Saturday, April 8, 2017

IMF explains how to subvert Public Resistance against Elimination of Cash

Norbert Häring (Apr 5, 2017) - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington has published a Working Paper on “de-cashing”. It gives advice to governments who want to abolish cash against the will of their citizenry. Move slowly, start with harmless seeming measures, is part of that advice. In “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing”, IMF-Analyst Alexei Kireyev recommends in his conclusions:
Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system.
The private sector led de-cashing seems preferable to the public sector led decashing. The former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation. The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it. De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyberwarfare. In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.

Note, that the author is not talking about unreasonable objections and imagined disadvantages: He does count it among the advantages of de-cashing in the very next paragraph that personal savings are pushed into banks and he also does count total control of all aspects of financial life under the pros, as in the last sentence of the last quote below.
As de-cashing gives incentives to economies’ agents to convert their currency in bank deposits, the deposit base of the banking system will increase, which can help reduce the lending rates and expand credit.
And finally the advice to do it together:
Coordinated efforts on de-cashing could help enhance its positive effects and reduce potential costs. At least at the level of major countries and their currencies, the authorities could coordinate their de-cashing efforts. Such coordinated efforts are, in particular, important in the decisions to phase out large denomination bills for all major currencies, to use ceilings and other restrictions on cash transactions, and to introduce the reporting requirements for cash transactions or their taxation. For currency areas, a single decashing policy would be clearly preferable to a national one. Finally, consensus between the public and the private sector and outreach on the advantages and modalities of gradual decashing should be viewed as key preconditions for its success.
The paper itself is an example of such “outreach on the advantages” even though it pretends to give a balanced account . Throughout, as in the following paragraph, potential disadvantages of cash are in the indicative and strongly worded, advantages are introduced a hypothetical, by referring to the possibility that people may perceive a certain advantage of cash.
The differences between currency and transferrable deposits are also remarkable. They are often used by both sides of the debate on the pros and cons of decashing. First, currency can become technically obsolete. Banknotes fade and break, and the efforts to remedy the problem with plastics is of little help and involve unneeded costs. Transferrable deposits do not have this problem. Second, payments with currency are anonymous, which makes them a popular vehicle for abuse, tax avoidance, terrorism financing, and money laundering. Transferrable deposits are personified and generally cannot be used for these purposes. Third, currency is prone to counterfeiting, at times on a large scale. Transferrable deposits are not. Fourth, currency is often perceived as a means to preserve privacy, i.e., economic operators generally are not interested in the history of the currency of their transaction. Also, the individual right for privacy is usually enshrined in laws and transferrable deposits store each step of the payment history, which can be viewed as a threat to privacy. Transferrable deposits lead to full transparency, at least to the issuing bank, and a complete record of transactions, which in virtue of law can be used by tax and law enforcement authorities.
The paper lists a fair number of advantages and disadvantages of cash, but makes no explicit attempt to argue that overall the disadvantages are more important. The language and the recommendations make the bias more than clear, though. Needless to say that, as with all scandalous, antidemocratic recommendations, the ones described here are officially only those of the author, not of the IMF.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Why Amish do not Pay Social Security Taxes │ Martin Armstrong

Martin Armstrong (Apr 5, 2017) -  In 1935, Roosevelt introduced “The Social Security Act” which passed Congress. However, the act was described “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” At first, the Act covered only industry and commerce. It was later extended to include farm operators in 1955. The SS tax was to be at the rate of 3% of income up to an established limit.

The Amish pay taxes because the Bible said: “paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It was in 1956 that the IRS went to tell the Amish they were now under Social Security and they would have to pay. One Amishman was quoted in a November 1962 Reader’s Digest article: “Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order.” The constitutional question that has never been decided, what happens when the taxing power of government violates the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion? It clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” 

Then Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” They feared that a minority religion could be subjugated by the Federal Government acknowledging a national religion. The Johnson Amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. If churches involve themselves in politics, then indeed that creates a reverse problem where the state can be taken over by one religion and oppress all others; so it can go both ways. Historically, religions have often seized governments and outlawed all other religions.In this instance concerning taxation in direct conflict with religion, a group of Amish presented a petition to Congress, with 14,000 signatures. Naturally, Congress ignored them. The Amish reasonably questioned what possible harm they could do by not paying into Social Security. “We do not want to be burdensome, but we do not want to lose our birthright to everlasting glory, therefore we must do all we can to live our faith!” 

