http://www.blacklistednews.com/German_Finance_Minister_Schaeuble_Warns_of_Revolution/26289/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Let the austerity backlash begin. Who knew that an excel error could cause so much social strife. Granted common sense would have got you there, but this is politics. German Finance Minister Schaeuble warned on Tuesday that unless Europe wins the battle against youth unemployment, revolution is a distinct possibility.
The dreaded r-word came about as some corners push to reform the welfare standards to closely correlate with American standards. This would be a monumental mistake according the German finance minister. Youth unemployment as it stands now across the EU is at 25%, double the rate of older citizens.
Eu countries such as Germany, Italy and France are backing urgent action to tackle the issue before it becomes even more systemic than it already is. Anecdotes out of Spain have college graduates turning 30 without ever having a job. The problem is definitely have a social spillover as evidenced by the riots in Stockholm.
Labor ministers out of Italy are saying that they have the best educated generation and policies are essentially putting their future on hold.
Read More @ Source
The dreaded r-word came about as some corners push to reform the welfare standards to closely correlate with American standards. This would be a monumental mistake according the German finance minister. Youth unemployment as it stands now across the EU is at 25%, double the rate of older citizens.
Eu countries such as Germany, Italy and France are backing urgent action to tackle the issue before it becomes even more systemic than it already is. Anecdotes out of Spain have college graduates turning 30 without ever having a job. The problem is definitely have a social spillover as evidenced by the riots in Stockholm.
Labor ministers out of Italy are saying that they have the best educated generation and policies are essentially putting their future on hold.
Read More @ Source
http://www.blacklistednews.com/We_Are_Now_One_Year_Away_From_Global_Riots%2C_Complex_Systems_Theorists_Say/26288/0/38/38/Y/M.html
We Are Now One Year Away From Global Riots, Complex Systems Theorists Say
May 28, 2013
Source: Motherboard
Source: MotherBoard
If there’s a single factor that reliably sparks social unrest, it’s food becoming too scarce or too expensive. So argues a group of complex systems theorists in Cambridge, and it makes sense.
In a 2011 paper, researchers at the Complex Systems Institute unveiled a model that accurately explained why the waves of unrest that swept the world in 2008 and 2011 crashed when they did. The number one determinant was soaring food prices. Their model identified a precise threshold for global food prices that, if breached, would lead to worldwide unrest.
The MIT Technology Reviewexplains how CSI’s model works: “The evidence comes from two sources. The first is data gathered by the United Nations that plots the price of food against time, the so-called food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN. The second is the date of riots around the world, whatever their cause.” Plot the data, and it looks like this:
Pretty simple. Black dots are the food prices, red lines are the riots. In other words, whenever the UN’s food price index, which measures the monthly change in the price of a basket of food commodities, climbs above 210, the conditions ripen for social unrest around the world. CSI doesn’t claim that any breach of 210 immediately leads to riots, obviously; just that the probability that riots will erupt grows much greater. For billions of people around the world, food comprises up to 80% of routine expenses (for rich-world people like you and I, it’s like 15%). When prices jump, people can’t afford anything else; or even food itself. And if you can’t eat—or worse, your family can’t eat—you fight.
But how accurate is the model? An anecdote the researchers outline in the report offers us an idea. They write that “on December 13, 2010, we submitted a government report analyzing the repercussions of the global financial crises, and directly identifying the risk of social unrest and political instability due to food prices.” Four days later, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire as an act of protest in Tunisia. And we all know what happened after that.
Read More...
If there’s a single factor that reliably sparks social unrest, it’s food becoming too scarce or too expensive. So argues a group of complex systems theorists in Cambridge, and it makes sense.
In a 2011 paper, researchers at the Complex Systems Institute unveiled a model that accurately explained why the waves of unrest that swept the world in 2008 and 2011 crashed when they did. The number one determinant was soaring food prices. Their model identified a precise threshold for global food prices that, if breached, would lead to worldwide unrest.
