In 1870, Chang suffered a stroke and his health deteriorated over the next four years. In 1874, at age 62, he developed bronchitis and died. His brother Eng realised immediately that his continued attachment to his brother meant that he was next. Although he was separated from his twin in an emergency operation, Eng died hours later. He left the problem too long and paid with his life.

Just as with Siamese twins, it’s a risky proposition for one country to have too much dependency on another. If a visitor to Uruguay were to visit a supermarket and examine the origin of the products by reading labels, he would find that Uruguay produces 90% of the food it consumes. In Cuba, however, we read the labels on packaging and see that the great majority of packaged foods comes from Mexico. This suggests that, should food production diminish in Mexico or should there be political turmoil or shipping problems, Cuba could face significant problems in feeding its people.

A similar problem exists in Canada. Roughly 70% of Canada’s export product is sold to the US, whilst over 60% of its imports come from the US. Of particular concern is oil. The Canadian oil industry cannot survive without the US, as most of its oil production is shipped there. Unless oil returns to a level over $60/bbl fairly soon (don’t hold your breath), and the US doesn’t stop dithering over the pipeline issue, not only will Canadian jobs and oil sales suffer, but entire companies are likely to fail.

Regarding banking, Canadians take pride in their system and rightfully so, as Canadian banks have been nowhere near as cavalier as American banks in recent history. However, without transfers between the two countries (particularly between New York and Toronto), their banks would quickly find themselves in peril. If the US were to find itself in an economic crisis, as appears likely, Canada’s banks would also be in crisis.

In 2007, the US experienced a collapse in its real estate market. Many Canadians felt that they were in better shape as they did not experience a similar collapse. Unfortunately, though, the Canadian housing bubble continued to grow. Over the last 10 years, inflation-adjusted residential real estate prices in Canada haveincreased by 49.3%, whilst US and EU numbers have gone down. House buyers in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto are way overdue for a major fall. All that would be needed would be a rise in interest rates to prick the bubble. (Canadian real estate values must decline by 35.1% just to be equal to the US.)

Other sectors of the economy, however, have already taken a hit from the North American recession. Jobs have disappeared and wages have not kept abreast of increasing costs. Households have made up the difference with debt and have committed themselves to a phenomenal level of borrowing. Indebtedness in relation to income has increased dramatically.

All the above (and other factors too numerous to mention) serve as a reminder that, should the US take a fall economically, its Siamese twin will be in for problems that will mirror those of its brother to the south.

If ever there were a time when the cavalry needs to ride in and save the day, it would be over the next year or two. Unfortunately, the opposite is likely to occur. Canadians have recently opted to elect pinup boy Justin Trudeau as its prime minister, who has already promised to steer Canada further into taxation and debt.

To show he means business, he has sold off virtually all of Canada’s three tonnes of gold reserves.

Those of us who are British are still smarting over UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s sale of Britain’s gold at the bottom of the market (just under $300) at the turn of the millennium. Mister Trudeau has likely accomplished a similar feat if it proves true that gold is now at the bottom of its four-year correction and is poised for its next bull market.

In my own country, I deal regularly with Canadian investors who often say something to the effect of, “The US is headed off the cliff. I know we’ll feel the heat, but thank God we’re more conservative and it won’t be too bad for us.”

It’s true that in several ways, Canada hasn’t been as stupid as the US, but (especially with Mister Trudeau now in the driver’s seat), as events unfold in the US, they may well make up for lost time. It’s entirely possible that the new Canadian government will shoot itself in the foot repeatedly until they catch up with the US. However, even at best, when the US pulls the “flush” handle on their economy, Canada will caught in the maelstrom.

In 1874, when Chang and Eng died, people queried, “Why didn’t they have the surgery to separate themselves years previously when it would have assured the longevity of one if the other died?”

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and it’s no different for nations. Rarely does any nation take the bitter pill of diversifying prior to a crisis. Almost invariably, the “Eng” nation procrastinates until it’s too late, and it follows its brother into crisis and/or collapse.

If the reader finds himself nodding at this observation, he may question whether he, as an individual, is prepared. Today, a quiet exodus of Americans has begun. Increasing numbers are diversifying themselves out of the US; moving their wealth (and often themselves) out of their home country so that they won’t be casualties when the odiferous effluvium hits the fan.