The IRS moved to go after the Amish and seize their bank accounts. The problem was – they had none! The IRS then sought to go after anyone buying milk from the Amish and attach their payments to divert them to the IRS. Most simply refused for such a scheme would happen just once and end the business. The IRS, refusing to consider any religious principle, moved in to seize property. In this case of the Amish, that meant cows and horses. They would rather have the Amish die than respect anyone’s rights to religion. Valentine Byler of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS, of course, tacked on interest and penalties to raise it up to $308.96. Byler argued his religion forbid paying insurance. The IRS said that was a “technicality” and that it was really just a tax. Vyler has no bank account to seize so they issued a summons to appear in court for a charge of contempt. The judge in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’” The Judge then dismissed the case. The IRS never gives up. The IRS had to issue a statement on April 18, 1961 in which they said: Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property. The IRS seized three of Byler’s six horses while he was actually plowing the ground for the spring planting. The IRS then sold the three horses at auction on May 1, 1961 getting $460. They then used this to satisfy the $308.96 and then charged him $113.15 in expenses and graciously returned $37.89. The incident made national news and was being used by the Communists to show how capitalism was ruthless. The New York Herald Tribune, reported the story with the bold headline: “Welfarism Gone Mad.”

The IRS Chief of Collections was forced to respond claiming he was unaware of the plowing situation. “Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment.” To show the mentality of those who are bureaucrats, he then said: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.” The IRS was then compelled to issue a press release in 1961, stating the Amish stance that “Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the ‘premium’ nor accept any of the benefits.” The Amish met with the IRS Commissioner in September, 1961 in Washington, DC, They cited several Bible passages, including I Timothy 5:8, which says, “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” 

The public outrage at the conduct of the IRS was international. The Amish argued they were entitled to an exemption based on the First Amendment. The IRS agreed it would stop further seizures until the case was settled. Now, senators promised to try to pass a bill in Congress and everything stopped. The Amish hired a lawyer to challenge this conflict between the taxing power and the First Amendment. However, as the court date approached, they realized if they lost in court, it was over. They then looked to Congress to pursue a legislative exemption. Finally, in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. Congress realized that if the Amish went to court and won, then others could challenge the right to tax conflicting with the First Amendment. Congress quietly put in on page 138 a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. The Senate approved in July, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 13, 1965.

The open question remains simply this; the first explicit references to the tithe appear in Genesis 14, where Abraham tithes to Melchizedek, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob promises to give God “a full tenth.” But where did the idea to tithe come from? Many argue Abraham and Jacob were simply following the customs of the surrounding nations. But Scripture points in a different direction. In Genesis26:5, God says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the tithe in Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke11:42). He condemns the Pharisees for their tedious commitment to one part of God’s law, the tithe, while neglecting “the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” Then he states, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. This too is not a charitable contribution, but is considered to be an obligatory tax or  alms. The payment and disputes on zakat have also been controversial in the history of Islam. The zakat is based on income and the value of all of one’s possessions or property. It has been traditionally set at 2.5% above a minimum amount known as nisab, which has also been greatly debated.

In Judaeo-Christianity, the “tithe” was a one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy in Christianity. The question is, does exceeding the level prescribed as a “tithe” violate the First Amendment? If true, then any income tax imposed beyond 10% would violate the First Amendment. Since the Ten Commandments also prohibits coveting anything that belonged to a neighbor including his wife or property, it would appear that Socialism championed by Karl Marx violates the First Amendment and any tax should not exceed 10%. Hence, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional if not a flat tax. Some argue it also violates Equal Protection of the laws. The Tax at the time of Jesus’s statement of give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, was less than 5%. Historically during the Roman Republic, the tax imposed was 1%. During time of war, the taxes would rise to 3%. Ever since Karl Marx, who said religion is the opium of the masses, politicians have loved Marxism and used it to exploit the people to the point governments are averaging now 40% of the entire economy. They have outpaced all other businesses beating the bankers and multinational corporations. They have become the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room nobody notices is even there. Politicians always preach against the “rich” which increases the wealth of government [...]

