KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER - Insufficent Wealth Being Created from Debt Increases

More On the Deflationary Bust Risk Charles Gave GavKal via ZH

"In an environment of permanent low interest rates there is no impetus on behalf of the private sector to spend for growth, either in the form of capital spending or the hiring of incremental workers. The only net money exchange is the issuance of debt to fund dividends and stock buybacks: or simple EPS-boosting balance sheet arbitrage as shown most recently here." 

This is what I will, for the purposes of this paper, call my “Keynesian multiplier” - it is simply the arithmetical difference between growth in  wealth and growth in public debt—on which I compute the seven-year rate of change.

Milton Friedman’s “permanent income hypothesis” - Does it makes sense, or not? i.e., are economic agents rational enough that when they see an increase in government debt, they will increase their savings, safe in the knowledge that they will have to pay for the debt increase down the road? Or whether economic agents are just too shortterm focused to project themselves that far?

PERMANENT ASSET HYPOTHESIS: Modifying the above idea somewhat, which probably best applies in asset-rich, ageing countries. Basically, as interest rates move ever lower, retirees, pension funds and insurance companies needing to a certain fixed amount of return are forced to buy ever more fixed income. So low rates and rising public debt issuance, instead of encouraging more risk and renewing animal spirits, instead pushes investors feeling ever poorer into increasingly defensive, and yield generating, assets.

In essence, the perception that assets will not generate enough income going forward encourages the average saver to increase his savings, which is the precise opposite of the stated goal. This law of unintended consequences may help explain why the private business sector’s demand for credit remains limp, even though money is being lent for free.

If the multiplier is expanding, this tells us that an increased level of debt should lead to a greater increase in the household net worth over seven years. And vice-versa. This allows us to roughly evaluate how many dollars of private wealth are created by one more dollar of public debt.

Let us look now at the relationships between our Keynesian multiplier and certain economic variables. The chart below shows that the marginal efficiency of public debt, at least in the US (public spending in emerging markets from a low base usually improves productivity) has been declining structurally since 1981. And it seems that this marginal efficiency has now reached a negative level.

One initial indication that the Keynesian multiplier was now shrinking was the US boom that followed the Clinton/Gingrich balanced budgets and era of government deleveraging between 1997 and 2000. A reality which brings us back to one of the greatest debates between Keynesians and Austrians as to whether Milton Friedman’s “permanent income hypothesis” makes sense, or not; i.e., are economic agents rational enough that when they see an increase in government debt, they will increase their savings, safe in the knowledge that they will have to pay for the debt increase down the road? Or whether economic agents are just too shortterm focused to project themselves that far?

Modifying the above idea somewhat, we have, in the past, come up with a “Permanent Asset Hypothesis” which probably best applies in asset-rich, ageing countries. Basically, as interest rates move ever lower, retirees, pension funds and insurance companies needing to a certain fixed amount of return are forced to buy ever more fixed income. So low rates and rising public debt issuance, instead of encouraging more risk and renewing animal spirits, instead pushes investors feeling ever poorer into increasingly defensive, and yield generating, assets.

In essence, the perception that assets will not generate enough income going forward encourages the average saver to increase his savings, which is the precise opposite of the stated goal. This law of unintended consequences may help explain why the private business sector’s demand for credit remains limp, even though money is being lent for free.

Of course, credit demand may also be weak because there is no immediate reason to expect the rise we have seen in US (and global) financial assets should help boost median incomes. So far it has not:

And in a world where it does not pay to borrow, one should expect a structural decline in the velocity of money to take place. Which is what the next chart is indicating:

And in a world where it does not pay to borrow, one should expect a structural decline in the velocity of money to take place. Which is what the next chart is indicating:

With the Keynesian multiplier now negative, one would expect very low growth in volumes and nominal GDP. And this, of course, is what we are seeing. Despite the massive stimulus, and the improvement in the US trade balance (thanks to the energy revolution and the US manufacturing renaissance), the US economic expansion remains rather unimpressive. The recent moves in bond yields would seem to suggest that markets are expecting that the economic lift-off is finally about to arrive; either that or that Ben Bernanke will soon throw in the towel and start normalizing monetary policies. Given that the odds of the latter are lower than a snowball in hell (from afar, it usually feels as if the Fed chief has made his motto that of George Bidault’s: “I don’t know where we are going, but we will get there without detours”), it is more likely to be the former than the latter. The problem, for me, is that I struggle to believe that we are on the verge of a new global economic expansion.

