Guys, I am growing weary of all the anti US sentiment. Has anybody really looked at the balance sheet of the United States compared to all the other countries in the world. I think the answer is no. Everyone seems to be focused on the debt to GDP, which in financial terms, is a measure of cash flow leverage, not balance sheet leverage. One also needs to look at balance sheet and if you look at the US balance sheet and compare that to the rest of the world, The US has the strongest balance sheet on the face of the planet. Yet I see nor hear anybody writing about that. All I hear is Bill Bonner and Doug Casey talking about the inevitable death of the United States. That may well be true, but who’s going to survive? Who’s in a better position than the United States? China, doubtful, Europe absolutely not, South America no fucking way, Japan, give me a break. So I sense a real lack of intellectual honesty in the overall evaluation process. Trump is truly changing the geopolitical system, or trying too while dealing with a traitorous Congress, away from the 300 years of British and French colonial rule of extraction, to the American system, a system that promotes national sovereignty. Has anybody read Alexander Hamilton lately? The Federalist Papers? Doubtful. The colonial empires of the British and French are being dismantled; they continued to control the world not through military might but through the control of financial and energy choke points. Think the City of London, the use of LIBOR to price US dollars, think the straits of Hormuz, Strait BOSPHORUS, GIBRALTAR, the metals exchange. Only recently has the US shifted off of a rate set in London to the Secured Finance Offering Rate. I hear no one discussing the impact of that, its impact, or why it matters.
So everyone needs to go back and study World War I. That treaty is what has given us all these fake countries in the Middle East and the eternal conflict that actually was created on purpose by the British and the French. The British and French did that, not United States. Hell the US voted against Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations. And let’s not forget some other facts around World War I, up until that time the war department considered England the greatest threat to the United States. That’s a fact go look it up in the documents. Second, when the US actually sent troops under Pershing, they did not allow them to be commanded by British or French forces that’s why it was called the American expeditionary force . In prior to the war, the US split 50-50 in terms of potentially backing the British or the Germans. It wasn’t until the British secretly loaded arms on the Lusitania and its subsequent sinking by the Germans that switched Americans view. That was one of the first psych Chops, the British used on the American public.
And The Monroe doctrine is actually very sound doctrine. It’s goal was to keep the British in the French out of the western hemisphere. And Let’s not forget that the United States fought two wars against the British and one against the French; in Charles de Gaulle was no fan of the United States post World War II. Neither of those countries have been our friends. They’ve just used us in their battle against one another. And the US has never fought a war against China nor Russia. The Cold War was against the ideology of communism, not against Russia. So let’s be honest. And I don’t hear nor read any discussion of that. I think you guys need to take a long look in the mirror when you do your financial analysis and really know and analyze actual history. I think you’re being inherently biased and you lack both political history knowledge and actual knowledge of history itself. Yes, all empires fall but the unique thing about the United States is that it never wanted to be an empire. It was and is the only country where it’s founding was based on rights coming from God and not from a ruler or a king. Whole concept of the American experiment was for its government to govern people not rule over them. That started to change in the early 1900s with the progressive movement and Woodrow Wilson. And for fun go look at how many countries in Europe still have a monarchy, you might be surprised. The American people never wanted to be an empire, but the leaders of America changed their mind at the end of World War I. that’s where the country really started going off the rails. , There’s always been a distinction between the will of the people and the Will of America’s leadership. That really began in earnest in 1917 and it also was the time period in which secularism came into the forefront as evidence the progressive movement and the other 1900s. You guys seem to miss that as well. And if you really wanna dig a little deeper, go look at the year 1913. That year, saw the creation of the federal reserve, who by the way works for the commercial banks and not the federal government, the elimination of the state, legislatures, electing, US senators, and the passage of the income tax at the federal level. If you think all three of those things are not directly connected, well, then you’re not very smart. Further imagine today if the state legislature you’re still elected the US Senate. You would have 56 Republican senators at least and probably 58. 26 states are controlled by republican state legislature four the remainder of controlled by the Democrats. Ponder that. We were never meant to be a democracy. We were meant to be a republic which is why the founders did not want to send it to be elected by popular vote. I’ll ignore changing the vote from 21 to 18 for now, but that was also part of a plan to further shift the role of American government to rule versus govern.
The war being fought today is basically a war between Judeo-Christian principles and non-Judeo-Christian principles. You guys also seem to miss that as well; between being “ruled vs being governed “.
