Stocks and Precious Metals Charts - Destroyer of Markets - Audacious Oligarchy

“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.”

Alfred Lord Tennyson


“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

Noel Langley, The Wizard of Oz, screenplay


"I know nothing that I may say can influence you. You have no souls to be influenced. You are spineless, flaccid things. You pompously call yourselves Republicans and Democrats.  You are lick-spittlers and panderers, the creatures of the Plutocracy."

Jack London, The Iron Heel


“Each day we are becoming a creature of splendid glory, or one of unthinkable horror.”

C. S. Lewis

Stocks bounced today.

This was somewhat expected as noted yesterday. Their declines had reached the fibonacci retracements for a correction.

Gold and silver also had healthy bounces today.

Gold is a trading range.

Silver is in an intermediate consolidation pattern.

The Dollar laid off a bit from its recent gains.

Donholio continues to harm his chances for the next election by boasting or otherwise revealing things that he did.    In this latest he confessed, over a recorded phone call, to Bob Woodward that he had purposely downplayed the virulence and threat of the coronavirus pandemic.

This will be excused, or simply be ignored, by the true believers and kindred souls. And as always, those who cannot recall, or could not have known.

"And we can carry on the practice of charity and prayers in our daily lives, in the little things, if we can take the first step when called. It is that first step, away from the path of selfishness and death, and into the arms of love and true life, that is the key.  The first step out of the darkness and into the light is the hardest.  But once there, in that loving and hospitable place, our true home for which we were made, we find comfort and place, and pray that we may never leave."     Jesse, April 2014 

Repentance, forgiveness, thankfulness.

Need little, want less, love more.  For those who abide in love abide in God, and God in them.

Have a pleasant evening.

Robert Hare: What a Psychopathic Corporation Might Be Like

Dr. Robert Hare is describing what a psychopathic corporate culture might be like, not what all corporations are.

Corporations can have personalities if you will, based on the character of their leadership, and the traits and tendencies which they tend to seek out and reward.

Is there a difference in culture between Costco and Walmart? Why might that be the case? How about the difference in treating the customer between St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Goldman Sachs, both putatively doing "God's work?" Do they seek certain personality types, and tend to cultivate and reward different behaviours? Not all hospitals are altruistic and caring, and not all financial firms are the same. Does Goldman Sachs have the same character as Charles Schwab? How about Bank of America and Edward Jones? Or BP and Whole Foods? Why might they be different? Or is it all just marketing and image?

Governments may have also have character traits, whether they choose to call it culture, or tone, or philosophy. Certain behaviours are rewarded, and others are suppressed and discouraged.  Quite often a few like-minded and powerful personalities may set the character of the organization, and choose subordinates who are either servile or of a simple mind. Is there a difference between a government run by Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler? Do their differences affect the people whom they attract and the behaviours that they reward?

Corporations are not people, and do not deserve the rights of people because it grants to the corporation mangers, those that actually give life to a company, a power that makes most other individuals unequal under the law.  It is an extension of power and rights by proxy, greatly leveraged.

If an individual has a voice, the individual managers of a major corporation can obtain a much greater voice, one applied by the power and money of a large organization.  These are the modern übermenschen that we are unwittingly raising like titans over the world of real people.

And when they are singularly amoral, or focused for anti-social purposes, or criminal activities, the resultant damage of which they are capable can be devastating, not only to individuals, but even to towns, cities, and small nations.

S&P Says Its Claims to Honest Objectivity and Independence Were 'Puffery'

"There was a young man who had an aged father and mother who owned considerable property. The young man, being an only son, and believing that the old people had outlived their usefulness, killed them both. He was accused, tried and convicted of murder.

When the judge came to pass sentence upon him, he called on him to give any reason why the severest sentence should not be passed.  The young man promptly replied that he hoped the court would be lenient because he was an orphan."

Abraham Lincoln

Puffery, for those unacquainted with the technical term, is a euphemism concocted by the legal profession.  It means untruth in advertising.

"Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally. Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image of what is being described and is especially featured in testimonials."

It is one thing to apply it to some advert on television, that it is puffery to say that this person thinks our detergent cleans best. It may be quite another thing to state that when a firm claims to offer objective and honest advice, which is why the customer is buying it in the first place, that is mere 'puffery.'

When the truth becomes tortured enough, the rationalizations for failure and even deception become increasingly bizarre.

There is the CEO defense: I wasn't really involved in the things for which I received huge sums of money.

There is the bureaucratic defense: We didn't know because we didn't see it.