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

SPX vs 4.5 Degree Steps of Uranus from 2009 Low

On April 5, 2017 (Wed) Uranus will have moved 31.5 degrees of heliocentric longitude
since the major low in the SPX on March 6, 2009 (Fri).

Sunday, April 2, 2017

The Sun’s Wobbles and the Earth’s Spiral Path

Figure 1 and Figure 2 (Enlarge)
Will J.R. Alexander et al. (2007) - Conventional illustrations show the Earth orbiting around a static Sun. This is misleading. First, the Sun wobbles through a tube of space and not along a smooth path at a constant velocity. Second, the Earth orbits the Solar System’s Center of Mass (SSCM) and not the Sun’s Center of Mass. The Earth therefore follows a spiral path as it moves through space. This is illustrated in Figure 1. (It is important to note that the scales in the figures 1 and 2 are highly compressed so that they can fit.)

The tube in the middle represents the volume of space that the Sun revolves in and is about 3.7 * 10^6 km in diameter. The ecliptic plane is at a 45° angle to the line of movement. The Earth to Sun distance (the chord length) varies, depending on where the Sun is located in the tube. While the paths of the Sun and the Earth are closely linked as they move through space, the changing relative positions result in corresponding changes in the distance between them.

Figure 2 shows the path of the combined Center of Mass of the four major planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, relative to the SSCM for the period 1978–2006. Visualize the three-dimensional view of this figure with the orbit path spiraling towards the viewer. Starting in 1978, the orbit maintains a nearly constant distance from the SSCM. In 1985 the orbit starts moving closer to the central point occupied by the SSCM. It swings around the SSCM, reaching its closest position in 1990. It then spirals away from the SSCM until 1994. From 1995 through to 2000 there is little change in the displacement from the SSCM. From 2001 through to 2006 it makes another approach to the SSCM. As can be seen, these changes are not regular in time. They were relatively unchanged from 1979 to 1985, and again from 1995 to 2000. They changed rapidly from 1986 through to 1994, when they closely orbited the SSCM.

The Sun follows a weighted reciprocal path but its Center of Mass is much closer to the SSCM. It also accelerates and decelerates synchronously but moves in the opposite direction in order to maintain the system in equilibrium. The Sunspot minima occurred in 1986, 1996 and 2006. The compass points on the figure are for reference purposes only. Note that the Sunspot minima of 1986 and 1996 both occurred in the SW quadrant of the figure, and that of 2006 in the NW quadrant when viewed from a position ahead of the approaching Solar System. This is in an anticlockwise direction relative to the forward clockwise movement of the spiral paths about the SSCM followed by the orbiting components of the Solar System. The angular distance followed by the orbit from 1986 to 1996 was 360° when it returned to the same quadrant. It was only 270° from 1996 to 2006 when it did not complete a full 360° rotation around the SSCM. The angles are approximate but are amenable to calculation.

Table 1 and Figure 3 (Enlarge)
Influence of the Planets: Table 1 shows the positions of the Planetary System’s Center of Mass (PCM) at the time of the Sunspot minima during the period 1902–2006. The information in this table provides the first positive linkage between solar activity and the hydro meteorological time series. There is a statistically significant linkage with the double Sunspot cycle. He found no statistically significant linkage with the single, 11-year cycle. His analyses showed that these alternating cycles are associated with different hydro meteorological characteristics. The periodic behavior of the Solar System has a duration of 21 years (actually 20.8 years during the past century), not 11 years. This explains why scientists have been unable to find a linkage with the 11-year cycle, from which they erroneously concluded that there is no linkage with solar activity. While the relative positions of the planets are closely grouped in space at 21-year intervals, they are not precise in either time or space. This is the reason for longer period cyclicity including 178 years and longer cycles.