We are in the midst of a civil/world war as we speak. It’s not the war of 1861 with the Army of the Potomac versus the Army of Northern Virginia or even the Allied armies versus the axis powers. It’s a war being fought in the financial space, the cultural space, the religious space, the cyberspace and the energy space and for now it’s relatively nonviolent, for now. The $64 question is does it become physically violent, which is what the Democrats are pushing. The Democratic Party is nothing but the advocates of the secular, the worship of self, the ruling class as Angelo Code Villa so eloquently said in his article years back. They worship immorality and they are nothing but tools of the old colonial system. And the basis of the old colonial system is the notion that “I am a superior person, the ruling class. I know better than you and you are my subjects”, in essence, the perpetuation of divine right theory as evidence by King Charles bullshit trip to the United States..The American system is what challenged that system of divine-right theory which said that rights come from God not from government. No other country on the face of the planet ever put for that notion, none. And yet I don’t hear that coming from your lips or read that anywhere in your analysis . Further, I never hear any discussion of what the role of government truly is or should be. The American system says the government designed is to govern the people not rule the people, and that is uniquely different in the history of mankind, and I don’t hear anyone of you saying any of that. And that is exceedingly disappointing because you guys are smarter than that. So man up, read your history, know your history, and start speaking the truth. You might start by reading the Old Testament that is both a document of history and a pertinent document of morality. Go do your homework guys. You are better than that.
Calvin, thank you so much for your letter and taking the time to compose it. Bonner ESPECIALLY, needs to take his head out of his *#%, and start manning up. His analysis of geopolitics has been shown to be less than worthless for quite some time. Dan and Tom have been a tad better. Again, I thank you!
What, exactly, on the US "balance sheet" do you surmise can be liquidated to pay off or service the debt, and who will be the counterparty to those transactions? I don't buy that line of thinking without specific details on those two items. Otherwise you're left with "might makes right" in terms of the debt. In other words, the US will extract what it doesn't have or produce domestically from the weaker hands globally, basically the new "colonial" power in modern times by modern means. Maybe that will keep working for a while longer or maybe your hypothetical scenario of a forced "balance sheet liquidation" will be the end game. Neither seems to bode well for the citizens of our Constitutional Republic in the longer term. The more likely outcome appears to be a lower general standard of living for most with the path we are on, a wider gap between haves and have nots, leading eventually to revolt, turmoil and similar patterns to the 1930s. If the balance sheet is so strong then why carry debt at all? Government debt isn't used to produce profitable returns, so in this analogy there shouldn't be any. Balance sheet items should simply be liquidated to eliminate it. But that isn't happening. Why not? Most likely because it's just not possible without undesirable consequences. What specific history tells you our unique fiat and debt-based empire will survive and prosper where all others (Dutch, British, Spanish, Roman, etc) all fell or ebbed under somewhat parallel circumstances?
Go look at the amount of land at the US actually owns and the amount of gold they hold in tonnage and put today’s value on it, not the $45 per ounce they currently value it.
That would be a good place to start. And They certainly could start selling off a lot of the land that they own and the associated mineral rights to private enterprise. Go look at Alaska in particular, and the west in general, the federal government owns the vast majority of Alaska and the associated mineral rights. They’ve sold off some but not all. You gotta peel the onion back here nobody’s gonna spoon feed it to you. And you’re missing the bigger point, the bigger point is nobody ever talks about that. Why not? if you’re gonna have a fair and balanced discussion , you should both look at the Income statement of a business as well as its balance sheet. None of these financial pundits ever mentioned the balance sheet, and i find that intellectually dishonest. Seems they’d rather sell a bunch of fear which is what Doug Casey been doing for years. Fear definitely gets more clicks, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. It could be. Let’s look at the other side of the equation That’s the point.
Calvin's statements seems to present a good deal of reasonableness in information and definition of balance sheets and assets of nations, as well as what is being presented as 'educated information' . It seems to me so much 'news' information uses adverbs and adjectives instead of objective nouns, no matter the origination of the speaker/s, actual facts seem to be hidden from examination. There definitely seems to be partiality in Federal/State governing bodies to decision making that truly has little to do with what is (best) in the interest of the common American person/family in eking out a living and paying exhorbitant taxes at all levels of 'government' with terrible fraud/grifting in evidence without benefit to those paying the taxes and no accountability having just consequences.