However, fewer Canadians share their concern. We’re seeing less of an exodus from Canada. Do they have reason to feel less threatened? Well, certainly we shall see a collapse in several of the world’s most prominent jurisdictions in future. If we base our projections on the fundamentals alone, we might see a crash in China, one in Japan, the EU, then America. Canada might well come in at the end.

However, the fundamentals certainly indicate that all will be hard hit at one point or another, and it’s not always the fundamentals that set the order. In the end, it’s generally a series of black swan events that trigger the inevitable, sometimes resulting in a less logical order.

Black swans are, by definition, unpredictable. It may turn out that oil alone could trigger an early fall for Canada. But our concern here should not be over which jurisdiction hits the skids first. Our concern should be the inevitability of the events.

It should be said that it’s far too late in the game to perform surgery that would assure a healthy Canada if and when the US takes its dive. It’s not, however, too late for Canadians to create individual diversification of investment. They may still sell off their homes and choose to rent for the next few years (better to lose a little than a lot). They may also move their money out of financial institutions and into precious metals in an offshore depository. And if they wish to own property, they might choose to buy land or built property in a jurisdiction that promises to survive the coming economic debacle better than their home country.

There are certainly means, and there may be adequate time to avoid the same outcome as Eng.

Editor’s Note: Most people have no idea what really happens when an economy collapses, let alone how to prepare…

How will you protect yourself in the event of an economic crisis?

By Jeff Thomas

The migration issue is a major one. After much hand-wringing between the UK Government and the EU, a settlement has been arrived at that Brussels says it won’t budge on. In order to retain the UK in the EU, it will grant a seven-year holiday on full access to in-work benefits by newly-arrived migrants. In his White Paper, Mister Cameron presents this “emergency brake” as a major concession that he has achieved with the EU. However, what this concession really means is that the UK will bear the blows from a smaller cudgel for the next seven years, after which the larger cudgel will be employed on a permanent basis.

He seems a bit baffled that British citizens are not impressed at his achievement, and it’s this character flaw that separates him (along with other political leaders) from the British people: he truly doesn’t “get” why the populace is not pleased to be temporarily beaten with the lesser cudgel for a limited period, followed by the permanent use of the larger cudgel.

To the average citizen, this should be easy to understand, yet this character flaw is the norm amongst not only British politicians, but virtually all career politicians everywhere.

In my years of working closely with government leaders (and would-be leaders) from my own country and internationally, I’ve learned over time that there’s a mind-set that’s common to those who have made politics their life’s work. They think fundamentally differently from businesspeople who learn to make things work both practically and economically over an extended period. The latter must do so, or go out of business. Political leaders, however, don’t have this restriction. For them, the job is not one of being profitable and effective in satisfying the public with a good or service. For them, profitability is irrelevant. Further, they need not satisfy the public; they need merely to succeed in imposing their programmes onto the public.

Politicians approach life from an entirely different viewpoint from businesspeople and businesspeople almost invariably fail to understand this. Although a former businessman who has entered public life may be able to place a foot in each camp successfully, those who enter politics early on, or those who have an initial career in the Civil Service but later switch to politics, lack the fundamental understanding of the workings of economics and the free market.

They don’t so much seek to undermine the free market as much as they simply don’t recognize its relevance. (This, understandably, is a fact that businessmen find hard to acknowledge or adapt to when dealing with political leaders.)

Career politicians assume that the nature of leadership is to burden the populace with legislation and taxation. They truly don’t understand the concept of limited government. It’s an absurd anomaly to them, so the question is therefore only the manner in which they burden the populace. Lessening the burden is simply not an issue. Whilst they understand that voters wish to be told that the burden will be diminished, it’s not by any means the intent of leaders to do so. In a politician’s mind, the purpose of the existence of the populace is to fill the trough for the leaders. And, of course, the fuller, the better.

In working for, with, and (often) against political leaders on issues, I’ve found this to be almost universally true, regardless of which country they represent. Indeed, I’ve rarely been successful when appealing to any leader to drop a proposal because it might not be in the interest of the populace. I have, however, often been successful in getting a leader to drop a proposal when I’ve advised him that it may be used by the opposition to cost him votes in the next election.

Again, the only exceptions to this have been those who were not career politicians. Regardless of whether I was dealing with my own country’s leaders, British parliamentarians, or US congressmen, virtually all of them have been career politicians and have, by definition, regarded their own position of power to be the primary concern.

