As the editor of the Silver Bear Cafe, I spend most of my time researching current events. I explore the markets, the economic war that is being waged on the middle class, precious metals, the Federal Reserve, energy, and how to go about surviving financially. In this weekly column I will attempt to condense the week's events and examine how the news might affect your pocketbook. JSB

Financial Markets

One of my favorite pundits, John Mauldin, released a recent missive, The Theology of Inflation. His newsletter, Thoughts from the Frontline, has been enlightening subscribers for the past thirteen years. In a recent installment he features the insights of another exemplary thinker, Anatole Kaletsky, who, in his missive, Trying to Fix Broken Economics, explores the faux science of economics. I say faux, because, as he points out, fully half of the field is made up of Keynesians, who I hold in the same regard as eugenicists.

Given that our country's leading (most popular) economist is Paul Krugman, whose accolades include a Nobel Prize, and given that Mr. Krugman is a Keynesian, we can confidently surmise that, generally speaking, the current state of the practice of economics in our country (and the world, for that matter) is dismal. It was comforting to have Mr. Kaletsky provide the basic questions of economics distilled into a single paragraph:

Here is a list of economic questions that have something in common. In a recession, should governments reduce budget deficits or increase them? Do 0 percent interest rates stimulate economic recovery or suppress it? Should welfare benefits be maintained or cut in response to high unemployment? Should depositors in failed banks be protected or suffer big losses? Does income inequality damage or encourage economic growth? Will market forces create environmental disasters or avert them? Is government support necessary for technological progress or stifling to innovation?

By attempting to answer the seven questions he raises in the first paragraph of his article, I found that the questions, and my answers, provided me with a clearer understanding of how I felt about the general state of the global economy, and the causes for its apparent disintegration.

For the sake of the communication of my take on economics I will try and answer his questions, one by one.

In a recession, should governments reduce budget deficits or increase them?

I believe that the Federal Government has no place in running any deficits, ever. They do not have a Constitutional right to do so. Given that the Federal Government was originally set up to protect the shores and deliver the mail, and, based on our ongoing problems with immigration and the fact that the post office is about to go bankrupt, that they can't even handle those tasks, they obviously lack the aptitude, even if they had the mandate, which they don't, and thereby have no business attempting to manage the national trust in any other respect. Budgets deficits have always contributed to a weakened, and thus a recessionary/depressionary economic environment.

Do zero percent interest rates stimulate economic recovery or suppress it?

Zero percent interest rates provide no return for lenders. Whether those lenders be Mom and Pop savers lending their capital to banks, in the form of CDs, or other countries investing in Treasury Notes and Bonds, no interest provides little incentive for investment. The Federal Reserve has adopted the task of supporting the government by buying $85 billion of treasuries each month with money it creates out of nothing. Even a seven year old could tell you that eventually, the money will lose all its value. That day, in my opinion, is rapidly approaching. With it will come the decimation of the lives of millions through economic ruination. So many banksters...so few lamp posts.

Should welfare benefits be maintained or cut in response to high unemployment?

Welfare benefits have greatly contributed to the economic ruination of the whole world. Welfare has aided and abetted the creation of a group that now constitutes the majority. It has, irreparably, contributed to the prevalence of Socialism, globally, whose only benefits are enjoyed by those elitists who are in control, and the ease with which they can enslave and control the masses, whose energies can then be effectively harvested. Charity, rather than rule of law, is the only way to successfully provide for the poor.

Should depositors in failed banks be protected or suffer big losses?

So long as there is no rule of law, and regulators do not constrain banks from nefarious investments (read in derivatives) some, if not most of these institutions are destined to become insolvent. Many, if not most of the large banks, in the world, are currently insolvent, zombified, and continuing to exist only with the aid of smoke and mirrors. We could play the blame game and prosecute bank management, whose shoulders the blame should fall on. We could take it a step further and prosecute the lobbyists, whose criminal machinations have criminally tempted our rapacitic congressional representatives to accept bribes, kickbacks and contributions. The next step would be to jail all the congressmen who have become so embroiled in this criminality that it has become "business as usual". Finally, we could step back and see that the real responsibility lies on the shoulders of the voting public who have allowed this den of vipers and money changers to take over the whole system, in which case everyone involved should be, and deserves to be, subject to big losses.

Does income inequality damage or encourage economic growth?

