Canada/Russia or WTF is Harper trying to accomplish?

[nucklehead]

I think all politicians are sociopathic because they want to rule over/govern other people.

lol...I've got to the point I have deep suspicions of anyone with politcal ambition.

[Hugor Hill]

Harper can't seem to ever please some people.

If he does nothing = Harper is all talk and does nothing. Proving Canada is weak and a non-factor internationally.

If he does something = Harper is all talk, as Canada is small relatively. Proving he's not thinking long term.

No. Harper doing something proves that we pretend we are not weak and a non-factor internationally.

Criticizing China about human rights is a biggest joke of them all.

[Balls of Bure]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/russia-is-trying-to-bully-their-way-past-canada-into-arctic-sovereignty

You might think the only bad blood between Russia and Canada is over some hockey game, but since about 2007 the Canucks and Russians have been in a diplomatic pissing match over Arctic land sovereignty after Russian explorers planted a tiny flag on the Arctic seafloor and the Canadians called bull. Now that the Northwest Passage is melting and becoming a potential Arctic Suez Canal with possibly billions of dollars in fossil fuel for the taking, the Canadian government is looking to cash in, making an aggressive claim at the United Nations in December last year to extend its northern sea boundary, along with four other competing states: Russia, Denmark, the U.S., and Norway. As you can imagine, Harper’s move rattled Russian leader Vladimir Putin who’s now vowing to beef up his military presence in the Arctic amid bold Canadian diplomatic actions.

Legit Arctic claim or not, it hasn’t stopped Russia from spying on Canadian assets in anticipation of mounting tensions. Historically Canada has played host to foreign agents, from the bag wearing Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko in ‘45 revealing mass Russian infiltration, to the 1,000 spy espionage network the Chinese allegedly ran on Canadian soil in 2005. When it comes to the Arctic, rival states may see the potential in once again cherry picking secrets from Canada. And it doesn’t seem so hard: In 2011 Canadian Sub-Lt. Jeffrey Delisle made off with stolen naval secrets on a USB stick he simply plugged into his DND work station, then later sold to the Russians. Speculation is the Delisle cache may have included Arctic intelligence. Then in December 2013 a Chinese spy was found stealing design plans for Canadian patrol ships potentially destined for missions protecting Arctic sovereignty. Rob Huebert, an Arctic expert at the University of Calgary, says both incidents demonstrate the growing interest in Canadian strategic plans. “In Canada we tend to think that nobody pays attention to us. But a lot of people pay attention to us.”

“For Canadians, the Arctic has always been a source of major nationalism,” said Huebert. “Most recent Canadian governments see this as an opportunity to demonstrate how much they are willing to defend Canadian core interests.”There’s no doubt Harper strategists view the Arctic as a potential cash cow and the lynchpin of future Canadian economies. If that ends up being true, the Canadians may want to wake up and take the Russian threat seriously. Nowadays, some estimates even put one-quarter of the world’s energy resources in the Arctic crust, giving the Canucks a second oil baby after the tar sands.“The real reason driving all of the competing Arctic claimants, is, of course, oil and gas,” said Huebert.

An aerial view of an oil and gas extraction plant in Alaska. Photo via.

The Harper government has carefully crafted a public relations strategy for their sovereignty claims. Besides his Arctic tours every summer where Harper admires Inuit art and Canadian Forces stealth snowmobiles, he sanctioned a failing search for the lost wreckage of Sir John Franklin’s doomed expedition to establish a historical Canadian precedence to the North Pole. This isn’t the first time Canada has pulled desperate moves to maintain Arctic rule: In the 1950s the feds forcibly relocated Inuit all over the High Arctic region to show it was actually inhabited and under Canadian law. By comparison Siberia is actually inhabited with several cities over half a million people, while the three Arctic territories barely boast 100,000 combined.

Publicity stunts aside, the Arctic region won’t be decided on Harper’s political ploys, but on cold consideration of geological facts by the United Nations. “It’s a science based determination,” said Huebert. “Based on a formula.” It will factor in considerations like soil thickness and slant to determine where the continental shelf ends. After scientists have made their conclusions diplomats will go to work drawing up the new Arctic map. “Everybody is just saying ‘OK we think that there might be oil and gas in this region, we don’t know. But we want to make sure we have the fullest maximization of the area we can claim.’”