The UK has had career politicians since time immemorial; the US had its first presidential career politician as early as 1825, in John Quincy Adams. In my own country, the Cayman Islands, career politicians are not quite as common as in the US and UK. Consequently, we enjoy a somewhat more enlightened perception amongst our political leaders than the US and UK. Many come from the private sector and successfully return to it after they leave office. (It’s also true that career politicians I’ve known that have been ousted typically have had a difficult time obtaining and retaining employment after leaving office, as they simply don’t understand business or real life.)

This suggests that there should be term limits for politicians; that no one should serve in political office for more than a given number of terms (Two? Three? Four?). This would certainly serve to keep the mix more healthy.

The likelihood of this coming about? Don’t hold your breath. No politician is going to vote to limit the amount of time he will be able to use the system to his own ends.

So, then, what about that UK referendum?

The purpose of this article is to offer insight into the thought process of career politicians and to assist the reader in predicting how his political leaders will act in any given situation, so it began with an example—that of the UK Government’s settlement with the EU with regard to the upcoming referendum as to whether to remain in the EU.

However, an associate has asked that I additionally offer an assessment as to how I feel the EU question is likely to be resolved following the referendum in June, given the true nature of political leaders. So, let’s have a look at that.

Certainly, they’ve already revealed their objective. Mister Cameron’s White Paper goes on at length (39 pages of encouragement) to recommend remaining in the Union. He describes it as “the best of both worlds … influencing the decisions that affect us, in the driving seat of the world’s biggest market,” yet, “we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us.”

Mister Cameron also offers a warning as to what will become of Britain should she leave the EU. “Leaving Europe would threaten our economic and national security … at a time of uncertainty – a leap in the dark.”

Of particular interest is his repeated reminder that, “The central element of the deal that the Government has secured is an International Law Decision … and cannot be amended or revoked unless all member States, including the UK agree … the International Law Decision is legally-binding and irreversible.”

Mister Cameron goes on at length to describe the “protection” that this allows the UK, as it would mean that the EU could not unilaterally apply greater demands on the UK without unanimous approval by all EU nations, including the UK. What he does not say, however, is that this agreement is reciprocal, which means that, although the UK may opt out of the EU now, the settlement presently under review requires that, should the UK choose to remain in the EU, it cannot in the futuremake a Brexit unless all the 28 Member States agree unanimously. From that day forward, the UK will be on-board the EU train, even if it heads off an economic cliff. (Oh-oh.)

Mister Cameron closes with the comment, “It offers us certainty. We are stronger, safer and better off in the EU, compared to years of disruption and the uncertainty of leaving for an unknown destination outside.” The reader is left with the scary image of the UK being outside in the cold, poorly-clothed and with nothing to eat. Of course, this image is an inaccurate one, as, EU or no EU, individual European States will still seek trade with Britain, as it’s vital to the EU economy—an economy that’s presently nearing collapse.

So, to put the situation more simply, the EU train is approaching an economic cliff. It’s made a final stop, prior to resuming travel, in order for British passengers to get off, if they so choose. In order to keep them on-board, they’ve offered a few concessions—offering to make the seating a bit more comfy. However, once the UK has agreed to resume travel, they’ll be strapped into their seats with no further opportunity to exit the train, even as it heads inexorably toward the cliff. Although a Brexit now would cause more immediate pain than to stay in, in the long run, all things being equal, Britain would be the first to escape the doomed train, and the first to recover following the crash.

So, that’s it, then…Britons need to vote in favour of the Brexit?

Well, actually, in spite of all the above, not necessarily. And that’s because, all things are not equal. There’s a rather large fly in the ointment and that’s that the process of withdrawal is rigged in favour of the EU. They have the option of prolonging the Brexit so that it might take as long as a decade or more to negotiate. During that time, the EU would be free to carry on passing new legislation that was unfavourable to the UK. Would they do so? Unquestionably, yes. They would make an example of Britain, doing all in their power to demonstrate what happens to defectors. They would do this even to the detriment of other member-states. (Remember, this is not about progress, it’s about power. Brussels has positioned itself for more power and the deck has been rigged to assure that they get it.)