The dissolution of the middle class in the world is a devolutionary reaction to the application of an agenda that has been put forth by a group of megalomaniacal miscreants whose only goal is to rule the world. Their agenda does no involve any improvements or the altruistic provision of a better standard of life for any but themselves. Consequently, the pitiful lack of any ability to build or make positive contributions to the implementation of remedy, rather than the ongoing havoc the are wreaking in the exploitation of resources and the destruction of the planet's ability to "recharge" itself, has brought us to the precipice of disaster. Their "buying off of governmental administrations throughout the world have allowed for a blatant breakdown in the rule of law, which, in turn, has allowed for the feudalistic violation of property rights which are integral in the the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property, These (some would say, God given) rights were won originally at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and further cemented by signing the Magna Carta in 1215. The Magna Carta ("Great Charter") was intended to limit the powers of the monarch and proclaimed certain liberties for "freemen". That occurrence was an evolutionary event for humanity. Evolution is natural and a sign of health. Devolution is a sign of sickness. The infringement of these rights, along with tyrannical taxation is the cause of income inequality. The world is currently being run by a group of very sick individuals.

Will market forces create environmental disasters or avert them?

This seems to be a bit of a rhetorical question in that it should be obvious to all those who have retained any sense of critical thought that criminally unconstrained market forces have, and will continue to create environmental disasters. Take, for instance the BP debacle on the Gulf of Mexico. It has been evidenced, repeatedly, that both Haliburton and BP were criminally complicit in the disaster, and yet no criminal charges were ever brought against either company. Instead, the US Coast Guard was brought in, by the President, to exponentially exacerbate the problem by dropping millions of gallons of Corexit on the surfacing oil to make it sink. "Out of sight, out of mind". As a result of the introduction of the Corexit, the fisheries, that are the life blood of the Gulf Coast residents, have been irreparably contaminated, and will result in the death of millions of fish and people in the coming years. Unfettered market forces would have provided for the prosecution (and in many cases execution) of the participants. As a result of manipulated market forces, many members of our current administration are culpable and have, for the time being, escaped justice. The same diatribe could be applied to the Fukushima disaster, whose effects have now rendered Tokyo to be currently as irradiated as Fukushima was a year ago. Fukushima is currently suffering from continually increasing levels of radioactivity which will also kill millions, both in Japan and the US, far into the future.

Is government support necessary for technological progress or stifling to innovation?

Government support for anything does not stem from, and is not a result of, the application of any form of intellect. Technological progress is an intellectual pursuit. Any time the government gets involved in anything, it turns to dung. As a result of government action, the standard of life for every man, woman and child on the earth has been, and will continue to be stifled, stymied, crushed and curtailed. If the natural instinct for self preservation hadn't already been bred out of the population, the government would be far less intrusive, if it continued to exist at all.

"Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping, and unintelligent. --H. L. Mencken

From Anatole Kaletsky:

What these important questions have in common is that professional economists can't answer them. To be more precise, economists can offer plenty of answers about government deficits, printing money, inequality, environmental issues and so on; but none of these answers is authoritative enough any longer to persuade other economists, and never the world at large.

Take two examples. On whether government borrowing aggravates recessions or promotes recoveries, the world's most eminent economists fall into one of two violently conflicting schools. The world's most important central banks, the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, hold diametrically opposing views about the effects of quantitative easing. If economics were a genuinely scientific discipline, such disputes over fundamental issues would have been settled decades ago. They are equivalent to astronomers still arguing about whether the sun revolves around the earth or earth around the sun.

How should politicians and voters who look to economists for guidance respond to this cacophony? Economics is ultimately a study of politics, psychology and social behavior. It is therefore as close to philosophy or even theology, as to physics, biology or engineering. Just as philosophers and theologians still argue about the same issues that preoccupied Plato, Kant and Descartes, economists see no shame in continuing the debates over budget deficits, monetary policy and full employment launched by Keynes, Wicksell or Walras.

This political and moral aspect of economics suggests a reason for the subject's remarkable prestige and power, despite its obvious failings. Economists have become a secular priesthood, turning the political orthodoxies of their times into comprehensible narratives, thereby promoting social stability and democratic consensus.

In the 40 years since the mid-1970s, the dominant schools of academic economics have preached the virtues of free markets, competition and small government, helping to legitimize widening disparities of wealth and income as economic necessities, dictated by natural laws of market competition that were impervious to political interference or social control.