Yet after the science and the diplomats, it’s going to be about who carries the proverbial big stick in a logistical competition over sea control. Given the Canadian government is an amateur at arms purchasing, as evidenced by the F-35 procurement circus– the Russians have the undisputed upper hand. While Harper continues the protracted acquisition of Sea King helicopters and rushes to build new ships for an aging navy, Vladimir Putin is stocking up on super-sized icebreakers, 40 new naval vessels, including a brand new nuclear attack submarine, and a newintercontinental ballistic missile system ready by 2018, all the while refurbishing old Soviet military bases in the Far North. It’s not that the Canadians will ever go to war with Russia, beefing up your army is an old Russian diplomatic trick of intimidation to get what they want. Let’s not forget about the Chinese either, they’re playing the classic long-game when it comes to Arctic sovereignty: Playing nice by resisting an aggressive claim while beefing up their maritime power, cloaking attempts at buying into Arctic lands in Iceland, and investing in Greenland. They know the money train at stake and want a piece of the Arctic pie.

Countering Russian and Chinese aggression in the coming years may require the help of CSEC spies (who’ve been practising on Brazil) or from our classic American neighbour with its own competing Arctic claims and naval arsenal to boot. Unfortunately for Harper, some invisible snowmobiles and finding some old, long-forgotten ship probably won’t cut it.

[Gurn]

"While Harper continues the protracted acquisition of Sea King helicopters and rushes to build new ships for an aging navy,"

Would these be the new ships that were first announced in 2011 and no keel laid yet?

[SabreFan1]

If you think your money is your personal property and not your government's, it's you who should be paranoid.

Do you have an IRA/401K? Do you think the funds are safe?

In March 2009, Ireland seized €4bn from its Pension Reserve fund in order to rescue its banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.

In December 2010, Hungary told its citizens that they could either remit their private pension money to the state or lose their state pension funds (but still have to pay for it nonetheless).

In November, 2010, the France decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit.

In early January 2011, $60 million in private retirement funds were transferred to the state's pension scheme in Bulgaria.

In the Fall of 2013 the Poland announced it would transfer to the state (aka. confiscate) the bulk of assets owned by the country's private pension funds without offering any compensation.

How about your savings/chequing account? Do you think the funds are safe?

In the Spring of 2013 Cyprus outright confiscated up to 50% of the funds from bank account holders in that country.

Keen market followers will recall the upward explosion in bitcoin's exchange rate in the aftermath of this incident.

[graphic removed for space]

Just in case you receive funds from overseas, in February 2014, Italian banks were ordered by the Italian government to withhold a 20% tax on all inbound wire transfers. Il Sole reported, "the deductions will be automatic (unless prior request for exclusion), and then it will be up to the taxpayer to prove that the money is not in the nature of compensation "income.'"

Think it can't happen to you because you are a USAmerican living in good'ol USAmerica?

You mean the same USAmerica that is the largest debtor in world history?

The same USAmerica that has almost as much debt as the world has wealth?

US Treasury bonds debt currently stands at over $17 trillion...

[graphic removed for space]

That total doesn't take into account the liabilities of the federal government for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that were collected in the past and are theoretically supposed to be paid back. If accounted for under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), like every other company in the US does, total US government debt and liabilities stands above $90 trillion and is rising at about $5 trillion per year.

[graphic removed for space]

So $90 billion + $17 billion = $107 billion of debts.

According to a study by the Boston Consulting Group , privately held wealth increased to $152 trillion globally in 2013.

I am not paranoid because I am extremely lucky not to be an USAmerican citizen/tax-slave.

So tell me, why aren't you paranoid?

You seriously give this stuff too much of your time. Most people already know about the stuff that you posted.

I worry for the next generation about this stuff. I have no doubt that within the next 50 years, the US will default on its debt. The global economy as a whole will go down the crapper with it. That is how the US will eventually lose its superpower status.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

As to your question at the end, am I paranoid, no. I'll be dead and gone by then. If the US economy were to start circling the drain while I'm alive, I would withdraw my money from banks and liquidate any paper assets and buy tangible things that never loses its value. Precious metals would be where the bulk of where it would go. I would stock up on every edible staple and raw food material that I could get my hands on. Buffalo is on the eastern shore of Lake Erie, so I would never have to worry about water.

As for Bitcoin and other virtual currencies, that would be fine if the idea takes off as an alternative to fiat money, but it is not the currency of the future.

Do I have a good plan just in case the poop hits the fan? Yes. Am I constantly worried about what may or may not happen in my lifetime. No.

[Ovi one kenobi]

I like that Harper is standing up against russia but I think that he also has to be a bit more careful to.