The upshot is that, if Britain could withdraw from the EU quickly, it would be in for a rough road initially but, ultimately, would be recovering just as the EU was collapsing. It would therefore emerge as a healthier economy, with the advantage with regard to future negotiations.

But that will not occur. The EU will prolong the Brexit and make it as painful for the British people as possible. We cannot know how vindictive the EU might be, or even can be. Consequently, there can be no clear answer as to whether it’s best to exit now, or stay on board and hope for the best. Either way, it will be very painful for the UK. What we can’t know is which choice will be worse. Certainly, the EU will ultimately collapse and all bets will then be off. There will be a re-shuffle of the European deck and entirely new agreements to be considered.

Armed with our understanding as to the nature of career politicians, we can anticipate that what we’re likely to witness will be the EU and the UK Government working in concert to expand their mutual power, whilst Britain, as a nation, pays the price.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…

We think everyone should own some physical gold. Gold is the ultimate form of wealth insurance. It’s preserved wealth through every kind of crisis imaginable. It will preserve wealth during the next crisis, too.

But if you want to be truly “crisis-proof” there’s more to do…

by Jeff Thomas

1: Please know you look marvelous

2: If your a woman, well you look even better than marvelous. You look fantastic!

3: Remember life is much better than the bull#$!& mainstream media is feeding us. Question everything!!!!!!

4: If your looking for work. Well, remember we’re in an economic mess and jobs are easy to find if your working for minimum wage but harder and much more competitive since men and women are vying for the same jobs. And if your a man, your less likely to get the position. So get tough.

And 5: Always remember we came in with nothing and we’re going out with nothing!

by Richard Paul:

Statistic Canada is full of disturbing numbers these days showing much of the sustainability needed for growth in Canada lower than expected. In fact Canada is looking to face the inevitable consequences of the 2008 financial crisis experienced in the United when the Federal Reserve Bank started issuing quantitative easing programs. Essentially monetizing debt.

“Provincially, employment declined in Alberta and Manitoba, while it increased in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick.

There were fewer people working in manufacturing; business, building, and other support services; ‘other services’; natural resources; and agriculture. These losses were offset by gains in wholesale and retail trade as well as accommodation and food services.

The number of self-employed workers edged down in April, while there was little change among public and private sector employees.

Although Stats Can points to an offsetting of jobs in core growth  by productivity in ” wholesale and retail trade as well as accommodation and  food industry.” This does not bode well for Canadians as more and more people are becoming waitresses and waiters. And with an increasing population in youth with the highest unemployment numbers in Canada. These highly educated people are facing strong headwinds;

“Employment for youths aged 15 to 24 was virtually unchanged in April, and their unemployment rate was 13.1%, little changed from both the previous month and 12 months earlier. On a year-over-year basis, employment for this group decreased by 43,000 (-1.7%). Over the same period, the youth population continued to decline (-46,000 or -1.0%).”

But that’s not all;

As Stat Can states ” The total value of building permits issued by Canadian municipalities was down 7.0% to $6.9 billion in March, marking the second decline in three months. The decrease, which followed a 15.3% gain in February, was largely the result of lower construction intentions for commercial buildings in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia.”

In the non-residential sector, the value of building permits was down 22.8% to $2.4 billion in March, following a 32.6% increase the previous month. Declines were reported in half the provinces, with Alberta responsible for most of the drop, followed by British Columbia and Ontario. ”

You would think Alberta is leading the charge with such nonsense but don’t be mislead. Although Alberta seems to be the darling scapegoat at the moment. Ontario and Vancouver are actually leading the way in this fall. As Zero Hedge reported ” Less than two weeks ago we documented that Toronto based Urbancorp, one of Canada’s largest residential developers, was having significant issues. Its attorney’s had taken the highly unusual step of terminating their contract, it hadn’t released 2015 financials due to the audit committee having “open issues and questions”, and most intriguing, a board member quit just two weeks after being appointed specifically to provide expertise in accounting.”

As Zero Hedge continues.

“And while the Greater Toronto Area may not be exactly Vancouver (where the real estate situation is getting more outlanding by the day), the local housing market has been consistently portrayed as sufficiently resilient and an indication of Canada’s economic stability.

But perhaps it isn’t, because late last night we learned that Urbancorp has filed for bankruptcy.