In the 40 years before that - from the Great Depression and Keynesian revolution to the Great Inflation and monetarist counterrevolution - economists played the opposite political role. Their job was to persuade conservative business interests that active government, fine-tuning of economic cycles, welfare safety nets and redistributive tax systems were indispensable to the success and even survival of capitalist free-market societies.

If we look back to the 19th century, to the origins of the modern capitalist system, we can see economists playing other politically legitimizing roles – establishing respect for private property, competition, free trade and voluntary contracts for mutual beneficial exchange, in a world that was still largely feudal, with wealth distribution justified by heredity, violence or military conquest.

As Keynes famously said, "The ideas of economists, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

What makes Keynes's comment so relevant today is that the economic system is again in a process of transformation. It is now fairly clear, as suggested in my book Capitalism 4.0, that a new model of global capitalism is evolving out of the 2008 crisis, just as it did out of the crises of the 1970s, the 1930s and out of the collapse of feudalism in the early 19th century. We are still waiting for the parallel transformation in economic thinking, but some of its features can be discerned.

The first is a recognition that the world is too complex and uncertain to be analyzed with models that assume a natural equilibrium of a future that is predictable, at least in a probabilistic sense. The second is that even competitive and perfect markets can make disastrous mistakes. The third is that a world economy that is highly unpredictable must be managed with fairy broad and flexible tolerance ranges for indicators such as inflation, government borrowing or unemployment, instead of the precise inflation targets of the pre-crisis period.

On the Economic War Front

Most of the travails of societies internationally, are a result of the pandemic apathy and passivity of large groups when it come to dealing with their so-called leadership. I can certainly understand the general reaction to "the point of a gun" and to the never ending urge of the ruling class' naturally desire to disarm the masses. Since the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as a remedy to tyranny, it only stands to reason that tyrants would prefer that we were unarmed. Those championing gun control are either dumbed-down morons, or tyrants. If the people did not fear the governments, politicians, worldwide, would be better behaved.

From Peter Souleles:

Well, we have all been watching Bitcoin and no doubt the ride has been highly profitable for some but disappointing for others. In the case of Cyprus, they could have "minted" BITCHCOIN as a means of turning the tables on a financial construct that seeks to vacuum nations and peoples of every scintilla of wealth whether that wealth be called fiat, precious metals, sovereignty, sovereign assets and even democracy.

So what is Bitchcoin?

When the Cypriots decided to bow down to the confiscation of their citizens' deposits, they should have confiscated those funds in the name of the government and not for the re-capitalisation of banks.

The next step was to place simultaneous orders on international markets and exchanges for $7.8 billion worth of silver bullion. If they added the proceeds of selling 10 tonnes of gold, the orders would have come to another $500 million or a total of around $8.3 billion worth of silver.

Now $8.3 billion in silver at a price of $28 comes to 9,220 tonnes or much more than any repository in the world holds.
Now do I have to explain why I called my new coin Bitchcoin?

And for a total Blowup of the Bankers

The above plan could have become the death knell for the corrupt banking structure had the Cypriot order for silver been backed up by orders from Greece, Portugal and Spain amongst others.

So there would have been three outcomes:

1. The world's banking system is brought to its knees if not flat on its face.
2. A cash settlement is agreed upon in which case Cyprus would easily double its money
3. Cyprus is unexpectedly invaded by a certain neighbour.

The way to bringing the world back to a gold standard is through an attack using silver due to its cheapness and scarcity of above ground stocks when compared to gold.

Perhaps the spike in silver price would take it well beyond its true value but the purpose ultimately is not to profit but to restore truth in a system that is riddled with rotten structures, corrupt practices and psychopaths who know no limits.

Is Cyprus capable of such a brazen move?

Of course not.

Its leaders are incompetent stooges and Cypriots will pay the price by being bombed back into the financial stone age for many many years to come. The remonstrations by Putin were just that. Deep down even he allowed his oligarchs to suffer so as to send a warning to other oligarchs about entrusting their funds to western banks as he has been warning them for over a decade.

Precious Metals

In 1970 the price of silver was at $1.50/oz. The Hunt brothers, Bunker and Herbert, of Texas oil fame, were both acutely aware of the wholesale theft of the Nation's silver stockpile that had been taking place through the actions of the SUA. (For an in-depth examination of the Hunt brother's attempt to corner the world silver market, see H.L. Hunt's Boys and the Circle K Cowboys by Larry LaBorde.) When Nixon removed the dollar from the last vestiges of the gold standard in 1971, the brothers also realized that the New York Eastern banking establishment, through their puppets at the Federal Reserve, was now free to work its diabolical monetary magic. Through the insidious contrivance called inflation, they could effectively transfer a portion of the Hunt's oil fortune (and everybody else's) into their coffers. The brothers started buying silver.