The MIT Technology Reviewexplains how CSI’s model works: “The evidence comes from two sources. The first is data gathered by the United Nations that plots the price of food against time, the so-called food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN. The second is the date of riots around the world, whatever their cause.” Plot the data, and it looks like this:
Pretty simple. Black dots are the food prices, red lines are the riots. In other words, whenever the UN’s food price index, which measures the monthly change in the price of a basket of food commodities, climbs above 210, the conditions ripen for social unrest around the world. CSI doesn’t claim that any breach of 210 immediately leads to riots, obviously; just that the probability that riots will erupt grows much greater. For billions of people around the world, food comprises up to 80% of routine expenses (for rich-world people like you and I, it’s like 15%). When prices jump, people can’t afford anything else; or even food itself. And if you can’t eat—or worse, your family can’t eat—you fight.
But how accurate is the model? An anecdote the researchers outline in the report offers us an idea. They write that “on December 13, 2010, we submitted a government report analyzing the repercussions of the global financial crises, and directly identifying the risk of social unrest and political instability due to food prices.” Four days later, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire as an act of protest in Tunisia. And we all know what happened after that.
Read More...
http://silverdoctors.com/alasdair-macleod-the-geopolitics-of-gold/#more-27206
More recently all members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a common security and trading bloc led by Russia and China and incorporating the bulk of Asia’s land mass, have been accumulating gold. Between current SCO and future members (India, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Belarus and Sri Lanka), with their citizens numbering over 3 billion people, they have together cornered the global market for physical supply, without even taking account of demand from the rest of South East Asia’s gold-hungry population.
The result is that gold markets are now failing to clear. The outcome is a choice: the West will either have to stop intervening and allow gold to find a level where physical and derivative markets interact properly with each other, or capital markets in the West will face a growing crisis likely to spill over into other markets. While these outcomes were always going to be a choice to be made at some time in the future, the disconnection between physical gold and derivatives has become so great that it is now an immediate concern.
At the government level it is a geopolitical clash of the titans. Russia and China are almost certainly aware of the lack of gold in Western central bank vaults: they are fully capable of thorough due-diligence in this respect. They have so far been careful not to disrupt capital markets because it has not been in their interests to do so; however, the current hiatus in gold markets is almost certain to modify their view.
Fundamental to all this is their attitude to Western currencies: the yen is now collapsing, the euro area is in deep trouble and the US economy is at very best stagnating. Until now, payment for Russian energy and Chinese goods in foreign currencies has been welcomed, because it has allowed the Russian and Chinese elites and middle classes to accumulate wealth. This balance of interests can only be maintained for so long as Russian and Chinese governments and their citizens can hedge foreign currency risks through an offsetting accumulation of foreign-owned gold.
This is no longer the case, because to all intents and purposes western capital markets are cleaned out of physical supplies, and the ability of the Western central banks to supress gold prices appears to be ending. And with the West’s financial system no longer able to deliver their most prized commodity, hitherto passive attitudes in Asia to Western currencies are likely to be reassessed.
The gold question has become central to east-west trade. The sensible approach for Western central banks is to defuse the problems arising by taking positive steps to ensure that gold markets operate properly. This is conceptually difficult, because the most likely result, a higher gold price, would risk undermining confidence in the major currencies and most probably damage the bullion banks in London.
Despite these difficulties, realities have to be faced.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-28/us-mint-resumes-selling-one-tenth-ounce-gold-coins-40-premium-spot
US Mint Resumes Selling One-Tenth Ounce Gold Coins... At A 40% Premium To Spot
When news broke a month ago that the US Mint had suspended selling one-tenth ounce gold coins, perhaps the most surprising news was that there were thousands of consumers willing to pay the exorbitant retail premium demanded by the US mint, with the resulting order deluge promptly sapping the mint's stretched inventories. Well: we have good news - as of moments ago the US mint has once again restocked on the popular denomination (with a 20,000 production limit), and without a limit per household. The even better news: the coin will set you back just $195. This means a "tiny" 40% premium to spot.
Is there indeed a massive disconnect between spot and physical as the Mint is telegraphing? Nah: must be all those shipping and wrapping costs for the fancy box the coin is put in. Oh wait, the gift box is another $5.95 per order. And no, it isn't the shipping and handling either: that is another $4.95. In other words: the full delivery of one coin to your front door step would cost $200 per one tenth of an ounce. Oh well: we are fresh out of ideas then.
No comments:
Post a Comment