And now we have the ratings agency defense: It can't be fraud, because everyone knows we are not objective and independent, even though we say we are and sell our services based on that claim.

This isn't all that far from that venerable Wall Street defenses so often trotted out after a stock bubble and fraud collapses:  Well, no one made them give us their money and  Everyone was doing it and Everyone knows the game is rigged.

These are tales from the schoolyard.  This is the credibility trap.

WSJ
S&P Has Unusual Defense
By Jeanette Neumann
April 22, 2013, 3:00 p.m. ET

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has long declared that its letter-grade ratings are independent and objective, part of a bid to allay concerns over its business model...

Now, lawyers defending the company against the Justice Department's recent civil lawsuit say that statements about independence and objectivity are "puffery" and were never meant to be taken at face value by investors...

The federal government says that the rating firm committed fraud when it allegedly misrepresented its ratings as independent and objective.

"Even if it's a viable legal argument, it's a pretty unattractive argument for S&P to be putting forward since they're basically in the business of charging clients for their reputation," said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor. "What they're saying here is, 'When we're talking to investors about our own reputation, we're engaging in meaningless puffery.' "

Read the remarkable story here.

Unfettered Capitalism and the Great Crash of 1929

“The man who is admired for the ingenuity of his larceny is almost always rediscovering some earlier form of fraud. The basic forms are all known, have all been practiced.

The manners of capitalism improve. The morals may not...

When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise — to deny the political character of the modern corporation — is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality.

The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error. The beneficiaries are the institutions whose power we so disguise. Let there be no question: economics, so long as it is thus taught, becomes, however unconsciously, a part of the arrangement by which the citizen or student is kept from seeing how he or she is, or will be, governed...

The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”

John Kenneth Galbraith

"To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society.

For the alleged commodity "labor power" cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labor power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity "man" attached to that tag.

Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as the victims of acute social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation.

Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed...

Undoubtedly, labor, land, and money markets are essential to a market economy. But no society could stand the effects of such a system of crude fictions even for the shortest stretch of time unless its human and natural substance, as well as its business organization, was protected against the ravages of this satanic mill."

Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944

Empire of the Exceptional: The Age of Narcissism

As a reminder, it is not possible to reliably diagnose someone from a distance. Why?  Because our view of them is by its nature self-selective: we see and emphasize things that support our hypothetical view of them and dismiss or minimize other things that do not. This is a recurrent weakness in social sciences to be avoided. I cannot stress this enough.  Extremes are sometimes easier to see, but most individuals are a rather complex mix. 

As the psychologist in the video below points out, most people do not fit into neat categories of anything, but are rather an amalgam of various tendencies that overlap and vary greatly in intensity and influence. Most people tend to be diffused in their interests.   We can find traces of almost everything in our selves, as it is the nature of being human.  The degree of that trait is what matters, and the other traits in our mix, and how we react to them, and use them in our daily lives.

And we might also keep in mind that we go through phases, and try out different aspects of our personality in different settings and situations, especially when we are growing  What our parents or society might approve of or not helps to shape the final person which we may become as an adult. And some people may arrive at self-actualization rather late, or in some sad cases never reach that point, locked in a perpetual adolescence because of some trauma or lack of appropriate growth opportunities at key developmental junctures.

Even though it is difficult to discern in the individual, certain trends can appear on the macro level, whether it be in an historical era or even a broader culture.   They can possess distinctive personalities.  As an example, the Japanese tend to be self-effacing and socially oriented with a heavy set of personal obligations to their family and to groups.

And yet I have met some Japanese businessmen who could pass easily for Donald Trump in terms of egoism and personal preoccupation. But on the whole the trend applies, or had applied when I last looked at it carefully and at first hand.  These things on the macro level do change as well, but slowly, generationally.  And the cultural self-image may significantly lag the actual change.   Look in the mirror and see what you have become, for it may not be as you imagine.

In the past thirty years it seems that Anglo-American culture has grown increasingly narcissistic. I do not know if there are more narcissistic individuals in society now, and perhaps there are not.

But I do think that narcissism is much more widely tolerated, rewarded, and even admired now than it would have been in the period of 1930 to 1950 for example. And that is what makes all the difference. More people feel free to indulge their selfish and egotistical tendencies, and to cultivate them, in order to be fashionable and competitive.

As an aside, I think this also tends to explain the decline of literature and poetry in American culture, and the rise of reality shows and the preoccupation with extravagance. Literature calls us out of ourselves, ex stasis, in order to fill us with knowledge and the creative impulse, while spectacle merely panders, and flows in to fill the empty and undeveloped voids in our being."

