. IS engaged and destroyed a Syrian armored brigade with anti-tank weapons. The United States uses air strikes and helicopters. IS may have man-portable surface-to-air missiles (and should have them from whatever source it secured the anti-tank missiles).

IS has a major advantage in one thing: the US is casualty averse. The US has a force operating at a distance for reasons that impact national security but don’t pose a direct threat to the homeland. Therefore, the American appetite for more serious military intervention is extremely limited. IS needs a decisive battle at any cost. Weapons aside, the outcome of this battle matters far more to IS than to the United States, and therefore IS’ threshold for pain is far higher.

The caliphate, having been established, must now be defended. It must be a territory and not a hideout, it must be coherent and not scattered tracts, and it must be defensible regardless of the cost. Having established its frontiers, the Islamic State intends to use minimal force to defend against minor attacks, as the Syrian Kurds carried out recently.

Most impressive about IS is its ability to retreat, regroup, and strike elsewhere. That is the measure of a military force. For example, the Americans proved themselves at the Battle of the Bulge when having been sent reeling, they regrouped, reinforced and struck back. It is in defeat that I judge a military force, and IS has handled defeat well. But we should also remember that IS will not waste force on marginal threats.

For IS, the main threat will come from the Americans and therefore it must preserve the ability to fight U.S. forces. Some point out that IS has been under pressure from all sides. This is because its leaders understand the maxim that he who defends everything defends nothing.

But the Americans have not come. Nor have other enemies like the Iranians or Israelis. Nor for that matter have the Turks. No one wishes to engage IS while it is on the defensive and at its best. There are many reasons, but the heart of the matter is that the battle, if lost, would be devastating for Americans, and if won by them opens the door to occupation warfare, as did the defeat of the Iraqi army in 2003.

IS must hold to save the caliphate now or, if it loses this battle, wait and fight another. And if the Americans don’t come and IS holds its territory, then IS can choose the time and place for its next strategic offensive.

Assuming that IS has 100,000 troops, the US must bring a force of 300,000 to bear under the old (and perhaps obsolete) rule of 3 to 1 on the offensive. It took six months to prepare for Desert Storm and longer for Iraqi Freedom with far fewer troops than 300,000. The terrain is desert, and supply lines will run from ports that have to be secured, along with roads that could be filled with IEDs. For the Americans, the logistics would be as tough as the battle.

Logically, the best course for the United States is not to engage. IS is beginning to realize this and seemingly prefers to force a battle. That is why we are beginning to see terrorist actions flaring in Western countries. The lesson al-Qaida taught IS is that the Americans have a threshold and that if you cross it, they will react dramatically.

Therefore, it appears to me that IS is searching for that threshold and probing to see responses. Attacks like the ones in Paris last month were not in response to French involvement in the region. These attacks are unconnected to that, but are designed to be as terrifying as possible—both in their suddenness and brutality—and compel a response.

It is odd to argue that someone wants to be attacked by the US. But IS needs the attack and also believes it can at least survive and likely defeat the Americans. It is clear that other countries in the region are steering clear of IS, and it is clear that President Obama is doing everything he can not to engage IS on the ground.

And it is clear that IS is doing what it can to drag the Americans deeper into the conflict. If the Americans don’t come, and no one else comes, the psychological demonstration might not take place - but the caliphate will exist. On the whole, IS has the strategic advantage in multiple ways. It behaves in its territory as if it intends to stay a long time.

Like Outside the Box?

Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox. It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.




Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!


Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Doug Casey on ISIS, Gold, Crude Oil, and What to Expect in 2015

By Louis James, Chief Metals & Mining Investment Strategist

Today's feature is a special treat: a peek into the brain of one of the most successful speculators of all time. In what follows, Doug Casey talks to Louis James about what to expect in 2015. Doug weighs in on today's most important issues, including ISIS, oil, Putin, and the stock market. He even sticks his nose out to make a bold call on gold.

This (usually subscriber only) content originally appeared in The Casey Report.......Enjoy!

Louis James: It’s been a long, eventful quarter since we last spoke, Doug. What’s most on your mind as 2014 draws to a close and we look ahead to 2015?

Doug Casey: Let’s start with gold, since that’s the main focus we’ve had for so long. The Swiss gold reserve referendum just went down in flames, of course, and that was a big disappointment to many.

L: Really? I don’t know anyone who was surprised.