The filing which is seeking court approval to sell assets “to maximize real estate values for the benefit of creditors and other stakeholders,” came just four months after the company issued roughly $48 million in debt traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, and eight months after reportedly taking out at $225 million loan. To the best of our knowledge, the company failed to pay interest on its new debt even once (also known as a NCAA or No Coupon At All). As The Globe and Mail reports, several contractors have registered construction liens against a project in Toronto’s Leslieville neighborhood, and there are many lawsuits pending against the corporation as a result of contractors and brokers not being paid.”

And if GDP is any indication;

“After rising for four consecutive months, real gross domestic product edged down 0.1% in February. The output of goods-producing industries declined in February, while the output of service-producing industries was essentially unchanged.

After increasing 0.9% in January, the output of goods-producing industries contracted 0.6% in February primarily as a result of decreases in manufacturing and mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction. Declines were also registered in the agriculture and forestry sector as well as in utilities. Construction edged up.

The output of service-producing industries was essentially unchanged in February, after rising for four consecutive months. A notable decline in wholesale trade was offset by gains in retail trade and, to a lesser extent, the public sector (education, health and public administration combined) and accommodation and food services.”

Noting that Canada has not discussed its attitude towards the US missile defence program in over a decade, the “consultation” document presents the issue in a manner aimed at promoting Canada’s participation. It states, “Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in the coming decades.”

Its name notwithstanding, the US missile-defense system is anything but defensive. It is aimed at realizing US imperialism’s longstanding goal of developing the technological means to wage a “winnable” nuclear war—a strategic question that has been receiving growing attention in ruling circles in Washington in recent months.

Over the past decade, the US has spent some $100 billion on weapons to counter ballistic-missiles and it has partnered with NATO allies in Europe to station BMD equipment on that continent, as well as with Japan, South Korea and Australia in the Asia-Pacific.

Canada’s renewed readiness to sign up to this reckless initiative reflects its close integration with US imperialism–the most destabilizing force in world politics. Canada is a major ally in the Obama administration’s three major military-strategic offensives: in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe and the Baltic against Russia, and in the Asia-Pacific targeting China.

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly stated, a key priority of his government is to deepen Canada-US cooperation. Toward that end, his government has announced a tripling of Canadian Special Forces’ troops in Iraq and is considering deploying Canada’s military in at least half-a-dozen other countries, including Libya, Mali, and Haiti.

As with the Chretien Liberal government’s decision not to participate in the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, the rejection of missile defense two years later had nothing to do with opposition to US military aggression. The Martin Liberal government combined its rejection of BMD with a budget that pledged to boost military spending by $13 billion over the next five years so as to demonstrate its commitment to an expanded and better-armed military.

If Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin felt unable to approve Canadian participation in the US BMD program, it was because of the deep unpopularity of the Bush administration and the weak position of his Liberal Party, which was dependent on opposition support in parliament. Just a year later, Martin’s minority Liberal government was defeated in the 2006 federal election and replaced by Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.
Nonetheless, the 2005 decision did create frictions. Bush waited over a week before returning a call placed by Martin to the White House to explain Ottawa’s refusal to join BMD, and the corporate media was overwhelmingly critical of the Liberals’ position. What support there was in the Canadian elite for Martin’s decision was bound up with right-wing Canadian nationalism, including the claim that the BMD program would violate the country’s sovereignty.

In an April 25 comment, the Toronto Star’s Tim Harper notes that senior Canadian military officials have been lobbying to reverse the BMD decision virtually ever since the Martin government’s 2005 announcement.
A key factor in the Liberals’ determination to push forward with BMD is its intention to intensify cooperation with the US under the guise of “continental defence.” The defence policy review document also contains proposals to expand or “modernize” NORAD, the Canada-US joint aerospace command set up in 1958.

Another significant consideration in the reopening of the missile defence debate is the increased focus in policymaking circles on the Arctic. The US and Canada have seized on Russian military operations on its domestic territory in the Arctic to present Moscow as an aggressive player in the region that must be confronted. A number of reports and comments, including a study by the Conference of Defence Associations and the defence policy review consultation paper itself, point to concerns over the supposed dearth of Canadian military equipment and personnel in the region.