This video below uses a fictional Mark Zuckerberg from a recent movie as an example of the narcissist personality. I do not know the real Mark Zuckerberg at all so I cannot say if it is valid. But I do think that the fictional Zuckerberg in the movie is an artistic representation of the modern CEO or Wall Street fund manager, based on those that I have known or read about closely.

This narcissistic tendency in modern business occurred to me last night as I read Super Rich Irony in The New Yorker. Obama is, by historical standards, a moderate Republican who has accepted the pro-Wall Street and corporate money bias created in the Democratic Party by the Clintons.   And yet he is reviled by the modern super rich as if he were a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson.

Don't get me wrong, most politicians are by the nature of their calling a bit of a narcissist, some more than others. It takes a big ego to fill a big room, and to stand up and say, I can lead. But some are more than others, given the variability of human psychology and character traits.

Some of these super rich describe Obama as arrogant and narcissistic. I think what many of them really mean is 'uppity.'  Most everyone else is their inferior, especially a mixed race man of a lower class background.   To me he seems more a careerist  and professional (aka cynical) deal maker as politicians go, rather than an active reformer.  He is the typical modern manager ruled by expediency.  

But one of the common traits of the narcissist is projecting their faults on to others.  Since this person does not serve and love me, and I am without fault, perfect, they must have something wrong with them, or be out to get me.

Everyone has an ego.  It certainly takes an ego to write a blog for that matter, although again, some are more obviously so than others. How can one stand up and say, 'this is what I think?' Well, at least blogs are self-selecting; people have to come an read them, as opposed to people who endlessly spam other people with emails of dubious origin.  Do you get that too?  Where do these things come from?  Thank God for Snopes and Google search. 

But I point this out to emphasize that this narcissistic tendency is not something particular to the wealthy, but is a cultural trait, expressed in many ways including an increase in self-absorption and incivility.  Power expresses itself in the assertion of the will over others, and the cultivation of unrestrained personal power, the triumph of their will,  is the lifeblood of the narcissist.  And this is also why they tend to be rather antithetical to democracy.

But it does seem that what marks today's super rich more than anything is their preoccupation with their own natural superiority or chosenness as more than justifying if not dictating their good fortune, and almost demanding displays of their grandiose wealth and power, even if that wealth has been gained by cheating, stealing, and depriving others of their own deserved rights and property.  Certainly Hitler saw himself chosen by history, and he  often sought confirmation of it.  

For those with money, the growth process might be subject to the same warping so often experienced by an exceptionally beautiful woman or an enormously talented athlete.  How can one learn to form genuine friendships and loving relationships when they are constantly viewed through the prism of wealth or good looks or success on the field,  when there are so many willing to indulge your worst impulses?   There is some obvious merit to suffering and adversity, as it is the salt that can preserve the best in us if properly applied, destroying the worst.

It is the excess of the age, probably due to the circumstances of fortunate birth and an early childhood in which the young learned that greed is good, screwing everyone is acceptable business practice, that there is no law but their desires, and that most people are inferiors intended to be used by them.  Often parental approval, acceptance, the most basic love, is made contingent on the buy-in. 

I know people like this. I am sure we all do. A very successful acquaintance from school shared with me the lessons taught to him by his father, which he innocently repeated. He learned them both verbally and contextually.  And most of them were exactly as I described them in the above paragraph.  And so that is what he believed.  Can this explain why some sons of wealth turn out badly?   Life lacks real adversity and the normalizing experiences that make us whole?

I have a sense that the super wealthy as a class are reaching their self-destructive apogee, which as you may recall I suggested would happen in my longer term economic forecast of 2005.  It has quite a bit of historical precedent.  When their hatred of FDR was unsatisfied, they attempted to foment a coup d'etat, which was subsequently covered up.  That was a mistake made in the name of preserving the system, as so many similar errors incurring moral hazard have been made more recently.

Each success emboldens them to do more, ask for more, expect more as their due.  And eventually they go too far, and fall.  That in itself might not be so bad on the individual level, as in the case of Bernie Madoff who certainly deserves his time in jail, but they invariably inflict collateral damage on many good and innocent people in the process.

And that is when their own failing, and if you will, sin, can become ours if we do nothing to stop it and to repair it. Especially in an age in which narcissists and sociopaths,including their enablers, are actively assaulting the public interest and public trust in order to serve their own short term, selfish ends, no matter what the longer term consequences to society as a whole might be.

Enjoy the read and the video as something to think about.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder
By Mayo Clinic staff

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

Believing that you're better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem
Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others.

When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance.

But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.

The Mayo Clinic