Doug: Well, surprise and disappointment aren’t the same thing. I’m constantly disappointed by how stupid people are, but I’m never surprised by it. There were early signs of support for the measure, but the powers that be mounted an immense propaganda campaign against it, and they succeeded. I hear that the balance sheet of the Swiss central bank has expanded faster than that of any other central bank in the world—

L: Whoa—that would explain a lot.

Doug: Yes. Relying on the Swiss franc to preserve your capital today is like relying on Swiss banks to preserve your privacy. Only fools would trust in either at this point. Despite that, Switzerland may still be sounder than any other country in Europe—which is really saying something about how bad things have gotten in Europe.

L: I’ve learned from you, Doug, not to pay too much attention to gold’s daily fluctuations, but I have to say that it was a singular day the Monday after the Swiss referendum failed. Gold dropped like a rock the moment it started trading, but quickly reversed and kept rising and rising all day long, making an $80/ounce swing from trough to peak. Did you notice that, and what do you make of it?

Doug: I suspect short covering; too many people were short because they expected the referendum to fail and then had to cover. Those inclined toward conspiracy theories may say that the initial retreat was “da boys” hitting the paper gold market with thousands of gold contracts in the middle of the New York night—timed perfectly to coincide with the Swiss vote. If there were any truth to that, the people promoting the notion would all be billionaires. But they’re not.

L: I understand your position that it could have been private players doing the same thing for profit, but let’s suppose for a moment that the government conspiracy is real. If so, the fact that gold buyers swamped the selling and pushed the price higher that day shows that the conspirators can at most influence gold, not control its price, and there’s hope in that.

Doug: I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories regarding gold price suppression. There’s zero credible evidence for it, and I’m embarrassed having to discuss the subject with outsiders who have heard it; for them it’s more evidence that gold investors all wear tinfoil hats. The fact is the government doesn’t care about gold; they really do think it’s a barbarous relic that should be used to plate urinals, as Lenin supposedly suggested. They don’t care about its price, and even less about that of silver. That said, I’ll stick my nose out and say that I think the bottom for gold has come and gone, with that spike downward.

L: I haven’t made a formal call, but my gut take is the same, and I said so in the current edition of the International Speculator. I published a chart showing one of those days—and there have been quite a few recently—in which gold sold off sharply during a time of light trading volume, only to rebound and close the day higher. To me, this is evidence that there’s a large pool of deep-pocketed buyers out there for whom the current gold trading range is attractive and who back up the truck for more every time it gets cheaper.

Doug: At least two of those buyers are the Chinese and the Russians. The Russians at least appear to disclose their gold holdings every month, and they keep rising and rising. China is less transparent, but they have become the world’s largest gold producer—and they not only don’t export any gold, they import more than anyone else, with the occasional exception of India.

This is important because at the end of the day, the paper market must eventually follow what’s happening in the real world of physical trade in a physical thing like gold. And the reality in the physical market for gold is that global demand is very strong. If any genius is actually suppressing the gold price in Western dominated paper markets, they are simply doing the Russians and Chinese a huge favor, helping them move gold from West to East cheaply. That’s all anyone really needs to know.

L: Understood. But of course, for many gold investors out there, it’s once bitten, twice shy.

Doug: There’s no question that gold has had a severe retracement since its high in September of 2011. I understand their feelings. But we’re not talking about feelings here; we’re talking about markets. Markets cycle. This one has cycled about as low as any gold market in past corrections, and now I think it’s time for it to cycle up again.

L: Now there’s a “forward-looking statement.”

Doug: It’s just my opinion. Everyone’s got one.

L: Heh—well, as Captain Kirk once said to Mr. Spock, “I trust your guesses more than I trust most people’s so-called facts.” But enough on that: what else are you seeing in the markets today?

Doug: The big retreat in oil prices is obviously important.

L: It’s certainly capturing a lot of headlines. What do you think: is this new US oil boom the beginning of the end for OPEC, as so many would love to believe?

Doug: OPEC works fine in a bull market, when everyone is a rich genius. But half the governments in OPEC are broke, they’re all run by morons, and they all cheat on quotas as suits them. OPEC is really just a public relations gimmick at this point—one that allows a bunch of corrupt ministers a chance to live high off the hog and feel important at their meetings.