Over the next nine years, as the Hunt's predicted inflation accelerated and racked the economy, Bunker and Herbert continued to use silver to hedge their assets with a vengeance. By the accumulation of more and more silver, they effectively protected their family's property and, single-handedly remonetized the white metal. Throughout the world people began to remember that real wealth consists of real assets, not paper money, and that real assets include gold and silver.

This fact holds true more today than ever. Start purchasing silver bullion. Then buy some more. Community members, increase your holdings. Rather than just two brothers from Texas doing all the work, and consequently being an easy target, let's all become involved. Besides enriching ourselves through the exercise of buying and owning silver, we can passively wrest the control of the silver market out of the hands of the "Dark Side" and back into the hands of the people. This can bring about some very important changes, in one way, that will really make a difference. As the price of bullion subsequently rises, more and more people will begin to see Federal Reserve Notes for what they really are; fake money, and recognize and appreciate precious metals for what the really are; real money. If nothing else, it might make wars more expensive to fight. The downside risk is minimal compared to the upside potential.

Oh, and by the way, for all you "Joe Six Packs" out there, a $10 bill you got in 2002 currently has the buying power of $3.50, (a loss of $6.50), while an ounce of silver you could have procured, at the same time, for $5.00, is currently worth $26.00, (a gain of $21.00). But the real deal is the two ounces of silver that you could have purchased for that 2002 $10 bill that would currently worth $52.00. That's a 520% increase on the original $10 but a whopping 1485% profit when you compare holding the FRN to holding the silver. Hey, it's a no brainer, (and that's a good thing considering the level of brain power utilized by the average brain dead American.) Most importantly, the price of silver, IMO, is about to "go to the moon."

From Greg Hunter:

Dr. Jim Willie of GoldenJackass.com says powerful forces around the globe are working to do away with trading in U.S. dollars because of massive money printing by the Fed. Dr. Willie says, "The world makes a reaction, and what they have done is create, slowly but surely, a U.S. dollar alternative for trade." Dr. Willie's sources say precious metals will be used to back a new currency and predicts, "The gold price will be $7,500 to $8,000, and silver will be between $150 and $250 per ounce."

This will be a disaster for U.S. Treasuries, and Jim Willie says, "All these Treasury Bonds will be sent back to the United States where they can choke U.S. bankers . . . they cannot refuse them."

Dr. Willie predicts "the economy will implode," and he says, "I don't believe we're going to see garden variety powerful inflation. I believe, instead, we're going to get large widespread cut-off of supply chains" as foreigners simply stop accepting the dollar. As far as dollar assets inside the U.S., expect widespread confiscation. Dr. Willie contends, "When the losses from the debt write-downs come, I see tremendous national wealth lost because private accounts are really just bank assets."

Energy

The following report reminds me of the everlasting Beatles' hit, Taxman:

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

So many politicians, so few lamposts...

From Matthew Boyle:

Maryland Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley has instituted a tax on citizens for the amount of rain that falls on their property.

The tax, officially known as a "storm water management fee," will be enforced in nine of the state's counties. The state legislature passed it in 2012 purportedly to "raise revenue to cleanup [sic] the Chesapeake Bay," according to MarylandReporter.com.

Former 2012 GOP U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino bashes the tax in a Wednesday afternoon press release. The law "requires individuals, businesses, and even charitable organizations and houses of worship to pay a tax based on the amount of rain that falls on their property and the 'impervious surfaces' on their land," he says.

The tax, mandated by the EPA and enforced locally, will be calculated "through satellite surveillance of your property," the statement claims.

Bongino blasts "out of touch political aristocrats in Maryland will do anything to diminish your economic liberty and starve your wallet while padding theirs." 

According to the conservative organization Change Maryland, the rain tax will cost Marylanders about $300 million annually.

Governor O'Malley famously tried increasing taxes to balance the state's budget with little success in 2007. The increase in the top marginal tax rate, known as a "millionaire's tax," cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenue, according to Change Maryland. Between 2007 and 2010, the state population suffered a net loss of 31,000 people.

The Fed

The concept of democracy is comforting to most of us. It seems to instill a feeling of security and freedom. Consequently, if the majority ruled, we would all be forced to live like the majority. Simple-mindedly. The majority believes in "something for nothing". There is no such thing.

