Global financial propaganda spikes always precede financial crises. Therefore, whenever the level of global financial propaganda spikes around the world, this is always a sign, that beneath the surface, financial ministers and top global bankers around the world are observing all kinds of worrisome structural defects. Historically, global financial propaganda has spiked before every major global financial crisis, whether it was the Great Depression, the 1990 Japanese Nikkei stock market crash, the collapse of the US housing bubble of the 2000s, the US dot com bubble collapse of the late 1990s, the global stock market crashes in 2008 and collapse of Wall Street banks, and the coming collapse of the Bubble of Everything. Before, every one of these collapses, global politicians, economists and bankers always lied to the public, painting the most spectacularly delusional pictures of the economy right before it collapsed. In early October 1929, US economist Irving Fisher stated US “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau” and he doubled down on this statement on 21 October by mocking any one that would consider selling out of a market that had far higher to run as the “lunatic fringe”, only because the term “conspiracy theorist” had not yet entered the lexicon of media yet. Of course, three days later, the US stock market crashed and ushered in the Great Depression.
Most people working in finance today don’t even remember the dominant position secured by the Japanese stock market by 1989 in the global arena, with eight of the ten largest companies in the world by market cap Japanese, and five of the eight banks. In fact, the market cap of the largest Japanese telecommunications company back then was greater than the combined market cap of the eight largest American companies, as difficult as this may be to fathom in 2019. In October of 2005, US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before US Congress that there was no US housing bubble and that the housing market was fine. Just a few months later, US housing markets peaked and the collapse of the housing bubble began, and didn’t stop falling until about 2012. In recent years, the Japanese finance minister Taro Aso, has ridiculously repeatedly stated that Japanese yen strength was a priority. I recall spending time in Japan in the late 1990s and the Yen: USD exchange rate was 85:1. Today, with the Japanese Yen the strongest it has been against the USD in over 18-months, the exchange rate is 107.5:1, and in early 2016 it was as high as 123:1. So even though the Yen has weakened against the USD by a whopping 26%+ over the last two decades, the public has become so conditioned into believing propaganda that most Japanese citizens blindly believe that if their finance minister states a “strong yen” is a priority, then gosh darn it, it must be a priority!
Though we are being sold the same propaganda that global bankers and politicians always sell us before a terrible crash happens, there have been enough near impossible events manifest in the global financial world to alert us that a world of hurt is about to be unleashed upon global financial markets likely at some point between 2020 and 2024. For example, in 2013, the Swiss franc’s purchasing power spiked against the Euro by a whopping 30% in just 13 minutes,
On 24 June 2016, the Japanese, French and Euro Stoxx 50 stock and the UK FTSE 250 market indexes all fell by a whopping 7.9% to 8.6% in a single trading session, all 6-sigma events, due to the threat of Brexit. Even though this was barely more than 3 years ago, when I remind people that work in the finance industry today about this event, those that have already= forgotten this day, when stock markets plunged nearly half the percentage of one of the single worst trading days in global stock market history – Black Monday – react in shock. In as simplistic terms as possible, a six-sigma event is one whose probability of occurrence falls within the probabilities that occupy the space six standard deviations away from the mean under a normal bell distribution (or Gaussian) curve. Most repeated occurrences, or 68.3% of the same event over time will fall within one standard deviation from the mean, while the vast majority, or 95.4% of a repeated event will fall within two standard deviations of the man. Once we start venturing further than 3 standard deviations from the mean, the probability of such an event happening becomes nearly zero, so as you can imagine, having so many 6-sigma events happen on a single day in 2016 would be interpreted, under most conditions, as being an extremely rare event that would likely never again occur during our lifetimes. So, if a six-sigma event has a p-value (probability), it means that there is only a 0.0000001973175%, or less than 1 in a 506.797 million chance of this event resulting as a matter of chance rather than from a real effect. For an illustrated explanation of this event and to clearly understand why six and seven sigma events in financial markets highlight more serious problems lurking underneath the surface, click here.
There have been arguments for decades that financial event probability distributions much more closely fit a heavy tailed distribution curve or forms of a bell curve other than a Gaussian distribution. However, my argument AGAINST using other bell curves that tend to fit financial market distribution patterns more closely than a normal bell distribution curve is that the only reason that financial markets do not necessarily fit a normal bell curve distribution pattern so snugly is because they have been so heavily manipulated by bankers and computer trading programs for decades of time. Because the manipulation is the very act that leads to bell curve distribution patterns away from a normal bell curve, and the probabilities we are trying to measure are the probabilities that these 6-sigma, 7-sigma, 15-sigma, etc. events occur as a matter of chance rather than from manipulation (or a real effect), we should continue to use the p-values of a normal bell curve rather than p-values that result from banker manipulative behavior in order to now pollute the probabilities of the events being attributable to chance.