But there’s no denying that there’s been a sea change in the global energy markets. Fracking and horizontal drilling have created a major surge in US oil production—a big deal in a fungible commodity that has impacted the whole world. The technology will spread everywhere, and costs will drop. But decline curves are steep. You probably need $70-$80 oil to make it work.

Meanwhile, countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Iran live off of oil revenue and will sell all they can produce at any price they can get. Besides, I think the world economy is slowing down—just look at Europe and China. All of this just means that the energy market went through an entirely predictable down cycle.

L: Any sense of where that bottom is?

Doug: Not a clear one, but we’re probably approaching it, if it hasn’t come and gone as well. Remember that most commodities move roughly together in cycles. Grains, metals, energy—a lot of commodities have fallen significantly in price. And the next step is down for the world economy. Way down.

L: That reminds me of what Rick Rule likes to say: the cure for low prices is low prices. People aren’t going to suddenly decide they don’t need metals, energy, or food. If high oil prices made expensive shale oil production profitable, lower prices will cut back on that supply, driving the price back up again, starting a new cycle.

Doug: Yes, though in the long run, oil supply will simply not be a problem. Oil is just a hydrocarbon, and all you need to make it is CO2, water, and energy. I really don’t worry about future supplies of energy. We’ll have to go through the wringer to get there, but things will eventually get better—not only better than most people imagine, but better than most can imagine.

L: So with that big picture in mind, do developments like the Russians canceling their South Stream pipeline idea in favor of a new route through Turkey matter?

Doug: Not really. The devil can be in the details, but these are just details. More important, as Marin points out in his new book, The Colder War, Putin is the smartest and toughest politician on the international scene today. Whether or not we like him isn’t relevant; we should expect his decisions to be intelligent, given his goals.

For example, as we’ve discussed before, from the Russian perspective, his actions helping Russian populations break their provinces away from Ukraine make perfect sense. The actions of the US-installed puppet government in Kiev are criminal and insane, trying to recapture those people who want independence in eastern Ukraine by force.

So even though he’s not a “nice guy,” I’m a Putin fan.

L: We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I fear the man wants to be Tsar of the World—and he may be ruthless enough to pull it off. And I don’t understand why you’re so quick to dismiss US/EU propaganda but buy into Russian propaganda. You haven’t been to Ukraine to determine the facts for yourself. Neither have I, but I have friends there, and I believe you’re misinformed. That said, I know that you’re basically in favor of all secession movements regardless of the particulars. You’d ultimately like to see every person on earth secede from any and all governments, and with that I agree.

Doug: I don’t think a visit would help. And just because the Russians say something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You simply have to support breakaway provinces, whether they’re in Spain, Italy, Ukraine, or wherever. It’s logical the Russians would try to help them secede and extremely provocative of the US government to arm the bankrupt regime in Kiev to prevent it.

L: Okay then—what else is on your mind?

Doug: The ISIS phenomenon in the Middle East. Everyone sees these people as the latest devil incarnate, but to me this turn of events is perfectly predictable—

L: It’s not just predictable, Doug: you did predict it. You’ve been saying for years—decades—that all these lines on the maps of Africa and the Middle East were drawn up in boardrooms in Europe with no regard for the historical, tribal, linguistic, religious, and economic groups they cut apart or the different and often mutually hostile peoples they forced together. I’ve heard you say many times that those lines would change, and now it’s happening.

Doug: Well, okay, that’s true. But the point is that as distasteful as these ISIS people may be to Western sensibilities, they speak for a large number of people who see the world their way, so it’s no surprise to see them gaining ground, cutting across borders they never believed in to begin with. What’s happening with ISIS is natural and inevitable.

The fact that they execute people by beheading is picturesque in a way many Westerners find offensive—but it is by nature no more offensive than state executions in the US. Strapping a guy to a chair and running electricity through him or strapping him to a table and injecting poisons into him is equally barbaric. The public executions are a distraction, however; the Saudis execute scores of people the same way for much the same reasons every year, and they’re supposed to be our bosom buddies.

What matters is that this movement has a great deal of support and it’s growing. It’s actually a good thing from the perspective of the people in that part of the world who want that kind of society. That means it will dig in and have staying power. I don’t think it’s going to dry up and blow away. I would not, however, rely on the media for an accurate description or interpretation of events.