Fortunately, the Founders did not think like the majority. If the majority had ruled, we would have never had a revolution. The Founders were part of the minority and did not establish our government as a democracy. In fact, the only references to democracy in the founding documents of our nation were purveyed in a very negative light.

Liberty is the concept on which our county was founded. Liberty is the only thing that insures our freedom. The Constitution and its first ten Amendments, (the Bill of Rights), provided for our liberties and therefore our freedom. Attempts by "the Dark Side" to subjugate the Constitution, (i.e..., the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Acts I and II, and any other legislation that tends to abort Constitutional mandates), have been veiled attempts to strip our liberties and therefore our freedom. Consider that in the past, we had Liberty coins, not Democracy coins. We have the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Democracy. We pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, not the democracy for which it stands. Patrick Henry said: "Give me Liberty or give me death!", not "Give me democracy or give me death".

The ideology of Liberty suggests and implies that people should choose to be benevolent and productive, as part of God's moral code. That society will create for itself non-governmental organizations to deal with social needs, that government is established by society to sustain and defend the unalienable (God given) rights of the individual, and limited only to this function. Political power was to remain within the individual and his society.

So you may ask, if we live in a Republic founded upon the principles of Liberty and limited government, why do so many of our politicians and teachers keep trying to shove this concept of democracy down our throats, as if freedom naturally followed? That is a very good question! Perhaps puppet politicians and their masters don't like the limits on the powers that have been granted them by our state and federal constitutions. Maybe it's because majority rule sounds legitimate and moral on its face. The majority of "We the People" have apparently gone for their hooey. If we don't watch out, we may end up where we are heading. Only the knowledge of our heritage will enable us to anticipate such schemes and act accordingly to right the direction of our Republic. If we are to successfully alter the course of America, we must familiarize ourselves with our Constitutional tenets, and share them with everyone we meet. We must "Defend to the Death" the Constitution of the United States of America. Otherwise, we will be forced to take whatever "the Dark Side" decides to dole out.

Making money use to be the highest and most meaningful contribution a free man in a free market could make to the economic vibrancy of our society. The Constitution originally contained the words: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property". Through the application of each individual's energies, in the "Pursuit of Property", the standard of life in our country was progressively raised for everyone.

Unfortunately, through an insidious misinformation campaign, we have been duped by those whose wealth and position have allowed them to be tempted by, and then to succumb to, the lure of avarice and greed. They have decided that anything less than everything is not enough. "The Dark Side" has thwarted the essence of capitalism by engineering the demise of the Gold Standard. Through their incipient use of "political puppets" they have, over the course of the last two hundred years, finally succeeded in channeling the wealth, which comes as a result of human toil, into their coffers. The producers and savers of our county, it's life blood, are being methodically fleeced. Soon, the last meaningful productive job in America will be exported to China. On that day American society will become a zoo, and we, as citizens, will be reduced to the station of animals in a cage, totally dependent on the zoo-keepers for our food and shelter. All this has been promulgated by a collectivist mind-set.

Central banking is the vehicle through which the most heinous rip off ever conceived in the history of the world has been perpetrated. The U.S. Federal Reserve is the most successful of all central banks in history. Since 1971 it's unfettered issuance of money has continued to debase our currency and as a result adulterated our living standard at an ever increasing rate.

From Jon Rappoport:

Of the many definitions of collectivism, this simple one is my favorite: "The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it."

When I was starting out as a reporter 30 years ago, one of my first editors sat down with me and said, " In America, collectivism is what the government does to people to make them deaf, dumb, and blind, so the corporations can steal everything from them."

He went on to tell me, off the record, that his paper wasn't interested in collectivism, only the corporations. That was his line in the sand.

An early assignment was interviewing a congressman. As I sat in a tony cafe with him, an idea kept buzzing in my head: he was giving things away that weren't his to begin with.

I couldn't make that idea sharper. It was a stray thought, and it kept nagging at me, long after the interview was done. It somehow reminded me of the classic shell game. Three shells, one pea. Guess which shell is hiding the pea. What if the pea isn't there at all?

I realized I was trying to understand something about collectivism, the psychology of it. Another image struck me: the old telephone game, where one person whispers a phrase to another, and that person passes it on, until the last person announces what he's heard; and of course now it bears no resemblance to the original message.

How about starting the game with no message at all? You just make a kind of hissing mumble. And the last person in the circle emerges with "life is good."