Canada’s full integration into the missile defence system would give it additional leverage in its moves to extend its territorial claims in the area around the North Pole, where it is directly being challenged by counter-claims from Russia. Fellow NATO-member Denmark has also submitted its own claim to a large swathe of the Arctic Ocean, based on its control of Greenland, including waters and ocean-floor coveted by Canada.
While the Harper government was considering joining BMD prior to last year’s election, the ruling elite concluded that the increased militarization of Canadian foreign policy and its further integration into US war plans against Russia and China could best be prepared with a Liberal government seeking to sell this reactionary agenda to the public behind a wave of “progressive” rhetoric. Sections of the ruling elite are concerned that this will become much more difficult should Republican frontrunner Donald Trump enter the White House after the US election this November.

The Liberals were discussing plans to deepen ties with US imperialism long before coming to power. Last June, Trudeau delivered an important speech calling for “real change” in Canada-US relations. One of his central demands was greater continental policy coordination between Washington and Ottawa to better project their common interests on a range of issues. This topic has been raised again in the current debate. Proponents of Canada’s participation in BMD argue that the current situation in which Canadian Armed Forces’ personnel are active in NORAD, which is responsible for providing radar data to the BMD system, but have no say in how the missile defense system is positioned and used, is untenable and poses a grave danger to Canadian geopolitical interests.

Barely two weeks after the Liberals’ sweeping victory in the October 19 election, the Centre on International Policy Studies think-tank issued a report urging the new government to reverse the missile defense decision as part of its declared goal of “reengaging” Canada on the global stage. One of the report’s authors, Bob McRae, Canada’s former ambassador to NATO, provocatively proclaimed at a public forum held at the University of Ottawa as the study was released, “Splendid isolation is not an option for Canada.”

At the same time, Sajjan received briefing material from the military, as part of his transition into office, which underlines the top brass’s support for BMD. “The strategic importance of ballistic missile defense,” said one briefing paper, “has increased in recent years.”

The Trudeau government offered a further signal of its intent to join BMD with its appointment of Bill Graham to the panel of four experts that is overseeing the defence policy review. A former Liberal defence minister, Graham is a strong advocate of missile defense. He told a Senate committee in May 2014 that participation in BMD was essential to protecting Canada’s privileged military-security relationship with Washington. “It seems to me,” said Graham, “we’re outside of an extraordinarily complex and amazingly new form of a weapons system which will affect our security but which we are foreign to decisions around its development. I think that’s a dangerous place to be.”

The Liberals and Conservatives on the Senate committee joined together to unanimously recommend Canada join BMD.

A Liberal decision to join BMD would be welcomed by the opposition Conservatives. Asked about the issue last month, former defence minister and likely Conservative leadership candidate Jason Kenny declared. “This is, I think, an obligation for us.”

The New Democratic Party, which opposed joining in 2005 and described BMD as “weaponizing space,” has criticized the Liberals for reopening the debate. Defence critic Randall Garrison said he had “a bad feeling” about the proposal, and told the Ottawa Citizen he feared it would trigger an arms race. Such hand-wringing is worth little coming from a party that has supported one imperialist military intervention after another beginning with Canada’s involvement in the NATO-led bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 and is on record as favouring increased military spending.

By Roger Jordan

Here are some excerpts to get the party rolling along.”They also knew, having helped Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne bag a surprise majority in 2014 on a big-government platform, that deficits were no longer political cyanide. Their innovation – a bit of strategic brilliance, really – was to see that hewing to deficits could actually be a political plus.”

Want some more? “There is no recession in Canada“( he just forgot to check this) this , this and this, “Second, interest rates are at a cyclical nadir, meaning borrowing costs are as low as they’re likely to get.” What? costs are low? Well , let me see that for one minute. Canada has a net debt of , according to the Frazer institute of $1.3 trillion This means just to service the debt, meaning paying interest only per day cost is $150 plus million dollars a day!

That’s right folks. Think of all those millions going to service the debt instead of our beloved selfie Prime Minister and his Finance Minister donating all that money to helping out hard working Canadians. No, Tandt continues even further.”Third, some of the country’s plumbing is genuinely frayed: the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card 2016, co-sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, holds that 12 per cent of Canada’s municipal infrastructure – which includes roads, bridges, water and sewage treatment plants – is in “poor” or “very poor” condition, with an estimated replacement cost of $141 billion”.

But wait . Let’s get former Prime Minster of Canada and former ace Finance Minister Paul Martin on this.

