Oh how the mighty have fallen. They've fallen so badly, the (EU) Fed got this evicted off of ZeroHedge - embarrassment much? :D So for the indulgence of your salty, salty tears for the Fed, here's a cache for ya :) In Stuttering, Stumbling Address Christine Lagarde Vows To Link QE To Climate Change http://zerohedge.com/economics/stuttering-stumbling-address-christine-lagard... It's hot outside so let's print more money. In her much anticipated first appearance as president of the ECB before at the European Parliament, Christine Lagarde asked EU lawmakers on Monday to give her time to "learn the ropes" of her new job and to reshape the ECB’s monetary policy in what is likely to be a lengthy policy review, and said the ECB will be "resolute" in restoring euro-zone price stability, while stressing that an upcoming strategy review will be wide-ranging, including climate change as well as inflation. "The ECB’s accommodative policy stance has been a key driver of domestic demand during the recovery, and that stance remains in place," she said ahead of her first monetary policy meeting at the ECB on Dec. 12. Christine Lagarde arrives to testify before the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; December 2, 2019. Photos: Reuters. Similar to the Fed, the former convicted criminal and IMF chief who left Argentina near bankruptcy, has promised an overarching review of ECB business ranging from how it defines its inflation objective to whether it includes a fight against climate change among its responsibilities. “I’m indeed trying to learn German but I’m also trying to learn central bank language,” Lagarde, a former lawyer told the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in a regular hearing. “So bear with me, show a little bit of patience, don’t over-interpret, if I may say,” said a seemingly nervous Lagarde, who often diverged from the text of her prepared speech and stumbled at times, leaving out phrases or repeating herself. Lagarde said that a key focus of the review would be to determine whether its objective of keeping inflation at close to but below 2% was still valid, given changes in the global economy. Speaking a day after it was unveiled that the Fed - which is also in the process of reviewing its policies - was considered launching a new rule that would let inflation run above its 2% target to make up for lost inflation, Lagarde also said the review would look at whether the target should by symmetric, meaning it should be used to tackle both low and high inflation and not just the latter, if the ECB should have leeway in reaching that target, or whether there should be a tolerance band around it. Of course, just like the Fed, the issue for the ECB is two-fold: i) ignoring soaring asset price inflation which is where central banks have blown the biggest asset bubble in history, and ii) failing to properly measure consumer price inflation, instead applying a spate of adjustments that make it seem inflation is subdued when in reality for many prices are rising so high, the cost of living is no longer bearable. Then there is the question of whether targeting higher prices is sensible at a time when the middle class is shrinking across the developed world. As a reminder, back in June, a Bloomberg report looked at the stark disconnect between Fed policy and well, everybody else but banks and the 1%. While the Fed sees low inflation as "one of the major challenges of our time," Shawn Smith, who trains some of the nation’s most vulnerable, low-income workers stated the obvious: people don't want higher prices. Smith is the director of workforce development at Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia. In fact, he said that "even slight increases make a huge difference to someone who is living on a limited income. Whether it is a 50 cents here or 10 cents there, they are managing their dollars day to day and trying to figure out how to make it all work.’’ Indeed, as we discussed in "How The Fed's New Monetary Policy Will Crush America's Poorest", it is the low-income workers - not the "1%"ers, who are most impacted by rising prices, as such all attempts by the Fed to "help" just make life even more unaffordable for millions of Americans. None of this was a concern to Lagarde, however, who said taht the ECB's "strategy review will be guided by two principles: thorough analysis and an open mind,” Lagarde told lawmakers. “This will require time for reflection and for wide consultation.” In a recent note, HSBC discussed several options in terms of changing the mandate, from small tweaks to more fundamental changes, which the ECB may pursue. The problem, however, as HSBC noted is that the success of some of these options depends on the degree of confidence in the ECB's ability to meet it. As a result, the risk of creating a new mandate, only to fail to achieve it as soon as it is implemented, is significant, particularly with policy already so loose and little left in the tank. This was a risk already flagged by Mario Draghi at the September meeting. These risks, alongside seemingly inevitable compromises in the Governing Council – hawks will likely be averse to any option that risks persistently elevated inflation – lead HSBC to believe that if there will be changes in the ECB mandate as a result of the strategic review, they are likely to be fairly minor. Even moving to a 2% inflation target – removing the uncertainty created by the “below, but close to” – might be too contentious for some. None of this prevented Lagarde from thinking big. As in climate change big. Because what was more shocking for a central bank which admits it has failed dismally in hitting its price inflation, was its mission creep into seeking to "tame" climate change as well. Many of the questions at the parliament hearing focused on climate change, an area where the central bank has come under increasing pressure to play a bigger role. In response, Lagarde said that while inflation is the bank’s primary objective, the fight against climate change should be a central part of policy. She said that the ECB’s economic analysis should include the impact of climate change and that its bank supervision arm should also be asking lenders for transparency disclosures and climate risk assessments. And the punchline: while the ECB’s private sector bond purchases have been market neutral, Lagarde said it was also worth discussing whether climate concerns should impact the ECB's QE. NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories. How would that work we wonder: "It's hot outside, so let's print more money?" So far the ecofascists have not completely taken over yet, and as we reported previously, German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann warned against heavy-handed steps such as barring the bonds of polluters from QE, as proposed recently by a group of activists and academics in an open letter to Lagarde. Lagarde said she agreed with Weidmann, but that it doesn’t stop the ECB looking into incorporating climate change into its operations, economic analysis and bank supervision. To be sure, any mission creep in the ECB's mandate will only serve to make future monetary easing, well, easier and what better virtue-signaling smokescreen than to use "global warming" as an excuse to print an extra trillion here and there. Ironically, her linking of QE to climate change took place even as she acknowledged the adverse side effects of the ECB’s ultra-loose policy, and said the review will try to gain a better understanding of how longer-term trends affect what the central bank can control. One wonders: perhaps the ECB should have conducted such reviews before it bought nearly €3 trillion in assets starting in 2015, long after the European sovereign debt crisis was over, and was merely meant to stabilize risk prices and avoid a market crash. The take home message however was clear: it is now only a matter of time before the ECB becomes the EcoCB and is "tasked" with a loose, vague and intangible climate change mandate, one which gives the central bank a carte blanche to do virtually anything "in the name of the environment." Sure enough, at the Parliament hearing, Lagarde said that while the ECB’s primary mandate is price stability, the secondary mandate - to support the general economic policies of the European Union - can cover climate change. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to turn Europe into the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050, and green parties made significant gains in recent parliamentary elections. Finally, reaffirming the ECB’s most recent assessment of the economy, Lagarde added that growth looks weak but that the ECB was determined to use all it available tools to reach its mandate. Asked to predict what the inflation rate will be in eight year’s time when her term ends, Lagarde refused. “I don’t think that anybody in their right mind would venture to forecast any number, be it growth or inflation, eight years from today,” she said, yet clearly confident it is her job to predict how the climate will do over the same time period. On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:03:23AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