Instead, if structural growth is to now be dragged lower by the fact that the Keynesian multiplier has gone negative, and with governments continuing to spend like sailors on shore leave in Hong Kong despite the drag on productivity and structural growth, then we cannot really expect long rates to move decisively higher.

Summarizing the above: if Bernanke is honestly curious why the economy remains broken, and none of his "central" tinkering has done much to boost the Keynesian multiplier and with it any prospects for real economic growth, he suggest he take a long, hard look in the mirror.

PATTERNS - Bond Scare Unfolding as Predicted

Treasury Yields Spike To New 14 Month Highs 06-10-13 Zero Hedge

30Y rates are up 4bps and 10Y rates up 5bps as a combination of MBS convexity hedging, Taper chatter, and growth hopiness flutter across the bond market. This has backed 10Y and 30Y rates up to their highest since April 2012 - getting close to some significant support/resistance from the last few years. Mortgage spreads have stabilized up here at their highest since July (around 83bps) but just as a delicate reminder, the last time bond yields spiked to this degree, equities began to wonder just what was going on? With so much of the investing public having bought bond-like-stocks at the behest of every talking head and asset-gatherer under-the-sun, we wonder at what point do the arguments about a great rotation from bonds to stocks (since gosh, 10Y bond prices are down 3% in the last month) turn to a rotation from bond-like-stocks to bond-like-bonds...

Or more simply, the market's (or the Fed's) realization that 'normalizing' rates here will crush the economy as interest expense surges (think Japan...)

Charts: Bloomberg

PATTERNS - Bond Scare Unfolding as Predicted -2

10Y TIPS Yield Above 0%; Highest In 19 Months 06-10-13 Zero Hedge

After 19 months in the red, yields on the 10Y TIPS have just shifted into positive territory. We saw a similar surge in TIPS yields in Q4 2010 / Q1 2011 which did not end well for stocks. This comes along with the simultaneous drop in the Fed's inflation gauge - five-year forward breakevens - which is now at its lowest in 9 months. This kind of drop has previously led to further QE action by the Fed, and right on cue...

• *BULLARD SAYS INFLATION IN U.S. HAS `SURPRISED TO THE DOWNSIDE'
• *FED'S BULLARD SAYS LOW INFLATION MAY WARRANT PROLONGING QE
• *BULLARD SAYS HE'S STILL OPTIMISTIC U.S. INFLATION WILL RECOVER

As Barclays notes:

Ultimately, we think breakevens, particularly forwards, are a buy. We believe the Fed’s reaction function has not become more hawkish and that the market has missed that tapering is conditional on a strong economy.

10Y TIPS yield...

5Y 5Y Forward inflation expectations...

The embedded par floors in TIPS have not richened as they have in past episodes of market stress suggesting this move is more a shift in fundamental sentiment than technical/flow driven...

Charts: Bloomberg

DEBT DEATH SPIRAL - Now Below the Event Horizon

The Smoke And Mirrors Are Running Out 06-11-13 Monty Pelerin's World blog via ZH

Those who believe the economy is recovering are ignorant of the facts. Other than the Great Depression no US recovery (and I don’t believe we are in a recovery) taken longer. Eventually it may take more than a decade like the 1930s. Or perhaps it will be like Japan which is in its third decade of “recovery.”

Politics and Economics

The truth is that our economy is spent, exhausted and filled with misallocations and distortions made much worse by government interventions. There is no recovery, nor will there be one until a massive purge (usually referred to as a depression) occurs. This event will result in bankruptcies that release scarce, misallocated physical capital from unproductive and unwanted areas to places where it is needed and can be utilized efficiently.

Rather than allow this pre-condition to an economic recovery and a growing, efficient economy, politicians want to prevent it. They use smoke, mirrors and propaganda (lies) to hide the reality of our sick economy. Their obfuscations continue, but the effective life is limited.

What politicians do to the country beyond their term in office means nothing to them. Their concern is only for themselves and the short-term that exists between elections. As a result they rob from the future to hide the true conditions of the present. Those still unborn will be paying for their criminal economic charade.