Give it a break Tandt. Get informed before speaking out of turn.

Richard Paul

It would seem being a man these days is akin to being some sort of freak. Whereas anything men say can be construed as , sexist, harassing or downright homophobic.

Does the Ottawa Citizen have an agenda? Seems to us it does since we hear nothing about the absurd debt incurred by our “Kathleen Wynne’s bone-headed plan to sell Hydro One” or even her plan to revamp our educational system. To dumb down its population.

So just to make sure no-one suspects the enormous 300 billion debt Ontarian’s will need to pay up thru more taxes and user fees.

No your “You’re not imagining it. Canadian politics is getting dumber.”

Meanwhile Rome is burning and the Emperor has no clothes.

Richard Paul

Listen to Victoria Grant, 12 years old give us the answer.

They also involve faked economic events and financial casualties.

For example, two officials of the International Monetary Fund said last month that they needed the threat of an imminent financial catastrophe to force other players into accepting its measures such as cutting Greek pensions and working conditions, and – as the Greek government put it (via Bloomberg) – the IMF was “considering a plan to cause a credit event in Greece and destabilize Europe.”

High-level officials also admitted to intentionally destroying their own nations’ economies in order to “justify” structural economic reforms.

For example, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Japanese central bank officials admitted that they kept Japan’s economy in a deflationary crisis to promote “structural reform” which would allow the Japanese economy to be looted by foreign interests. Japanese central bank officials admitted the same thing.

Japan Times noted in 2003:

“Official statements by BOJ executives [reveal]: The BOJ can be helpful by not being helpful. The princes recognized that such structural change was so opposed to the special and general interests of most Japanese — citizens, businessmen, bureaucrats and politicians — that it could be achieved only by crippling the economy and preventing its recovery.”

Something similar happened in Thailand and the EU.

Indeed, the former head of the Bank of England said last month that the depression in the EU was more or less a “deliberate” policy choice.

And an economist at insurance giant AIG – and former head of the European Commission’s unit responsible for the European Monetary System and monetary policies – said in 2008 that what European leaders wanted was to create a crisis to force introduction of “European economic government.”

Indeed, Greece (more), Italy, Ireland (and here) and other European countries have all lost their national sovereignty to the ECB and the other members of the Troika.

ECB head Mario Draghi said in 2012:

The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states’ national budgets.

***

“I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level.”

***

“Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill of the financial markets.”

And the Tarp bank bailouts in the U.S. were passed using apocalyptic – and false – threats. And they were not used for the stated purpose.

For example, as I’ve previously reported:

The New York Times wrote last year:

In retrospect, Congress felt bullied by Mr. Paulson last year. Many of them fervently believed they should not prop up the banks that had led us to this crisis — yet they were pushed by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke into passing the $700 billion TARP, which was then used to bail out those very banks.

Indeed, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn’t passed.

That is especially interesting given that the financial crisis had actually been going on for a long time, but – instead of dealing with it – Paulson and the rest of the crew tried to cover it up and pretend it was “contained”, and that it was obvious to world leaders months earlier that it was not a liquidity crisis, but a solvency crisis (and see this).

Bait And Switch

The Tarp Inspector General has said that Paulson misrepresented the big banks’ health in the run-up to passage of TARP. This is no small matter, as the American public would have not been very excited about giving money to insolvent institutions.

And Paulson himself has said:

During the two weeks that Congress considered the [Tarp] legislation, market conditions worsened considerably. It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets—our initial focus—would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem. In consultation with the Federal Reserve, I determined that the most timely, effective step to improve credit market conditions was to strengthen bank balance sheets quickly through direct purchases of equity in banks.

So Paulson knew “by the time the bill was signed” that it wouldn’t be used for its advertised purpose – disposing of toxic assets – and would instead be used to give money directly to the big banks?

Senator McCain also says that Paulson pulled a bait-and-switch:

Sen. John McCain of Arizona … says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.

“Obviously, that didn’t happen,” McCain said in a meeting Thursday with The Republic‘s Editorial Board, recounting his decision-making during the critical initial days of the fiscal crisis. “They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out (insurance giant) AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors. . . . What they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street – I guess it was trickle-down economics – that therefore Main Street would be fine.”

Even the New York Times called Paulson a liar in 2008:

“First [Paulson’s Department of Treasury] says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities. Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions. Sneaking in the tax break isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, either.”