And we should expect similar disintegrations of nonsense countries and reorganization of peoples into more natural groupings to spread across the Middle East and throughout Africa. You’d think some heads would roll, at least metaphorically, in Washington after the Iraqi Army—which was the recipient of scores of billions of wasted US taxpayer funds—collapsed totally. They fled and left their weapons for the insurgents. The neocons have absolutely no shame—which, incidentally, is a hallmark of a real sociopath. I’m much more afraid of the people in control of the US government than I am of ISIS.

L: What I don’t understand about this ISIS thing is that they seem to be setting up a “real” government—this new caliphate they want recognized—with defined and accepted territory. That makes them vulnerable to straightforward military action; they become a country that can be warred upon, not just a terrorist group that can disappear in the desert. So, if they are the Bad Guys, why don’t those governments that oppose them wage real war on them and wipe them out?

Doug: Well, what stupidity doesn’t explain, incompetence often does. None of the state armies in the Middle East is worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell; they’re nothing but vehicles for graft and oppressing the people. Half the soldiers are likely sympathetic with the jihadists, if only because they hate their corrupt officers. In warfare, Napoleon said, the psychological is to the physical as three is to one. So don’t bet against ISIS.

And don’t call them terrorists. The word has become a meaningless pejorative. I’m a freedom fighter, you’re a rebel, he’s a terrorist. Entirely apart from the fact that terrorism is just a tactic or sometimes a strategy, like artillery barrages or cavalry charges. We’ll see if they succeed in staking out a territory. Maybe they won’t bother; maybe they’ll become a phyle.

I suggest people analyze the situation in a value-free manner. If you involve your emotions, you’re unlikely to arrive at the most rational conclusions. ISIS is not a friend, but rest assured its members see themselves as good and just people who are fighting evil.

L: It occurs to me that ISIS may be more useful to the powers that be, beheading journalists on YouTube—a great distraction from the woes affecting people’s daily lives in the West.

Doug: Exactly. The worse the economy gets, the more governments look for someone else to blame or some danger somewhere that makes for a good distraction. There needs to be a dog to wag.
I suspect that there are a lot of neocons out there who wish they’d left Saddam alone, rather than whacking the hornet’s nest. Now that the cat is out of the bag, to mix metaphors, I think the phenomenon is really going to spread. And most neocons will learn absolutely nothing from it, since their views aren’t influenced by facts but set by a psychological aberration.

L: So the Forever War intensifies in 2015?

Doug: Yes. I think it’s inevitable. For a bunch of reasons.

L: Speaking of economic woes that people need to be distracted from, have you seen that there’s a national movement building steam in the US, advocating a $15 per hour minimum wage?

Doug: Yes. What these people don’t realize or want to face is that rote labor is not worth $15 per hour, and the only thing they will succeed in achieving is their own unemployment—and unemployability. This movement will only encourage companies like Amazon—which uses thousands and thousands of robots to do work people once did—to automate even more.

So maybe it’s a good thing; it will spur innovation and progress. It might even cost us less for those who lack value-adding skills to go on welfare than for business to be forced to pay them to do work machines can do better and faster. Let me hasten to add that welfare in all its aspects should be abolished. But that’s not going to happen until the present system actually collapses. Which, incidentally, will happen. Nothing overcomes the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

L: Perhaps it’s a form of poetic justice. People see that the government prints all the money it wants to bail out its friends on Wall Street—and itself—why not just print more for them directly? If governments can print, borrow, and spend an economy into prosperity, why indeed can’t societies print money for all to spend as they please? We can all be Zimbabwe—rejoice!

Doug: Looking at this from a historical point of view, you realize that 100 years ago, there were only five central banks in the world. Now every country in the world has a central bank, and they’re all doing exactly the same thing: creating currency units out of thin air as fast as they think they can get away with.

More broadly, a century ago, governments were very limited in their power to regulate the day-to-day lives of citizens. They were actually quite weak. The whole world has transformed tremendously since then, starting with the mega-disaster of World War I, and governments now have unprecedented power over people’s lives—made possible not only by laws, but by the power of central banks… and by the fact the average person has been programmed to believe that’s the way it ought to be.

The good news, I think, is that this situation has already crossed the point of no return; it’s unsustainable. It must and will fall apart. There’s going to be a gigantic reset within the next decade. Within 10 years, I’m sure we’re going to see something that’s going to be not just the biggest thing since World War II, but the biggest thing since the Industrial Revolution. I remain an optimist for the future, but the next big historical turning point is coming, and it’s going to be very unpleasant for most people.