Economic Conditions

So how bad is the economy? Michael Shedlock, “Mish” is among the more prolific as well as more incisive financial analysts on the web. His site is always worth reading, but a recent post is essential. To impress upon you the seriousness of the situation and to encourage you to read his post, I quote some of his points (anything in red is my emphasis):

… we’re doing the same thing that led to the 2008 blowup — we’ve learned exactly nothing.  In real terms our GDP is in fact contracting by about $500 billion a quarter, after adjusting for debt expansion — that’s $2 trillion a year, more or less.

In terms of debt and inflation, Mish determined that:

… we’re contracting in purchasing power adjusted for new debt at more than 10% over the last four quarters.

The debt to GDP ratio reached the highest in history just before the 2008 collapse. It remains in this record territory and is just as unsustainable now as it was in 2008:

… the absolute level of debt to GDP, however, refuses to go under 350%; it has now started rising again but is entirely coming from two sectors — business credit and the Federal Government.

Consumers reduced their debt levels, although probably not enough. They are still strapped with more debt than many can properly service. Consumption, as a result, has dampened as more income goes to debt service and less debt is added. That appears to be a condition that should prevail for several more years.

Remember, the announced reason for the loose Fed policy was to drive consumption. As Mish observed:

… this so-called “expansion” driven by ZIRP and deficits has a use-by date that has expired and we are now trying to evade the fact that the fish is well into the “stinks up the joint” stage.

Obviously, it has not worked.

Read Mish’s article to view most of his observations in chart format.

Desperate Government

Although Mish does not make this point, I believe it is a relevant one. Government continues to borrow and spend in an effort to hide the truly rotten condition of the economy. This action was begun under the guise of stimulating a recovery. It is obvious that it has not worked. It was obvious to some that it could never work.

Despite its obvious failure, theft from future generations continues. There are two main reasons for this, in my opinion:

• To hide from the people how desperate the economic situation truly is.
• To enable government to continue its current level of spending which cannot be funded via tax revenues or real market Treasury sales (certainly not at current interest rates; perhaps at no reasonable  interest rate).

Government has exhausted its faux solutions. Nothing they do, except reduce spending, can help the economy. Reducing spending means another Great Depression and the exposure of the economic scam they have been running. Thus, spending will likely continue as will the Federal Reserve enabling, euphemistically called quantitative easing.

A Fly In The Ointment

There is a limit on how long the fraud continues. The government is in what is known as a debt death spiral. They must borrow money to repay prior debts. It is as if they are using their Visa Card to make an American Express payment. The rate of new debt additions dwarf any rate of growth the economy can possibly achieve. The end is certain, only its timing is unknown.

Once interest rates begin to rise, and they will, it is game over. Short-term Treasury interest rates are normally 3% with no inflation. In an inflationary environment, a premium for expected inflation is tacked on to that 3%.

Under today’s conditions, ST Treasuries could easily rise to 6 – 9%. The low end of the range represents a rise in rates of more than 5.5%. If the debt outstanding, most of which is short-term, is $17 Trillion, that would been a rise in interest expense of close to a Trillion dollars annually. That would be added to deficits which are expected to be around a Trillion dollars per year.  The high end of the range would produce a deficit in excess of $2.5 Trillion per year.

At the low end of the interest rate range, deficits would exceed more than 10% of GDP, putting us right up there with the sick European countries. At the high end, we would be like Greece without its glorious history and climate.

It gets worse than the above numbers convey. When interest rates rise, the economy will contract and probably severely. Then cries for more stimulus would be heard. An additional Trillion dollars or so would likely be added to the deficit, although many would want multiples of that. In either case, we become Greece on steroids.

Another Fly In The Ointment

There are those who say the US government cannot go broke because it has a printing press. They argue that the level of deficits don’t matter because the US can just print more money. Monetary fraud, which this is,  also has a limit.

Only paper and ink limit the amount of currency the government can print. However, government does not control the value of the money which is determined by the public.  Printing money depreciates the value of money (otherwise known as inflation). Market forces (economic actors) determine what this value is via supply and demand interaction.

When money is expected to buy less tomorrow than it does today, people will spend it sooner. This drives inflation even higher. Ludwig von Mises described this end phase as a crack-up boom:

Credit expansion can bring about a temporary boom. But such a fictitious prosperity must end in a general depression of trade, a slump.

The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration.

Mises spent much of his life studying money, the business cycle and inflation. He correctly identified the choice that now stands before our political class (my emboldening added):

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

In the event of the total catastrophe, savings and fixed income become worthless. The middle class of a country is wiped out in terms of wealth. Poverty abounds except at the top where those with large wealth and insider information are able to protect themselves and enhance their real wealth. Inflation does not destroy wealth; it merely redistributes it.