What tax breaks is the Times talking about? The article explains:

A new tax break [pushed by Treasury], worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/government-officials-admit-economic-military-false-flag-operations.html

Naples, Florida, a wealthy beach town on the Gulf of Mexico, known for its golf courses and high-end shopping, and a favorite hangout for Canadian snowbirds trying to escape their cold winters, has a problem:

Pending home sales in the first quarter plunged 23% from a year ago, according to the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Closed sales plunged 19%. Overall inventory soared 33%. In the two mid-price ranges from $300,000 to $1 million, inventory soared about 42%!

But sellers haven’t gotten the memo yet: even as sales crash and as unsold inventories pile up, the median closing price rose 8%.

That’s how housing busts start out. Buyers lose interest at these prices and evaporate, while sellers go into denial. As prices still rise, volume collapses. When sellers begin accepting the new reality, or when they’re forced to sell, then prices are getting slashed until enough buyers materialize.

A similar scenario began playing out last year in the broader vacation home market. Vacation-home sales in the US plunged 19% in 2015 year-over-year, to an estimated 920,000 units, according to the National Association of Realtors. Chief Economist Lawrence Yun blamed a laundry list of things that included “economic uncertainty,” a “presidential election that might lead to restrictions in economic commerce in the future,” if Trump has his way, with potentially worrisome consequences for Canadians, such as “visa restrictions,” and this gem of a reason:

“The turbulence that hit the financial markets the second half of the year likely seized some would-be buyers’ available cash.”

But even as sales volume of vacation homes plunged, the median sales price skyrocketed 28% to $192,000. The report: “Many of the metro areas with the strongest price appreciation in 2015 were in the South — the most popular destination for vacation buyers – and particularly in several Florida markets.”

Nearly half of all vacation homes sold in the US last year were in the South. And that’s where Canadian snowbirds like to warm up over the winter. But they’re smart: They’re taking profits and are cashing out at the peak of the housing market, just when the US dollar appears to have peaked against the loonie as well – a dual opportunity to profit that is just too good to pass up.

If a Canadian household bought a home in Florida a few years ago for $200,000 when the Canadian dollar was at near parity to the US dollar, they paid about C$200,000 for the house. And now if they can sell the house for US$300,000 after fees, they end up with C$378,000 at today’s exchange rate. They pocketed a 90% gain, partly on house price appreciation, and partly on US dollar appreciation. That’s a big bundle of cash to spend over a cold winter in Canada.

And that’s exactly what’s happening, according to a Bloomberg report in the Globe and Mail:

“Canadians who collected Sunbelt bargains during the housing crash have shifted from buying to selling. They’re locking in gains from years of soaring values that are even sweeter because the US dollar in the past five years has jumped about a third against their home currency.”

And this comes at the worst possible time for the vacation-home market and specifically for the markets where snowbirds like to hang out, such as Naples.

These sellers know that housing markets become illiquid as soon as buyers wait for lower prices. Suddenly you cannot sell the home for anywhere near where you thought you could just a little while ago. No one is even looking at it. And it starts the downward spiral. To get out, you have to get out early.

There’s another financial element: The costs of maintaining a vacation home in the US for people who earn their money in another currency, such as maintenance costs, homeowners’ association fees, property taxes, and the like. As the US dollar has soared against the loonie over the past several years, those US-dollar-based expenses translated into loonies have soared along with the exchange rate.

“The Canadian way is you use common sense,” Carol Bezaire, VP of tax and estate planning at Mackenzie Investments in Toronto, told Bloomberg. “If you made a profit, how much do you need to make before you decide to pull out? You get the money out and get it working somewhere else.”

Folks from the Eurozone, whose currency also plunged against the dollar, are seeing similar opportunities. As are others. Foreign homeowners with one foot in another market are free to unload a home in the US and retreat. They can act quickly. Americans cannot do that with their primary home. They have to live somewhere, and they’re essentially stuck. That’s why the vacation home market is a canary in the overall housing market: it shows symptoms first.

Few housing markets are crazier than San Francisco’s. But what had to happen is starting to happen: a phenomenal building boom is causing a condo glut that will reach dizzying proportions as new condo towers are completed. And now the dynamics of the market have reversed. Read… San Francisco’s Epic Condo Bubble Bursts