'Member the Fed, muffas:

The Greatest Swindle In American History... And How They'll Try It Again Soon https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/greatest-swindle-american-history... https://internationalman.com/articles/the-greatest-swindle-in-american-histo...

International Man: Before 1913 there was no income tax, and the United States was a much freer country. Initially, the government sold the federal income tax to the American people as something only the rich would have to pay.

Jeff Thomas: Yes, exactly. It always begins this way. The average person is always happy to see the rich taken down a peg, so this makes the introduction of the concept of theft by the government more palatable. Once people have gotten used to the concept and accept it as being perfectly reasonable, then it’s time to begin to drop the bar as to who “the rich” are. Ultimately, the middle class are always the real target.

International Man: The top bracket in 1913 kicked in at $500,000 (equivalent to around $12 million today), and the tax rate for it was only 7%. The government taxed those making up to $20,000 (equivalent to around $475,000 today) at only 1% – that’s one percent.

Jeff Thomas: Any good politician understands that you begin with the thin end of the wedge, then expand upon that as soon as you feel you can get away with it. The speed at which the tax rises is commensurate with the level of tolerance of the people. And in different eras, the same nation may have a different mindset. The more domination a people have come to accept from their government, the faster the pillaging can be expanded.

As an example, the Stamp Tax that King George III placed upon the American colonies in the eighteenth century was very small indeed – less than two percent – but the colonists were very independent people, asking little from the king in the way of assistance, and instead, relying upon themselves for their well-being. Such self-reliant people tend to be very touchy as regards confiscations by governments, and even two percent was more than they would tolerate.

By comparison, if today, say, Texas were to eliminate all state taxation and allow only two percent in federal taxation, Washington would come down on them like a ton of bricks, saying they were attempting to become a “tax haven.” They’d be accused of money laundering and aiding terrorism and might well be cut out of the SWIFT system. The federal government would shut down the state government if necessary, but diminished tax would not be tolerated.

International Man: Of course, once the American people conceded the principle of an income tax in 1913, the politicians naturally couldn’t resist ramping it up. Just look at the monstrosity that exists today in the US tax code, which most Americans passively accept as “normal.” It’s a typical example of giving an inch and taking a mile. ...

Also, a whole bunch of factual JFK stuff out recently, for those who missed what he was about:

Remembering JFK's Vision For The Future That Should Have Been https://www.zerohedge.com/political/remembering-jfks-vision-future-should-ha... https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/11/22/remembering-john-f-kennedy...

“Man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe….” President Kennedy, 1961 Inaugural Address

...

JFK: What The CIA Hides https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/jfk-what-cia-hides https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/jfk-what-the-cia-hides/

... Yet the files remain off-limits to the public. Thanks to the legal consensus, articulated by Justices Kavanaugh and Breyer, the CIA enjoys “deference upon deference” when it comes to the JFK assassination story. As a result, the JFK Records Act has been flouted. The public’s interest in full disclosure has been thwarted. ...

On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 08:30:55PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

I do know folks round these parts NEVER let this one sneaky little ditty dominate their groove, so just pretend it's NOT set to some skank tune about sex:

Let's talk about blame, ba-by, let's talk about U I B, Let's talk about all the good gold and the bad fiats, we can see, Let's talk a-bout Fed!

You know, we need to upgrade the subwoofer where I's stayin' bruh - need one o' them big megawatters which are sooo powerful you gotta bolt 'em to the floor and add reinforcements to the walls - so please, donations already! :)

Alright, so where were we - sex or something? That's right:

Harvard Wants Students To Bone Up On Oral And Anal Sex, Stop Judging Fatties https://www.zerohedge.com/health/harvard-wants-students-bone-oral-and-anal-s... https://www.thecollegefix.com/harvard-hosts-anal-sex-101-oral-sex-101-and-fa...

“Anal Sex 101,” “Oral Sex 101” and “fatphobia” workshop are among 13 different offerings students at Harvard University ...

[Are those 13 students each a different gender or what?]

Anyway, back to the Fed - so, as we learned yesterday (see below), the Fed - yes, the actual Federal Reserve Bank, recently started shilling climate change.

Riight. Totally, like, believable like!

Could, not, possibly, have any associated agenda.

Nope, nothing to see here folks, the Fed has grown some empathy and is now deeply concerned about our environment - oh, and it's all going to shit in 12 years unless we IMMEDIATELY start doing something NOW!

Soap, what could that something POSSIBLY be I hear you ask?

:D

Well, well well, who's ever thought of having a global tax on something that effects literally everyone?

What are our options?

Food - already dominated by the globalists.

Water - ditto (Coke).

Oxygen - prolly a little TOO bold in saying "we wanchyall dead yo".

Carbon dioxide - CO2, that's the one!

Welp, there ya have it iwgnats, we might need to breathe in Oxygen to live, but we sure as hell can do something about being carbon polluters - breathing out all those nasty, nasty outgassings as humans do!

Yes! Guilt! Introduce a global tax based on something which leads folks to feel guilty about being alive!

Burns: "Eggsellent Smithers, did I ever mention you're a genius?"

Smithers: "Well Sir, I actually didn't s..."

Burns: "Oh shut up and take it like a man, Smithers!"

So the Fed is suffering a little of the same disease the USA Democratic Party is suffering - in search of someone or something - ANYTHING AT ALL !!! to blame !