[grandmaster]

The US has no right to push sanctions on to Russia. Harper is merely acting upon the US requests.

This is all very hypocritical and Iraq says hello.

Where were the sanctions against the US and Britain for Iraq's full on invasion?

[drummer4now]

The US has no right to push sanctions on to Russia. Harper is merely acting upon the US requests.

This is all very hypocritical and Iraq says hello.

Where were the sanctions against the US and Britain for Iraq's full on invasion?

I agree there should have been some sort of sanctions for invading a sovereign country when they didn't even attack you first.. But the scenario is different from Crimea because the US technically dint annex Iraq as opposed to what Russia did to Crimea.

The US and the West annex countries in different ways by taking control of the occupied countries resources and installing puppet governments before formal elections take place.They don't formally incorporate the occupied territory though.

All the big name Oil companies act as beneficiaries and agents for the west when they control the resources. I remember Wolf Biltzer mentioning that the same thing should happen to Libyan Oil during their uprising against Gadaffi because of the amount of money spent by the West.

Long story short its Resources+ Second Puppet regime = Freedom from current regime until the next up rising..

[Balls of Bure]

"While Harper continues the protracted acquisition of Sea King helicopters and rushes to build new ships for an aging navy,"

Would these be the new ships that were first announced in 2011 and no keel laid yet?

And I guess these junked subs are supposed to protect our Arctic Sovereignty? I hear a small dog yapping...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/used-subs-a-daft-deal-for-canada-u-k-mp-says-1.1166047

A British MP says Canada got a bad deal on the second-hand submarines it bought from the U.K. in 1998 and should consider asking for a refund.

Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said it's time the British and Canadian governments explained how the deal went wrong.

"Why were the Canadians daft enough to buy them?" he asked.

'I'm appalled we've done a dumb deal with an ally like this.'

—Mike Hancock, British MP

"My God, it's a sad tale, isn't it? 'Buyer beware' should have been painted on the sides of these submarines."

Hancock, a member of Britain's coalition government, has tabled questions in the Westminster Parliament about the deal. He told CBC News he is asking "why we sold them to you knowing there were intrinsic problems in the submarines."

"It's either incompetence on behalf of the Canadians, or sheer, smooth-talking salesmen from the MOD [Ministry of Defence] here in Britain," he added.

Canada paid $750 million for four used Victoria-class Royal Navy submarines in 1998. They had been decommissioned in 1993 when the U.K. decided to focus solely on nuclear subs.

The subs had been based in Hancock's Portsmouth riding. Canada renamed them:

• HMCS Chicoutimi.
• HMCS Corner Brook.
• HMCS Windsor.
• HMCS Victoria.

Since then, the navy has spent billions of dollars trying to get them in fighting shape.

"I'm not sure just when these things started to fall apart, but I think it would be interesting to know when the problems developed," Hancock said.

Sailor died in Chicoutimi fire

In their 13 years of Canadian service, the subs have spent less than three years at sea and have been plagued by dents, rust, fires and leaks.

In 2004, HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire during its maiden voyage as a Canadian sub. Nine members of the crew suffered smoke inhalation. Lt. Chris Saunders, 32, died.

HMCS Corner Brook ran aground in 2011 and is not expected back in service for at least two years.

HMCS Windsor started a two-year refit in 2007 and is still not ready for service. It remains dry-docked in Halifax.

When the Windsor does return to service, it may actually be less capable than before. CBC News obtained documents via access to information legislation that show the navy discovered rust in the sub.

That would render it unable to dive as deep as it did before the multimillion-dollar refit.

HMCS Victoria has been at sea for 115 days and is undergoing "work-ups" for an expected return to full operational service this year.

None of the subs is capable of firing a Canadian torpedo.

Long-standing problems

The subs had problems even before they were sold to Canada. One of them had its torpedo doors welded shut because of flooding.

Canada's navy has not said what the refit cost, but documents show that $17 million was budgeted in 2010. The real cost for the Windsor that year alone was $47 million. It is not known how much has been spent in total on the four subs.

"I'm appalled we've done a dumb deal with an ally like this," Hancock said. "If this was the Americans, we'd say good luck and serves you right. But as it's Canada, I think there are a lot of questions to be answered."

Hancock said Canada should have been more cautious about buying them and should consider asking Britain for its money back.

"I think you should be making a case for it."

Hancock said he originally raised questions about the deal back in 1998. He said had Canada asked for a rebate back then, it might have worked. The best deal likely available now, he said, is a better deal should Canada wish to buy more second-hand British subs.