How Does It End?

Neither ending is attractive, but opportunities for one or the other have been squandered. Sadly, the decision as to which route is taken is in the hands of our criminal political class. Their behavior suggests that they will do whatever it takes to continue the charade. They want to maintain their scam for as long as they can..

If they are successful, a crack-up boom is coming. History shows this ending in most all countries in our condition.

SECURITY SURVEILLANCE COMPLEX - Growing Without Public Control or Supervision!

• Data intelligence complex is the real story 06-07-13 Financial Times
• U.S. Official Releases Details of Prism Program 06-08-13 WSJ

VALUATIONS - Market Expensive According to 5 Year Rolling Forward PE

The Stock Market Is Broadly Expensive According To This Uncommon Measure 06-08-13 Morgan Stanley via BI

The simplest way to value stocks or the stock market is to take its price and divide it by earnings (i.e. P/E). There are many ways to apply the P/E. For the stock market, strategists often take the price of the index and divide it by the index's earnings. In his June monthly chartbook, Morgan Stanley's Adam Parker considers the stock price against expected earnings (i.e. forward P/E). Then he compares that ratio to the stock's average forward P/E in the past five years. Then Parker saw how many stocks were trading above its average historical forward P/E. That's what's charted below. Simply put, this chart shows that more than half of the stocks in the stock market are trading above their own average valuations. In other words, the stock market appears to be broadly expensive.

ANALYTICS - Fund Managers forced to Chase Yield

Some Charts from Investing Caffeine 06-03-13

PERCEPTION OF REASONABLE PE

FUND MANAGERS MOST GO WHERE THE PERCEIVED YIELD IS

FEW BELIEVE BUT SOME MUST CLIMB THE PERCEIVED "WALL-OF-WORRY"

EARNINGS - Estimates Simply Not Believable

This Is What You 'Believe' If You Are Buying Stocks Now 06-10-13 @AndrewYorks via ZH

Each and every day we are told by asset-gatherers everywhere that stocks are cheap, money-on-the-sidelines will 'greatly rotate', and now that any 'Taper' is good news as it signals the Fed 'believes'. However, it would appear that the market is either a 'hope-discounting mechanism' or a serial non-linear extrapolator; as, just for clarity, this is the 'hope' that equity bulls are buying currently about the next three years' earnings... what could possibly go wrong?

It seems the serial extrapolators are hard at work once again...

And as far as QE stoking inflation - still don't think it exists?

GOLD - Tentacles of Financial Repression

France Prohibits Sending Currency, “Coins And Precious Metals” By Mail 06-07-13 Goldcore via Market Oracle

France has prohibited the sending of currency, “coins and precious metals” by mail.

In new legislation which was enacted May 23rd, the French government decreed that it is forbidden to send all forms of currency - coins and cash and all forms of precious metals – coins, bars and jewellery by mail.

The legislation was published on Legifrance, the French government entity responsible for publishing legal texts online and can be seen here.

It was not announced by the government and not covered in the media. There were no communications and nobody in the government justified or explained this decision.

The legislation says that “the insertion of banknotes, coins and precious metals is prohibited in mailings, including the insured items, registered items and items subject to formalities certifying deposition and distribution. "

Some have suggested that the decree is to limit what is known in France as “the anonymous market”, the market in which no taxes are paid and people are free to trade without the supervision of banks and government.

However, euro coins and notes and gold bullion coins and bars attract no tax in France and therefore this is more likely to be an attempt to discourage the ownership of gold bullion and cash outside of the banking system and is a form of capital control.

It may also be an attempt to restrict the growing private market in France of people buying bullion online through Ebay which is increasingly popular.

The freedom of people to trade amongst themselves is a form of civil liberty as is the right to privacy.

The selling and the buying of precious metals in France are already subject to strict regulations.

Until September 2011, citizens could easily buy and sell gold coins and bars with cash but this was forbidden then when French citizens were forbidden to buy with cash in person and had to buy precious metals by trade mail, crossed cheque and by wire transfer or be “punished by a fine of fifth grade” which is a fine of some €1,500/oz.

The government decree does not specify that other independent companies cannot send gold and or silver coins or bars by mail. Indeed, it is only the French public company or national post company, La Poste that is forbidden in the decree.