L: That brings to mind how bad things have gotten already, with waves of protest wracking the US over excessive use of force by the police. I don’t know if Obama’s idea of putting cameras on cops will really help—does anyone really trust the watchers to watch themselves?

Doug: It’s all related. Look, rather than discuss the details of the day, I think that at heart, we should remember that cops are people, albeit people who generally have an extra Y chromosome and are loyal first to other cops. Their actions should not only be judged and responded to in the same way we would for any other people, but more severely. If, for example, a citizen kills someone, there’s a grand jury convened and a trial. The same should be the case for cops—every time and in all cases. In fact, cops should not be scrutinized less for the sake of expedience, but more—for the sakes of justice and freedom.

I think it’s unconscionable that cops have gotten away with shakedowns, murder, and other crimes for so long because of the mistaken belief—both theirs and among people in general—that the rules must be different for them. I’m not a fan of today’s cops in general; they’re no longer peace officers concerned with protecting the people, but law enforcement officers concerned with protecting themselves and strong-arming the people as directed by their masters. Maybe people are finally getting fed up. I don’t know how this will end, but it’s hard to see much change before things get worse—something like they were in the movie V for Vendetta.

L: So, pulling back to look at the big picture and looking ahead to 2015, it seems to me that there is something deeply and disturbingly wrong with the global picture. Everyone desperately focuses on whatever good news they can even as the bad news continues unabated. China, which now has the world’s largest economy, is failing to hit even its reduced GDP growth targets, and the EU has fallen and can’t get up. But no one wants to admit that the emperor has no clothes—it’s time to go holiday shopping.

Doug: Good point about China. I see an economic collapse as an almost sure thing for them; the collapse of iron ore prices in 2014 is clear evidence of this, with so much of global iron production having been gobbled up by China until recently. Their banks are broke, which will be a huge problem for the average Chinese worker, who still saves 25%-30% of his or her income. If those people can’t get their money out of their banks or if the money they get is worthless, there won’t just be riots and civil unrest, there will be a revolution.

Japan is destroying the yen and will wipe out the savings of the Japanese people. Europe is a socialist basket case at this point. And I have to say: the US isn’t far behind. Next year and 2016 are really going to be something to behold.

L: Grim. So… how to invest?

Doug: I have no desire to be in the mainstream stock market for the duration. Even less to be in the bond market—the bubble there has gotten bigger and bigger over the last few years, to the point that it has reached a truly unholy size. Real estate is holding on, but it’s floating on a sea of debt, so when the bond bubble breaks, real estate—certainly in the Anglo-Saxon world—is in for big trouble. (And real estate is the most obvious thing for cash-strapped local governments to tax, as things turn down.) So, as we’ve said before, I really don’t see any way out of this thing, other than through the wringer we’re now caught in. However long they last, I do think we’re in the last moments of calm before the storm breaks.

L: I see it as maybe a last chance to back up the truck on the best speculative picks in various sectors poised to surge whenever the storm does break. I don’t know when the balloon pops, but it’s growing and growing in a room full of pins, and our readers will want to be prepared when it blows. The best way I can think of is to subscribe to our various publications, both for strategic guidance and for potentially life-changing—or saving—stock picks.

Fortunately for those late to the game or who wish to diversify into new sectors, we're opening up subscription to our most exclusive and comprehensive service, Casey’s Club, through February 20. I do encourage everyone reading this conversation to take advantage of this opportunity, and prepare for what’s coming—perhaps faster than anyone imagines.

Doug: Yes. It will affect us all, everywhere, but I’m happy to be down here in the peaceful and productive wine country of Cafayate, Argentina.

L: I look forward to my next visit—and hope you’ll visit me soon here in Puerto Rico.

Doug: I’ll be interested to see what the actual change in your taxes turns out to be, net of all your costs.

L: Me too. Well, thanks for another very thought-provoking, if not exactly cheerful conversation. I don’t think I need to ask you to spell out the details of what to do as a result of your projections; it’s all here in these pages and in the International Speculator, of course.

Doug: Just so. Until next time, keep some powder dry; I think you’re going to see some spectacular buying opportunities, and I think those who stick with the program are going to achieve fantastic returns.

L: Hear, hear!



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!