[Balls of Bure]

I agree there should have been some sort of sanctions for invading a sovereign country when they didn't even attack you first.. But the scenario is different from Crimea because the US technically dint annex Iraq as opposed to what Russia did to Crimea.

The US and the West annex countries in different ways by taking control of the occupied countries resources and installing puppet governments before formal elections take place.They don't formally incorporate the occupied territory though.

All the big name Oil companies act as beneficiaries and agents for the west when they control the resources. I remember Wolf Biltzer mentioning that the same thing should happen to Libyan Oil during their uprising against Gadaffi because of the amount of money spent by the West.

Long story short its Resources+ Second Puppet regime = Freedom from current regime until the next up rising..

Seems to me that the USA has a way of OCCUPATION as opposed to straight Annexation. It's very convenient for them that way as they take far less responsibility and accountability yet still have full run over a country and it's government. They do it under the guise of democracy and freedom but in reality, you are right, it is all about big oil and the war machine.

In the case of the Crimean peninsula, several factors to consider include historical ties to Russia, the population and it's ancestry and wishes and also the fact that Ukraine is on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford to pay it's debt to Russia for Natural Gas. The debt is estimated at 4.5 billion$.

http://rt.com/business/178988-russia-ukraine-gas-transit/

Ukraine ready to impose sanctions against any transit via its territory, including air flights and gas supplies to Europe, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Friday.

Ukraine’s parliament will vote on the final measure on Tuesday, and will take into consideration the country’s Security Service, Valeria Hontareva, president of Ukraine’s Central Bank, said.

Kiev has also prepared a list of 172 Russian citizens and 65 companies predominantly Russian to put under sanctions for “sponsoring terrorism, supporting the annexation of Crimea, and violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” Yatsenyuk said at a briefing on Friday.

Proposed sanctions include asset freezes, bans on certain enterprises, bans on privatizing state property, refusing to issue licenses, and a complete or partial ban on transit- both aviation and gas.

“We simply have no other choice,” the Prime Minister said, adding that Ukraine will use part of the planned $17 billion IMF aid to achieve energy independence, and may go to the World Bank for help. The country, which is on the brink of economic default, received the first $3.2 billion tranche in May.

Ukraine wants to “put a stop” to its gas dependence on Russia, its main source for energy to heat homes and buildings, but understands it will not be an “easy” process, Yatsenyuk told reporters.

The Prime Minister estimates Ukraine could stand to lose $7 billion as a result of imposing sectorial sanctions against Russia, its biggest trading partner after the European Union.

“There is no doubt that Russia will continue its course in Ukraine it began a decade ago- banning Ukrainian goods, decreasing cooperation, pressure, and blackmail,” Yatsenyuk said.

On Monday the Ukrainian government said it plans to mirror Western sanctions and target Russia’s financial, energy, and military sectors.

Ukraine imports nearly 50 percent of its natural gas from Russia, which in 2013 totaled 27.7 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

If approved, a halt to Russian gas transit would hit Europe as the continent gets 15 percent of the energy it needs from Russia. In June Gazprom, Russia’s national gas company announced it was stopping deliveries to Ukraine, but would continue to ship 180 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe.

The falling out with Russia’s gas major over pricing and debt has forced Ukraine to cut back on its heavy use of energy. Until the winter, homes will go without hot water to cut gas consumption by 30 percent . In 2013, Ukraine used 55 billion cubic meters, and as it stands, Kiev only has about 1.2 billion cubic meters of gas for heating, ITAR-ITASS reported.

On top of that, Ukraine is also exploring reverse flow options; importing gas from neighboring European countries.

In the event Ukraine cuts off gas transit through its territory, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic will suffer, Transneft, Russia's state-owned pipe operator said in a statement on Friday.

Gazprom already has a northern pipeline route that bypasses Ukraine delivering supplies to Germany and other big importers, and is constructing South Stream to run to Southern and Central European countries.

‘Transit ban targeting EU, will increase South Stream support’

The EU will suffer most from the possible gas transit ban by Kiev, especially during the winter months, political analyst at the Berlin Centre for Caspian Region Studies, Matthias Dornfeldt, told RT.

“Hearing this proposal from Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I was very shocked because Ukraine is targeting more the European Union and the energy security for its eastern member-states than Russia,” he said.“As we saw in 2009, those mostly hit were Slovakia, Bulgaria, and partially other countries.”

However, according to Dornfeldt, “this proposal will never get passed because of the pressure from Brussels...other actors from the international states will stop this proposal.”