Guys, I am growing weary of all the anti US sentiment. Has anybody really looked at the balance sheet of the United States compared to all the other countries in the world. I think the answer is no. Everyone seems to be focused on the debt to GDP, which in financial terms, is a measure of cash flow leverage, not balance sheet leverage. One also needs to look at balance sheet and if you look at the US balance sheet and compare that to the rest of the world, The US has the strongest balance sheet on the face of the planet. Yet I see nor hear anybody writing about that. All I hear is Bill Bonner and Doug Casey talking about the inevitable death of the United States. That may well be true, but who’s going to survive? Who’s in a better position than the United States? China, doubtful, Europe absolutely not, South America no fucking way, Japan, give me a break. So I sense a real lack of intellectual honesty in the overall evaluation process. Trump is truly changing the geopolitical system, or trying too while dealing with a traitorous Congress, away from the 300 years of British and French colonial rule of extraction, to the American system, a system that promotes national sovereignty. Has anybody read Alexander Hamilton lately? The Federalist Papers? Doubtful. The colonial empires of the British and French are being dismantled; they continued to control the world not through military might but through the control of financial and energy choke points. Think the City of London, the use of LIBOR to price US dollars, think the straits of Hormuz, Strait BOSPHORUS, GIBRALTAR, the metals exchange. Only recently has the US shifted off of a rate set in London to the Secured Finance Offering Rate. I hear no one discussing the impact of that, its impact, or why it matters.
So everyone needs to go back and study World War I. That treaty is what has given us all these fake countries in the Middle East and the eternal conflict that actually was created on purpose by the British and the French. The British and French did that, not United States. Hell the US voted against Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations. And let’s not forget some other facts around World War I, up until that time the war department considered England the greatest threat to the United States. That’s a fact go look it up in the documents. Second, when the US actually sent troops under Pershing, they did not allow them to be commanded by British or French forces that’s why it was called the American expeditionary force . In prior to the war, the US split 50-50 in terms of potentially backing the British or the Germans. It wasn’t until the British secretly loaded arms on the Lusitania and its subsequent sinking by the Germans that switched Americans view. That was one of the first psych Chops, the British used on the American public.
And The Monroe doctrine is actually very sound doctrine. It’s goal was to keep the British in the French out of the western hemisphere. And Let’s not forget that the United States fought two wars against the British and one against the French; in Charles de Gaulle was no fan of the United States post World War II. Neither of those countries have been our friends. They’ve just used us in their battle against one another. And the US has never fought a war against China nor Russia. The Cold War was against the ideology of communism, not against Russia. So let’s be honest. And I don’t hear nor read any discussion of that. I think you guys need to take a long look in the mirror when you do your financial analysis and really know and analyze actual history. I think you’re being inherently biased and you lack both political history knowledge and actual knowledge of history itself. Yes, all empires fall but the unique thing about the United States is that it never wanted to be an empire. It was and is the only country where it’s founding was based on rights coming from God and not from a ruler or a king. Whole concept of the American experiment was for its government to govern people not rule over them. That started to change in the early 1900s with the progressive movement and Woodrow Wilson. And for fun go look at how many countries in Europe still have a monarchy, you might be surprised. The American people never wanted to be an empire, but the leaders of America changed their mind at the end of World War I. that’s where the country really started going off the rails. , There’s always been a distinction between the will of the people and the Will of America’s leadership. That really began in earnest in 1917 and it also was the time period in which secularism came into the forefront as evidence the progressive movement and the other 1900s. You guys seem to miss that as well. And if you really wanna dig a little deeper, go look at the year 1913. That year, saw the creation of the federal reserve, who by the way works for the commercial banks and not the federal government, the elimination of the state, legislatures, electing, US senators, and the passage of the income tax at the federal level. If you think all three of those things are not directly connected, well, then you’re not very smart. Further imagine today if the state legislature you’re still elected the US Senate. You would have 56 Republican senators at least and probably 58. 26 states are controlled by republican state legislature four the remainder of controlled by the Democrats. Ponder that. We were never meant to be a democracy. We were meant to be a republic which is why the founders did not want to send it to be elected by popular vote. I’ll ignore changing the vote from 21 to 18 for now, but that was also part of a plan to further shift the role of American government to rule versus govern.
The war being fought today is basically a war between Judeo-Christian principles and non-Judeo-Christian principles. You guys also seem to miss that as well; between being “ruled vs being governed “.