That's a metaphor for collectivism.

Collectivism is a system by which people give each other what they don't have.

Financial Survival

History reveals nations can be conquered by the use of one or more of three methods.

The most common is conquest by war. In time, though, this method usually fails, because the captives hate the captors and rise up and drive them out if they can. Much force is needed to maintain control, making it expensive for the conquering nation.

A second method is by religion, where men are convinced they must give their captors part of their earnings as "obedience to God." Such a captivity is vulnerable to philosophical exposure or by overthrow by armed force, since religion by its nature lacks military force to regain control, once its captives become disillusioned.

The third method can be called economic conquest. It takes place when nations are placed under "tribute" without the use of visible force or coercion, so that the victims do not realize they have been conquered. "Tribute" is collected from them in the form of "legal" debts and taxes, and they believe they are paying it for their own good, for the good of others, or to protect all from some enemy. Their captors become their "benefactors" and "protectors.

Although this is the slowest to impose. It is often quite long lasting, as the captives do not see any military force arrayed against them, their religion is left more or less intact, they have freedom to speak and travel, and they participate in "elections" for their rulers. Without realizing it, they are conquered, and the instruments of their own society are used to transfer their wealth to their captors and make the conquest complete.

Today, as we stand before the dawn of a New World Order run by internationalist financiers, most of the revenue collected by the Federal government in the form of individual income taxes will go straight to paying the interest on the debt alone. At the rate the debt is increasing, eventually we'll reach a point where, even if the government takes every penny of its citizens' income via taxation, it will still not collect enough to keep up with the interest payments. The government will own nothing, the people will own nothing, and the banks will own everything. The New World Order will foreclose on America." - Ammended from Sheldon Emery's "Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People.

From The Daily Bell:

Stagnant Wages and Speculation Triggered the Crisis ... There's been a lot of debate about just what is at the root of the current economic crisis. Some people have called it a banking crisis. Some people have called it a regulatory crisis. Some people are trying to say it's a debt crisis. Well, there's another line of thought, which is: the underlying issue is that in fact it's a crisis of inequality. Now joining us to talk about all of that is Stephanie Seguino. She's a professor in the department of economics at the University of Vermont. She's worked with a number of international organizations, including the United Nations development program. She's a research scholar at the PERI institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. And that's where she joins us from today. – The Real News Network

This is a fun article/interview to analyze because unlike Greenbackerism it doesn't aspire to any kind of faux-sophistication about finance or maliciously distort the truth to mislead people. It studiously avoids reality, but that's not quite the same thing ...

The ludicrousness of the hypothesis is simply "out there," flapping in the wind for all to see. If you don't know anything about money and are in your teens, skinny and inflamed with indignation about "capitalism," then this hypothesis is for you.

Sure, the problems of the world are based on "inequality" – that nasty state of affairs imposed by craven capitalists. All that needs to be done is for the people to rise up and create a Nirvana in which every man receives a just allotment ... From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

You must first realize that there are, present in our lives, enemies. You must then know who those enemies are and act accordingly.

Eliminate as much debt as possible, especially “variable rate” debt, such as credit cards and lines of credit. Interest rates will be rising, so the elimination of debt offers a “real return” of escaping rising rates by creditors.

Get some control over some fresh water.

If you are depending on Social Security, stop.

Follow the course opposite to custom and you will almost always do well...

Its not what you don't know that will screw you up, it's what you know that is wrong. The spin you hear from the mainstream media is intended to mislead you. Open your eyes and face the future. If you leave your head in the sand and ignore it, you are only leaving your butt exposed for the world to kick. This all may sound like gloom and doom, but when you get a handle on what is going to happen, you will have a future filled with opportunity. Fortune favors the Informed.

More next week...

May the Great Spirit be with you always,

Johnny Silver Bear
Chief cook and bottle washer, The Silver Bear Cafe

Disclaimer

All statements and expressions are the sole opinions of the editor and are subject to change without notice. A profile, description, or other mention of a company in the newsletter is neither an offer nor solicitation to buy or sell any securities mentioned. While we believe all sources of information to be factual and reliable, in no way do we represent or guarantee the accuracy thereof, nor the statements made herein. The staff of Silver Bear Cafe are not registered investment advisors and do not purport to offer personalized investment related advice. The publisher, editor, staff, or anyone associated with, or associated to the Silver Bear Cafe may own securities mentioned in this newsletter and may buy or sell securities without notice.