Ukraine’s threat to block all transit from Russia “shows the Ukrainian government is not willing to cooperate at all and sees only their own interest,” Dornfeldt argued.

The consequences of such a threat would only increase the EU’s support for Russian projects that involve bypassing Ukraine, such as the South Stream pipeline.

“After hearing this, it is clear that all the states in southeastern Europe – like Austria, Hungary, Serbia, and Bulgaria – will lobby much more for the construction of South Stream to get a very secure supply of gas.”

[mdehaan]

You seriously give this stuff too much of your time. Most people already know about the stuff that you posted.

I worry for the next generation about this stuff. I have no doubt that within the next 50 years, the US will default on its debt. The global economy as a whole will go down the crapper with it. That is how the US will eventually lose its superpower status.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

As to your question at the end, am I paranoid, no. I'll be dead and gone by then. If the US economy were to start circling the drain while I'm alive, I would withdraw my money from banks and liquidate any paper assets and buy tangible things that never loses its value. Precious metals would be where the bulk of where it would go. I would stock up on every edible staple and raw food material that I could get my hands on. Buffalo is on the eastern shore of Lake Erie, so I would never have to worry about water.

As for Bitcoin and other virtual currencies, that would be fine if the idea takes off as an alternative to fiat money, but it is not the currency of the future.

Do I have a good plan just in case the poop hits the fan? Yes. Am I constantly worried about what may or may not happen in my lifetime. No.

Some people need to spend too much time doing this, in order to over compensate for the millions of people who don't know what a bond is, but have no doubt perfected the selfie. Most people might know, but very few understand or care, lets be honest.

If the US economy was to start circling the drain how to you think you would find out about that? Just curious.

[ronthecivil]

The US has no right to push sanctions on to Russia. Harper is merely acting upon the US requests.

This is all very hypocritical and Iraq says hello.

Where were the sanctions against the US and Britain for Iraq's full on invasion?

Last I checked the US doesn't have a long standing ambition to bring all Arabic people's under it's rule.

Russia has forever wanted all the slavic people under it's rule. It's not hoping for regime change, it's looking to anex the place. In fact, they just finished annexing some of it WITHING THE LAST YEAR!

History shows that simply ignoring this kind of behaviour is a bad idea.

[ronthecivil]

Canada will barely feel the effects of the sactions (in fact as an energy exporter it might actually be a big money maker.)

The US will barely feel the effects.

Europe will feel signicant effects due the likelyhood of suddenly having to give up on Russian gas.

Russia will suddenly feel likes it's 1980 again as they suddenlyt start feeling very, VERY poor. With any luck that will wake them up to the craziness Putin is on and the truth behind his blantant border expansion policy......

[ronthecivil]

And I guess these junked subs are supposed to protect our Arctic Sovereignty? I hear a small dog yapping...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/used-subs-a-daft-deal-for-canada-u-k-mp-says-1.1166047

A British MP says Canada got a bad deal on the second-hand submarines it bought from the U.K. in 1998 and should consider asking for a refund.

Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said it's time the British and Canadian governments explained how the deal went wrong.

"Why were the Canadians daft enough to buy them?" he asked.

"My God, it's a sad tale, isn't it? 'Buyer beware' should have been painted on the sides of these submarines."'I'm appalled we've done a dumb deal with an ally like this.'—Mike Hancock, British MP

Hancock, a member of Britain's coalition government, has tabled questions in the Westminster Parliament about the deal. He told CBC News he is asking "why we sold them to you knowing there were intrinsic problems in the submarines."

"It's either incompetence on behalf of the Canadians, or sheer, smooth-talking salesmen from the MOD [Ministry of Defence] here in Britain," he added.

Canada paid $750 million for four used Victoria-class Royal Navy submarines in 1998. They had been decommissioned in 1993 when the U.K. decided to focus solely on nuclear subs.

The subs had been based in Hancock's Portsmouth riding. Canada renamed them:

• HMCS Chicoutimi.
• HMCS Corner Brook.
• HMCS Windsor.
• HMCS Victoria.

Since then, the navy has spent billions of dollars trying to get them in fighting shape.

"I'm not sure just when these things started to fall apart, but I think it would be interesting to know when the problems developed," Hancock said.

Sailor died in Chicoutimi fire

In their 13 years of Canadian service, the subs have spent less than three years at sea and have been plagued by dents, rust, fires and leaks.

In 2004, HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire during its maiden voyage as a Canadian sub. Nine members of the crew suffered smoke inhalation. Lt. Chris Saunders, 32, died.