In other words, if there should be less than 1 in a 500 million chance of a 6 sigma asset price movement happening if it were merely attributed to randomness of markets but a 1 in a 500,000 chance of a 6-sigma asset price movement happening if we use a distorted bell curve distribution pattern that incorporates all the manipulative behavior of bankers over the past century, then we may conclude that the occurrence of the event is not so special because though a 1 in 500,000 chance, while a very low probability, certainly is not as remote a probability of an event with a 1 in 500 million chance of happening. Therefore, the proper way to view more and more frequent 6 sigma events is as a consequence of manipulation, and not normal randomness, if we receive a dozen of these events in a year’s time. If a dozen of 6-sigma asset price movements occurred in one year under the model that they should only happen with a 1 in half a million chance, then we may mistakenly misinterpret these dozen events to just “one of those years” where a lot of weird random things happened. But if we interpret these dozen events happening in a single year under the premise that they should only have a 1 in 500 million chance of happening, then we will interpret these events as a clear sign that something is seriously wrong with asset pricing models in whatever financial market experienced such severe price fluctuations.
In fact, I have no idea why there are still debates on financial news shows about whether or not Central Bankers have “lost control” of monetary policy or if they have “passed the point of no return.” I published this article titled “The Banking Cartel’s End Game” more than seven years ago, in which I emphatically explained that Central Bankers were merely playing a game of chess against a public that internalized news presented as a game of checkers to them by the banker controlled media every time the question of whether bankers had “lost control” was posed. I explained that the point of no return was already surpassed when Central Bankers decided to respond to the 2008 global financial crisis with the creation of endless amounts of dollars, euros and yen, and that there could be no “losing control” when the entire Central Banker strategy was built upon destruction of all fiat currency purchasing power around the world. How can executing a strategy to perfection be interpreted as “losing control”? And this is what I mean, when I state that the Central Bankers are playing chess when they are presented in the mainstream media as bumbling idiots, when in reality, they are merely executing their long-term strategy to perfection. And though I know there are other very knowledgeable, credible people out there raising the warning flags about the incredible implosion in the global financial system that is coming, and still being ignored, note that when the global financial system implodes, for those caught completely unprepared, it will not be for lack of ample warning.
In fact, one of the reasons I explained for the lack of concern about the red flags I discussed in “The Banking Cartel’s End Game” is the Central Bankers “extend and pretend” strategy that has fooled so many people. I also explained that the mission of the banking cartel’s end game was to make any opposition voice or dissent to their actions incredibly easy to silence, and I posed the question, “What if you believe in solar-activity based global warming but believe that the carbon-based global warming theory is a banker manufactured fraud to increase taxes on the people and you refuse to pay some bogus government legislated carbon tax because you sincerely believe it to be unjust?” Whether right or wrong in their opinions, people should always be allowed to voice dissent to a popular narrative; if this right is taken away, then the dumbing down of society will surely increase at an expeditious rate. I stated that if the Central Bankers were successful in the implementation of their end game, dissent to the State and banking narrative will suffer the same fate as dinosaurs – complete and utter extinction. So perhaps, global warming child activist Greta Thunberg, whose “How dare you” rant against several nations’ leaders for not doing enough to combat global warming inexplicably failed to include one of the world’s largest polluters in many categories, China, would have been much better served directing her rant against the world’s Central Bankers for destroying the purchasing power of every nation’s currency, against British judge Vanessa Baraitser for indefinitely extending Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange’s prison term at the notoriously harsh Belmarsh prison when he was set to be freed this past 22 September, and against the neocon war hawks who are responsible for drone programs that just killed more innocent people, this time 40 innocent Afghani civilians celebrating a wedding, earlier this month. The continuation of these programs is likely to impinge upon Ms. Thunberg’s freedoms and right to live on planet earth far earlier, and more significantly, than any problems brought about by carbon based global warming. Though I believe that global warming and climate change is real, I have serious doubts about their origin being human-based activity, due to the existence of ample credible opposition evidence.
Finally, let’s conclude this article by discussing the three consecutive rounds of daily $75 to $105 billion infusions into the US banking system last week, that continued this week with hundreds of billions more, due to insufficient liquidity in the American banking system to handle day to day banking transactions. The real reasons for this emergency infusion of massive amounts of liquidity into the US banking system are being ignored, as usual, by the mainstream financial media. If you quantified these events based upon standard deviations away from the mean of the amount of overnight liquidity provided by the US Central Bank to commercial US banks over rolling 3-day periods for the last decade, these disbursements would qualify as very high sigma events as well, thereby indicating a far greater problem that is being covered up right now. Tomorrow, I will speculate about the reasons why I believe there is a current serious liquidity problem in the US banking system, so stay tuned. To support our efforts to bring you the best free global financial content in the world, please support as by becoming a patron today!