For the Fed, and the looming (and pre (mathematically) ordained) systemic USD reset just around the corner -- which self respecting central banker would ever want to receive the blame for such an obvious problem?

And who have they so far effectively -failed- to blame?:

- China - failed to fall to fear or anger and sell/ dump all their US Treasury certificates which would have rapidly crashed the global financial system, and thereby China failed to be the #1 scape goat for the Fed.

- Russia - despite many bold and daring attempts to lure our Russkie bros into World War 3, for some "#!@$%%@!#" reason, Putin has so far steadfastly REFUSED to strike back in any definitive way which could justify WW III, and thereby have "global catastrophic war" be the Fed's scape goat;

also, Trump, and not the warmongering bitch, got elected in the USA, so there REALLY is unlikely to be World War 3 with Russia.

And thank God for that!

- Civil War and national governments - arguably the jury is still out on this one, what with so many violent protests globally at the moment, and ever more sophisticated attempts to fire up South American or Asian disgruntled's into something ("anything, please!" screams the Fed) resembling a possible civil war.

No scape goat there for the Fed on this front!

- Germany - now Germans being "cool Germans" and all (cookies!) and doing as Germans always do (get back to work and get wealthy), they were enslaved after WW2 in debt, just not as much as after WW1 (the quid pro quo was that Germany got to play "Central Banker" for Europe, effectively, and despite being in massive debt, having the rest of Europe be in even more massive debt to Germany meant Germany have been 'sort of' Kings of Europe);

and to top it all off, Germany is ever so slowly finding her ovaries, siezing them by the fallopians, and entering a Nordic energy stream partnership with .... Russia! Funny as bro :D

- soap, no scape goat for the Fed in Germany - DAMN!

No, real, scape goat, for the Fed to "blame" for the looming reset!

"SHIT!" says the Fed, followed by "Shit, shit shit shit shit shit!"

4 for four muffas! hey hey :D

So we see negative interest rates, and endless bubble blowing to "keep it all ticking along", in the vain, vain hope that a blame victim might magically appear so the Fed can waltz in, pretending to be a White Knight in shining armour to save the day for the entire world.

Nope, not gonna happen this time...

Why?

Because of the Internet and global connectivity.

We read.

We share. I bags "WeShare" for the next IPO :D

Why is the Fed happy with negative interest rates? Because it's just more debt.

Who is the debt "owed to" - the Fed of course - HA :D

And debt locks people, and nations, into the system of debt, i.e. into servitude to the Fed and the BIS.

And because now, we know - the one thing, the absolute single most importanht one thing the Fed (really, the BIS), wants to maintain is this:

The exclusive right to print arbitrary fiats.

Hmm. Funny dat. Who'da thought?

Nobody could ever have predicted thith.

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:05:56PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

The Federal Reserve Bank, neither federal, nor reserve, nor constitutional, is once again shilling for a global tax of some sort, any bloody sort, just bring the damn tax in already (thank you Greta Thunderburger!)

Now why, oh why, would the Fed be shilling for a global tax?

Perhaps because they're starting to pump such volumes of voluminous fiats that "full faith and credit" is possibly going to come a gutser?

Perhaps the ginormous money printing is causing imbalances where too much money is going (or about to go) into the hands of the populace (UBI I hear you correctly say)?

Or perhaps it's just plane sheer unbridled greed and control instincts of the central Bankers Gone Wild?

Whatever it is, we know firstly it's a firetrucking hoax, but hey, what's new?

Fed Warns Climate Change Is A Major Threat To The Economy https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/fed-warns-climate-change-now-major-threat-e... https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2019/sti191107

... "The U.S. economy has experienced more than $500 billion in direct losses over the last five years due to climate and weather-related events. In addition, climate change has significant consequences for the U.S. economy and financial sector through slowing productivity growth, asset revaluations and sectoral reallocations of business activity"

... Nonetheless, real impacts are already being felt and we must develop the tools to assess and manage them."

Impacts... like a 16-year-old girl with Asperger's syndrome dictating monetary, fiscal and social policy?

... At least Greta Thunberg will be happy for a few years before the social catalysm that results from the Fed's final act of idiocy means that eating the rich - and just about anyone else - will be more than just a figure of speech.