HMCS Corner Brook ran aground in 2011 and is not expected back in service for at least two years.

HMCS Windsor started a two-year refit in 2007 and is still not ready for service. It remains dry-docked in Halifax.

When the Windsor does return to service, it may actually be less capable than before. CBC News obtained documents via access to information legislation that show the navy discovered rust in the sub.

That would render it unable to dive as deep as it did before the multimillion-dollar refit.

HMCS Victoria has been at sea for 115 days and is undergoing "work-ups" for an expected return to full operational service this year.

None of the subs is capable of firing a Canadian torpedo.

Long-standing problems

The subs had problems even before they were sold to Canada. One of them had its torpedo doors welded shut because of flooding.

Canada's navy has not said what the refit cost, but documents show that $17 million was budgeted in 2010. The real cost for the Windsor that year alone was $47 million. It is not known how much has been spent in total on the four subs.

"I'm appalled we've done a dumb deal with an ally like this," Hancock said. "If this was the Americans, we'd say good luck and serves you right. But as it's Canada, I think there are a lot of questions to be answered."

Hancock said Canada should have been more cautious about buying them and should consider asking Britain for its money back.

"I think you should be making a case for it."

Hancock said he originally raised questions about the deal back in 1998. He said had Canada asked for a rebate back then, it might have worked. The best deal likely available now, he said, is a better deal should Canada wish to buy more second-hand British subs.

It's been official US policy to not allow any Eupopean powers to influence the American continent since good ol' James Munroe. That would include things like having a pissing contest with Canada over who has better submarines.

The answer to the question of who has better submarine, Russia or Canada, is the Unitied States, make no mistake about it.

Heck, if Canada wanted to say sell one of our artic islands to Russia, pretty sure the US would remind us that NO, NO were are not.

[ronthecivil]

If you think your money is your personal property and not your government's, it's you who should be paranoid.

Do you have an IRA/401K? Do you think the funds are safe?

In March 2009, Ireland seized €4bn from its Pension Reserve fund in order to rescue its banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.

In December 2010, Hungary told its citizens that they could either remit their private pension money to the state or lose their state pension funds (but still have to pay for it nonetheless).

In November, 2010, the France decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit.

In early January 2011, $60 million in private retirement funds were transferred to the state's pension scheme in Bulgaria.

In the Fall of 2013 the Poland announced it would transfer to the state (aka. confiscate) the bulk of assets owned by the country's private pension funds without offering any compensation.

How about your savings/chequing account? Do you think the funds are safe?

In the Spring of 2013 Cyprus outright confiscated up to 50% of the funds from bank account holders in that country.

Keen market followers will recall the upward explosion in bitcoin's exchange rate in the aftermath of this incident.

Just in case you receive funds from overseas, in February 2014, Italian banks were ordered by the Italian government to withhold a 20% tax on all inbound wire transfers. Il Sole reported, "the deductions will be automatic (unless prior request for exclusion), and then it will be up to the taxpayer to prove that the money is not in the nature of compensation "income.'"

Think it can't happen to you because you are a USAmerican living in good'ol USAmerica?

You mean the same USAmerica that is the largest debtor in world history?

The same USAmerica that has almost as much debt as the world has wealth?

US Treasury bonds debt currently stands at over $17 trillion...

That total doesn't take into account the liabilities of the federal government for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that were collected in the past and are theoretically supposed to be paid back. If accounted for under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), like every other company in the US does, total US government debt and liabilities stands above $90 trillion and is rising at about $5 trillion per year.

So $90 billion + $17 billion = $107 billion of debts.

According to a study by the Boston Consulting Group , privately held wealth increased to $152 trillion globally in 2013.

I am not paranoid because I am extremely lucky not to be an USAmerican citizen/tax-slave.

So tell me, why aren't you paranoid?

Just wait till the tax and seize your bitcoins if needed.

Perhaps you aren't as paranoid as you need to be.....

[SabreFan1]

Some people need to spend too much time doing this, in order to over compensate for the millions of people who don't know what a bond is, but have no doubt perfected the selfie. Most people might know, but very few understand or care, lets be honest.

If the US economy was to start circling the drain how to you think you would find out about that? Just curious.

My approach to watching the US economy is the same approach that any good investor takes while speculating on a stock. Watch the bottom line. The US debt is now almost a trillion dollars past the GDP and is slowly widening. As long as the next US president recognizes the danger and slowly applies the brakes on runaway borrowing and spending then the GDP will catch up to the debt again.