Sunspot Production: The plane of the path of the orbiting planets and the Sun must be at 45° to the line of motion of the Solar System. This is in order to balance the gravitational forces of a three-dimensionally balanced group of objects travelling at constant forward speed relative to that of the SSCM. Each body in the Solar System will follow a three-dimensional spiral track around the SSCM thus maintaining the group’s constant forward speed. This path will also be influenced by the changing positions of the major planets relative to one another and the Sun’s reciprocal movement.

All bodies of the Solar System therefore have a combination of two velocities. The dominant velocity component is the constant galactic velocity that is followed by the SSCM. The orbital velocities of the individual bodies around the SSCM are super- imposed on the galactic velocity. As they orbit the SSCM their net forward velocity will be the galactic velocity plus the orbital velocity (corrected for the 45° slope of the solar orbits) as they move forward in their orbits around the SSCM, and the galactic velocity minus the orbital velocity as they move backwards in their orbits around the SSCM. The net result is that the galactic velocities equal that of the SSCM when the bodies directly trail or lie directly ahead of the SSCM. The galactic velocities increase as they move forward around the SSCM, and they decrease as they move backwards about the SSCM. The galactic velocity of each body in the Solar System, including the Sun, therefore alternately accelerates and decelerates within the galactic plane as it orbits the SSCM. This is the crux of the issue. Once it is appreciated that the reference system is the galactic plane and not the plane of the Solar System, then everything else falls into place.

Sunspot production is a direct function of the Sun’s galactic acceleration and deceleration, with Sunspot minima occurring when the Sun is directly ahead or trailing the SSCM. There can be no doubt that it is the influence of the changing relative positions of the major planets that is the direct cause of Sunspot activity. The actual mechanism for Sunspot production as a result of galactic velocity changes has yet to be determined, although several theories exist.

The Sun’s Wobble: The distance of the Sun from the SSCM is the weighted reciprocal of the distance of the combined Center of Mass of the orbiting planets. Consequently, both the Sun’s distance from the SSCM and its galactic velocity are continually changing. This creates a wobble in its path through space. This can be calculated given the knowledge of the masses and orbits of the four major planets. Figure 3 shows the Sun’s wobble as it moved through galactic space during the period 1944 to 1958. During most of this time its orbit was below that of the SSCM in this view. While the SSCM lies within the body of the Sun most of the time, there are occasions when the Sun wobbles outside the SSCM. This figure provides an indication of the extent of its wobble as the Sun moves through space.

Earth to Sun Chord Distance: As a result of the Sun’s wobble, the chord length between the Earth and the Sun and the amount of energy received by the Earth will change accordingly. The next exercise is therefore to determine the corresponding changes in the distance between the Earth and the Sun and thereby the changes in the rate of solar energy reaching the Earth. This is amenable to precise calculation. The calculation of the chord length between the Earth and the Sun at any particular time has two components. The first is the position of the Sun relative to the SSCM at that time. The second is the elliptical path of the Earth about the SSCM. The Sun’s displacement from the SSCM changes relatively slowly but the ecliptic direction of the Earth about the Sun changes with the seasons. Figure 10 shows the dis- placement of the position of the Sun from the SSCM during 1993 and its effect on variations in solar energy received on Earth during that year.

S&P 500 Index vs Market Momentum │ Greed

On March 31, 2017 (Fri) the daily price bar's Range of the SPX was less than the previous 13 bars, and the narrowest since the last short term change in the daily trend on March 27 (Mon). This makes it a Narrow Range 4 Day (NR4).

Saturday, April 1, 2017

S&P 500 Index vs Mercury Speed | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 02 (Tue), Apr 07 (Fri), Apr 10 (Mon), Apr 19 (Wed), Apr 21 (Fri), May 06 (Sat).

S&P 500 Index vs Mercury – Mars Speed Differential | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 02 (Tue), Apr 13 (Thu), Apr 21 (Fri), Apr 20 (Sun).

S&P 500 Index vs Declination of Mercury and Venus | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 10 (Mon), Apr 28 (Fri).

S&P 500 Index vs Mercury – Venus Cycle | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 07 (Fri), Apr 11 (Tue), Apr 16 (Sun), May 02 (Tue).