However, 3 months ago in March, Fedex began stopping French people from taking delivery of precious metals.

At the start of the year, UPS began stopping French people from taking delivery of precious metals.

Perhaps not coincidentally, in recent days Fedex have stopped allowing companies and individuals to send or receive gold and other precious metal bullion coins and bars by insured mail in Germany and the UK.

This is an important story that bears watching as it appears that governments internationally, from India to France are attempting to control, restrict and make it difficult for their citizens to own bullion.

GOLD - Confiscation as Part of Financial Repression is Still A Possibility

Don’t Dismiss The Possibility Of Gold Confiscation 06-07-13 Jeff Thomas via Casey Research via ZH

If you hold precious metals in your portfolio, there is a good chance you fear hyperinflation and the crash of fiat currencies. You probably distrust governments in general and believe they are self-serving and have no interest in your economic well-being. It is likely that your holdings in gold are your lifeline – your hope to get you through these times while holding on to your wealth.

But have you ever given any thought to the possibility of having this lifeline confiscated by the authorities? In my conversations with friends and associates, I have often raised this question. The typical responses:

"They'd never do that."

"I'll deal with that if and when it happens."

"I just wouldn't give it to them."

I consider these "wishful thinking" responses.

It's an interesting thought that the greatest threat to gold and silver investment might not be the possibility of losing on the speculation, but the government taking it away from you. It's a thought that I've found few want to even think about, let alone discuss.

If you fall into this camp, you're in good company. Some of the forecasters whom I respect most highly also treat it either as unlikely or at best, "something we may need to look at in the future." To date, in conversing with top advisors worldwide, the two primary reasons they believe gold will not be confiscated are:

• "Confiscation would mean the government acknowledges the reality of the value of gold."

Yes, this is quite so. They would be changing their official view… which, of course, they do all the time. But I submit that all that they need to do is put the proper spin on it.

• "They would meet greater resistance than they did back in '33."

I expect that this is also true, but that a plan will be put in place to deal with that resistance.

We'll address both of these assertions in more detail shortly, but first, a bit of history.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt came into office and immediately created the Emergency Banking Act, which demanded that all those who held gold (other than personal jewelry) turn it in to approved banks. Holders were given less than a month to do this. The government then paid them $20.67 per ounce – the going rate at the time. Following confiscation, the government declared that the new value of gold was $35.00. In essence, they arbitrarily increased the value of their newly purchased asset by 69%. (This alone is reason enough to confiscate.)

Today, the US government is in much worse shape than it was in 1933, and it has much more to lose. The US dollar is the default currency of the world, but it's on the ropes, which means the US economic power over the rest of the world is on the ropes.

I think that readers will agree that they will do anything to keep from losing this all-important power.

The US government has essentially run out of options. At some point, the fiat currencies of the First World will collapse, and some other form of payment will be necessary. Yes, the IMF is hoping to create a new default currency, but that, too, is to be a fiat currency. If any country were to produce a gold-backed currency in sufficient supply, that currency would likely become the desired currency worldwide. Fractional backing would be expected.

As most readers will know, the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and others see the opportunity and are building up their gold reserves quickly and substantially. If these countries were to agree to introduce a new gold-backed currency, there can be little doubt that they would succeed in changing the balance of world trade.

That said, the US government is watching these countries just as we are, and they are aware of the threat of gold to them.

The US government ostensibly has approximately 8,200 tonnes of gold in Fort Knox, although this may well be partially or completely missing. Additionally, it ostensibly holds a further 5,000 tonnes of gold in the cellar of the New York Federal Reserve building. Again, there is no certainty that it is there. In general, the authorities don't seem to like independent audits.

In fact, there are rumors that the above vaults are nearly or completely empty and that the above quoted figures exist only on paper rather than in physical form. While there is no way to know this for sure, it's not out of the question.

Either way, if the US and the EU could come up with a large volume of gold quickly, they could issue a gold-backed currency themselves. It's a simple equation: The more gold they have = the more backed notes they can produce = the more power they continue to hold. By seizing upon the private supply of their citizens, they would increase their holdings substantially in short order.

Either that or they could just give up their dominance of world trade and power… What would you guess their choice would be?

It is entirely possible that the US government (and very likely the EU) has already made a decision to confiscate. They may have carefully laid out the plan and have set implementation to coincide with a specific gold price.