When the US economy tanks, it will be slow decline up to the point where the US defaults on its debt. There will be plenty of warning during the run-up to to that default. Recessions will last longer each time one happens, then at some point that the US will slip into a depression. Right before that depression starts to rear its ugly head, that's when you liquidate your paper assets and stock up and hoard resources that you will personally need and use the rest of your liquidity to purchase things like precious metals and interests in worldwide food/energy/etc.staples that will at that point be a safe investment because the majority of the world's governments will be competing with each other to buy as much as they can as fast as they can in order to keep their respective populace's functioning.

Everybody keeps waiting for a massive sudden collapse. That is not how it will happen. It will continue to be a slow decline that will get more painful as time goes by. Then once the "ship" hits rock bottom, the world's economy will be re-imagined and that ship will eventually right itself.

[Mustapha]

Last I checked the US doesn't have a long standing ambition to bring all Arabic people's under it's rule.

Why would they? There's no money in that.

The US doesn't care about people, just resources, and whatever they will profit from.

Why do you think they were so invested in Iraq and Kuwait? Do you really think that the USA gave a shit about the Iraqi people?

To prove my point, take a look at Africa. There are many nations that are war-torn, oppressed, diseased, etc in Africa and they have been that way for decades. You don't see the USA freeing people in Zimbabwe or the CAR. You know why? Because there's no profit.

They give money to Nigeria though, but that's because Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer...

[mdehaan]

My approach to watching the US economy is the same approach that any good investor takes while speculating on a stock. Watch the bottom line. The US debt is now almost a trillion dollars past the GDP and is slowly widening. As long as the next US president recognizes the danger and slowly applies the brakes on runaway borrowing and spending then the GDP will catch up to the debt again.

When the US economy tanks, it will be slow decline up to the point where the US defaults on its debt. There will be plenty of warning during the run-up to to that default. Recessions will last longer each time one happens, then at some point that the US will slip into a depression. Right before that depression starts to rear its ugly head, that's when you liquidate your paper assets and stock up and hoard resources that you will personally need and use the rest of your liquidity to purchase things like precious metals and interests in worldwide food/energy/etc.staples that will at that point be a safe investment because the majority of the world's governments will be competing with each other to buy as much as they can as fast as they can in order to keep their respective populace's functioning.

Everybody keeps waiting for a massive sudden collapse. That is not how it will happen. It will continue to be a slow decline that will get more painful as time goes by. Then once the "ship" hits rock bottom, the world's economy will be re-imagined and that ship will eventually right itself.

Just like you wouldn't get life insurance after you're dead or home insurance after a flood I don't recommend purchasing precious metals right before a depression starts, because like death or floods, you don't know when they will come.

We live in a global market place where defaults on mortgages in America causes bank defaults in Iceland. Not sure US Debt to GDP is the best indicator on whether or not you will be able to provide for family for the next 1, 5, 10, 50 years...

[SabreFan1]

We live in a global market place where defaults on mortgages in America causes bank defaults in Iceland. Not sure US Debt to GDP is the best indicator on whether or not you will be able to provide for family for the next 1, 5, 10, 50 years...

just like you wouldn't get life insurance after you're dead or home insurance after a flood I don't recommend purchasing precious metals right before a depression starts, because like death or floods, you don't know when they will come.

Throughout history precious metals have always been a safe-haven against inflation. I'm not going to argue about that because history has proven it again and again. The world economy isn't like it was in the 1920's, Depression market crashes don't happen in a week or even a month. People no longer fling themselves out of 10th floor windows after a large short term crash in the market. It's a long drawn out process. You shift your finances to safer investments accordingly as the market fluctuates into a downward trend.

Yes, debt to GDP ratio is among the best ways to base the creditworthiness of a country. It's common sense to anybody who knows anything about finances. It's the same way with your personal or business creditworthiness. If your debt outpaces your income, banks are much less likely to lend you or your business money. This is one of the main reasons why the U.S.'s credit rating took a hit a while back.

I Googled this for you so you could see it for yourself. Since 2008 election, the U.S. debt ratio went from less than 65% to over 100%. That's one of the biggest reasons why academics and some politicians have been going nuts about the current administrations handling of the economy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

[Balls of Bure]

Everything is connected and relative.

Russia Buys 18.6 Tonnes Of Gold In June - Currency Wars Intensify

-- Posted Tuesday, 29 July 2014 | Share this article | 1 Comment

Today’s AM fix was USD 1,307.50, EUR 972.84 and GBP 770.39 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,305.00, EUR 971.20 and GBP 768.55 per ounce.