S&P 500 Index vs 24th Harmonic of Mercury's Right Ascension | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 05 (Wed), Apr 10 (Mon), Apr 16 (Sun), Apr 23 (Sun), May 03 (Wed).

S&P 500 Index vs AstroMetric Indicator | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 01 (Sat), Apr 07 (Fri), Apr 13 (Thu), Apr 14 (Fri), Apr 16 (Sun), Apr 17 (Mon), Apr 19 (Wed), Apr 21 (Fri), Apr 26 (Fri), May 01 (Mon).

S&P 500 Index vs True Lunar Node Speed | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 03 (Mon), Apr 06 (Thu), Apr 10 (Mon), Apr 13 (Thu), Apr 18 (Tue), Apr 21 (Fri), Apr 24 (Mon), Apr 27 (Thu), May 02 (Tue), May 04 (Thu).

SPX vs Jupiter – Saturn Cycle | April 2017

Upcoming Turn-Days: Apr 03 (Mon), Apr 07 (Fri), Apr 10 (Mon), Apr 20 (Thu), Apr 27 (Thu), May 03 (Wed).

Cosmic Cluster Days | April — May 2017

The basic assumption here is that heliocentric and geocentric angles between planets are related to financial market movements. A signal is triggered when the composite line of all aspects breaks above or below the Average Cosmic Noise Channel. Upcoming Cosmic Cluster Days (CCDs) are: Apr 06 (Thu), Apr 07 (Fri), Apr 08 (Sat), Apr 12 (Wed), Apr 13 (Thu), Apr 19 (Wed), Apr 28 (Fri), Apr 30 (Sun), May 02 (Tue), May 08 (Mon), May 12 (Fri), May 16 (Tue), May 25 (Thu), Jun 01 (Thu). Previous CCDs are HERE

SPX vs Cosmic Cluster Days | March - April 2017 | Review & Preview

SoLunar Map | April — May 2017

These charts depict the SoLunar bias for short-term movements of stock indices two months ahead. The markets are certainly influenced also by other planetary forces - especially longer-term - but a 3-5 day short-term rhythm and pattern is governed by the SoLunar forces (= 4 highs and 4 lows per lunar month). 

The SoLunar forces are a composite of Sun-Moon angles, orbital eccentricities, declinations and some long-term cycles. A Low in the SoLunar Map frequently is a High in the stock market and vice versa. Inversions occur, and if so, they should occur only once every 4 lunar months around a New Moon (max +/- 7 days). 

The SoLunar Rhythm is frequently disturbed by (1.) the FED, and (2.) by sudden solar activity, altering the geomagnetic field, and hence the mass mood. This can result in the skip and/or inversion of pivots in the SoLunar Map. An increasing number of sunspots and flares have usually a negative influence on the stock market some 48 hours later, and vice versa (Ap values > 10 are usually short-term negative). A rising blue line in the SoLunar Map means the bias for the market is side-ways-to-up, and vice versa. Highs and lows in the SoLunar Map also may coincide with the start and termination of complex, side-ways correction patterns like zig-zags, triangles or flags. 
Upcoming SoLunar Turn-Days are: Apr 03-04 (Mon-Tue), Apr 07 (Fri), Apr 11 (Tue), Apr 14 (Fri), Apr 18 (Tue), Apr 22 (Sat), May 03 (Wed), May 07 (Sun), May 11 (Thu), May 14 (Sun), May 17 (Wed), May 21 (Sun), May 25 (Thu), May 29 (Mon), Jun 01 (Thu), Jun 05 (Mon). Previous SoLunar Maps HERE

SPX vs SoLunar Map | March 2017 | Review & Preview

SPX vs CBOE Equity Put / Call Ratio | Overbought

The 3-Day Moving Average of the CBOE Equity Put/Call Ratio at 0.57
and turning higher, signals the S&P 500 is overbought.
An insider is any officer, director or owner of 10% or more of a class of a company's securities.
In most cases, an insider must report any trade to the SEC within two business days.
The tables highlight companies that filed with the SEC through last Wednesday. More HERE

CNN's Fear & Greed Index is Neutral.
: CNN Fear & Greed Index