We are in the midst of a civil/world war as we speak. It’s not the war of 1861 with the Army of the Potomac versus the Army of Northern Virginia or even the Allied armies versus the axis powers. It’s a war being fought in the financial space, the cultural space, the religious space, the cyberspace and the energy space and for now it’s relatively nonviolent, for now. The $64 question is does it become physically violent, which is what the Democrats are pushing. The Democratic Party is nothing but the advocates of the secular, the worship of self, the ruling class as Angelo Code Villa so eloquently said in his article years back. They worship immorality and they are nothing but tools of the old colonial system. And the basis of the old colonial system is the notion that “I am a superior person, the ruling class. I know better than you and you are my subjects”, in essence, the perpetuation of divine right theory as evidence by King Charles bullshit trip to the United States..The American system is what challenged that system of divine-right theory which said that rights come from God not from government. No other country on the face of the planet ever put for that notion, none. And yet I don’t hear that coming from your lips or read that anywhere in your analysis . Further, I never hear any discussion of what the role of government truly is or should be. The American system says the government designed is to govern the people not rule the people, and that is uniquely different in the history of mankind, and I don’t hear anyone of you saying any of that. And that is exceedingly disappointing because you guys are smarter than that. So man up, read your history, know your history, and start speaking the truth. You might start by reading the Old Testament that is both a document of history and a pertinent document of morality. Go do your homework guys. You are better than that.
Calvin, thank you so much for your letter and taking the time to compose it. Bonner ESPECIALLY, needs to take his head out of his *#%, and start manning up. His analysis of geopolitics has been shown to be less than worthless for quite some time. Dan and Tom have been a tad better. Again, I thank you!
Dan, trying to remember if you have a trusted source for buying gold? If so, kindly reshare.
What, exactly, on the US "balance sheet" do you surmise can be liquidated to pay off or service the debt, and who will be the counterparty to those transactions? I don't buy that line of thinking without specific details on those two items. Otherwise you're left with "might makes right" in terms of the debt. In other words, the US will extract what it doesn't have or produce domestically from the weaker hands globally, basically the new "colonial" power in modern times by modern means. Maybe that will keep working for a while longer or maybe your hypothetical scenario of a forced "balance sheet liquidation" will be the end game. Neither seems to bode well for the citizens of our Constitutional Republic in the longer term. The more likely outcome appears to be a lower general standard of living for most with the path we are on, a wider gap between haves and have nots, leading eventually to revolt, turmoil and similar patterns to the 1930s. If the balance sheet is so strong then why carry debt at all? Government debt isn't used to produce profitable returns, so in this analogy there shouldn't be any. Balance sheet items should simply be liquidated to eliminate it. But that isn't happening. Why not? Most likely because it's just not possible without undesirable consequences. What specific history tells you our unique fiat and debt-based empire will survive and prosper where all others (Dutch, British, Spanish, Roman, etc) all fell or ebbed under somewhat parallel circumstances?
Go look at the amount of land at the US actually owns and the amount of gold they hold in tonnage and put today’s value on it, not the $45 per ounce they currently value it.
That would be a good place to start. And They certainly could start selling off a lot of the land that they own and the associated mineral rights to private enterprise. Go look at Alaska in particular, and the west in general, the federal government owns the vast majority of Alaska and the associated mineral rights. They’ve sold off some but not all. You gotta peel the onion back here nobody’s gonna spoon feed it to you. And you’re missing the bigger point, the bigger point is nobody ever talks about that. Why not? if you’re gonna have a fair and balanced discussion , you should both look at the Income statement of a business as well as its balance sheet. None of these financial pundits ever mentioned the balance sheet, and i find that intellectually dishonest. Seems they’d rather sell a bunch of fear which is what Doug Casey been doing for years. Fear definitely gets more clicks, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. It could be. Let’s look at the other side of the equation That’s the point.
Calvin's statements seems to present a good deal of reasonableness in information and definition of balance sheets and assets of nations, as well as what is being presented as 'educated information' . It seems to me so much 'news' information uses adverbs and adjectives instead of objective nouns, no matter the origination of the speaker/s, actual facts seem to be hidden from examination. There definitely seems to be partiality in Federal/State governing bodies to decision making that truly has little to do with what is (best) in the interest of the common American person/family in eking out a living and paying exhorbitant taxes at all levels of 'government' with terrible fraud/grifting in evidence without benefit to those paying the taxes and no accountability having just consequences.