Gold climbed $2.30 or 0.18% yesterday to $1,305.10/oz and silver rose $0.12 or 0.58% to $20.62/oz.

Gold rose 0.4% in London this morning after gold in Singapore traded sideways overnight. Futures trading volume continues to increase and was almost double the average for the past 100 days for this time of day, Bloomberg data shows.

Gold in U.S. Dollars - 50, 100, 200 Simple Moving Averages (Thomson Reuters)

Silver for immediate delivery rose 0.8% to $20.73 an ounce in London. Platinum was 0.1% lower at $1,486.82 an ounce. Palladium gained 0.3% to $883.63/oz and remains close to a 13 year nominal high of $889.75.

Geopolitical tension in Europe and in the Middle East is supporting gold. Israel's military pounded targets in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country should prepare for a long conflict in the Palestinian enclave, squashing any hopes of a swift end to 22 days of fighting.

Gaza residents reported heavy Israeli bombing in Gaza City. Israeli aircraft fired a missile at the house of a Hamas Gaza leader and flattened it before dawn. An Israeli military spokeswoman said 70 targets were struck in Gaza through the night. At least 30 people were killed in the assaults from air, land and sea, residents said, after a night of the most widespread attacks so far in the tiny enclave.

The new sanctions are set to inflame relations further. They are on “key sectors” of Russia’s economy, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said yesterday. Russia also signaled possible retaliation, announcing yesterday that it may ban imports of chicken from the U.S. and fruit from Europe because of concern about contamination.

Futures options expiration is over but we are not out of the woods yet and gold and silver could see more volatility this week ahead of key reports on gross domestic product on Wednesday and employment data on Friday. The Federal Reserve's chief policy making committee meets today and tomorrow and this could have another short term impact on prices.

Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Buy Gold - Bye Bye Petrodollar
Russia continues to aggressively accumulate gold reserves. Its gold holdings increased again in June as the crisis in the Ukraine and relations with the West deteriorated.

The Russian central bank officially increased its gold holdings by 16.8 tonnes to 1,094.8 tonnes in June, the IMF's International Financial Statistics report showed. In ounce terms, Russia increased its gold holdings by some 500,000 ounces, to 35.197 million ounces in June from 34.656 million ounces in May.

Russia recently became the world's fifth largest bullion holder after the United States, Germany, Italy and France.

Importantly, China’s gold holdings, the world’s biggest store of wealth buyer of gold, haven’t been updated since March, 2009 and remain at just 33.89 million ounces or 1,054.1 tonnes and just 1% of their huge foreign exchange reserves. More than five years later, it is likely that China’s reserves have doubled or trebled as they quietly corner the global physical gold market.

It is important to note that there remain doubts as to the integrity of the gold holdings of the U.S. and concerns that other countries national gold reserves could be encumbered, loaned or sold in the market. Indeed, the Bundesbank is having grave difficulty in having its gold reserves returned from the Federal Reserve in New York.

So far in 2014, Russia has now bought substantially more than their entire annual gold production of nearly 1,500,000 ounces.

Russia was not the only central bank to diversify foreign exchange reserves, primarily held in dollars, into gold. Allies of Russia also bought gold in June. The central banks of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, all Russian economic and military allies all accumulated gold in June.

Currency wars are set to intensify and the buying by the former Soviet states is another manifestation of this.

Russia’s foreign reserves fell $39 billion to $472 billion in June, data from the Russian central bank shows. Gold now accounts for 9.3% of the country’s reserves, according to the World Gold Council substantially less than the percentage of gold in fx reserves of the other leading gold owners.

Greece, Serbia, Mexico and Equador also diversifed and increased their gold reserves in June.

Turkey increased its holdings to 16.491 million ounces from 16.172 million ounces in May. It accepts gold in its reserve requirements from commercial banks and as payment from other sovereign nations such as Iran.

Germany, the second-biggest gold holder, lowered its holdings by a tiny 1,000 ounces to 108.805 million ounces from 108.806 million ounces.

Gold advanced the most in four months in June as fighting in Ukraine to Iraq and Israel boosted demand for a haven. Hedge funds and banks almost doubled net-long position in gold during June, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) data show.

Gold’s safe-haven appeal is being driven by heightened tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine and increasing concerns of financial and economic war and indeed of actual war.

Geopolitical risk in June likely prompted some central banks to further diversify their foreign exchange holdings and buy gold which is used to hedge against geopolitical, currency and credit risks.