So how would this unfold? Let's imagine a fairly extreme scenario and ask ourselves if it could be pulled off effectively:

• The evening news programs announce that the economic recovery is being hampered by wealthy private investors who, by hoarding gold, are skewing the value of the dollar and threatening the middle and poorer classes. The little man is being made to suffer while the rich get richer. A press campaign to equate gold ownership with greed ensues.

• The government announces the Second Emergency Banking Act, advising the public that "the first EBA was instituted by FDR to solve this same problem during the Great Depression. This act was instrumental in helping the little man 'recover.'" (As the average man on the street doesn't know his history nor how wrong this statement is, he'll believe it. Besides, the announcement has a "feel-good" message, and that's all that matters.)

• Possessors of gold, who make up a small minority of the population, would become pariahs. It won't matter that the guy who owns two gold Maple Leafs is not exactly a greedy, rich man. No one will wish to be seen as resisting confiscation. Neither will they wish to go to prison for resisting, no matter how remote the possibility.

• The US pays for the gold in US dollars, which are rapidly headed south. Yes, the Fed will need to print more fiat dollars in order to pay them off, but this suits their purpose, as it inflates the dollar even more. Those who have turned in their gold will do whatever they can to unload the US dollars as quickly as possible and will need to find another investment at a time when there are very few trustworthy investments other than gold. The stock market would likely rise, showing the public how the gold confiscation program is "working."

• One last scary possibility: The government demands that gold is turned in immediately and that settlement will occur following confiscation. After confiscation, it announces that, as there has been such a large number of cases of rich people ripping off the little man, processing them all could take months, possibly even a year or more. A further announcement states that some investors have made an unreasonable profit on the backs of the poor and that they should not be granted this profit. This profit must be returned to the people. (You can almost hear the cheers of the people.) Then it sets about making assessments. The bureaucrats find that most investors do not have formal, acceptable receipts for every coin in their possession. So if you paid $1,200 for a Krugerrand a couple of years ago, you get paid $1,200. If you bought it at $250 in 1999, you get paid $250. But if you have no receipt in an acceptable form, you get a "fair," median payment, say, $500, regardless of when you bought it.

• Appeals: Each investor will be allowed up to one year to appeal the decision of the Treasury as to what is owed him. Of course, the investor knows that the dollar is sinking rapidly and that he would be wise to shut up and take what he is being offered.

Again, this hypothetical scenario is an extreme one. The reader is left to consider just how likely or unlikely this scenario is and what that would mean to his wealth.

But bear this in mind: If the above scenario were to take place soon, the average citizen would have mixed feelings. They would be glad that the "evil rich" had been taken down a peg, but they would worry about the idea of the government taking things by force, because they might be next. It would therefore be in the government's interests to implement confiscation only after the coming panic sets in – after the next crash in the market, after it becomes plain to the average citizen that this really is a depression and he really is in big trouble. Then he will be only too glad to see the "greedy rich" go down, and he won't care about the details.

As terrible as the thought is, it seems unlikely to me that the government will not confiscate gold, as they have little to lose and so much to gain.

Those who own gold would prefer to think that this cannot happen, but they have quite a lot riding on that hope and precious little evidence to support it.

It is entirely possible that this scenario will not take place, just as it is possible that confiscation will not take place. The purpose of this article is to spark some serious discussion – both for and against the possibility.

Investors are, by their very nature, planners. It may take a community of investors to develop a legal plan to deal with the above eventuality. Time to get started.

The government can't easily confiscate what's outside its own borders, which is why it's working night and day to make it as difficult as possible for you to protect your assets abroad. This sad reality means that you need to take action before it's too late. Your first step? Learn how to start internationally diversifying your wealth – and your life. From investing in international markets and opening offshore bank accounts to setting up an offshore LLC or annuity, Going Global 2013 will tell you how and where to expatriate your wealth. It also presents solid, up-to-date information on internationalizing your life, from getting a second passport to choosing a good place to live.

Don't allow yourself to be milked by your home government any more. Get started on internationalizing your life today... while it's still possible.

PRISM-5 - The Sacrifice it Takes to be A Government Whistleblower

NSA Whistleblower Reveals Himself 06-09-13 Zero Hedge

Click to Play

THE REALITIES OF "TOO BIG TO FAIL!"

Politics is ablout Power and It's Mother Milk: Money!

Coutesy of Jesse's Cafe Americain