The Dollar Gets the Third Degree
- The dollar gets the third degree
- Opportunity abounds (Fossil fuels and nuclear)
- Better climate through lawfare?
- What’s in a name? (Free subs, that’s what)
- Congress could have relieved the pilot shortage, but didn’t
The Dollar Gets the Third Degree
The BRICS nations seem to be playing good cop-bad cop in the run-up to their big meeting – three weeks from today.
As we’ve been reminding you since early June, Tuesday, Aug. 22, is the day our Jim Rickards believes that leaders of the BRICS nations will roll out a gold-linked super-currency that aims to challenge the supremacy of the U.S. dollar.
The heads of state from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa will gather in Durban, South Africa – and lower the boom.
Jim says Aug. 22 has the potential to be “the most significant development in international finance since 1971” – when President Nixon severed the dollar’s last remaining tie to gold.
So for just a moment, imagine the U.S. dollar sitting in an interrogation room.
Bad cop: You know, on Aug. 22, we’re gonna lower the boom. You’re gonna be ****ing toast. You hear me? Toast! Your days as the globe’s reserve currency? Over. Gone. Finito.
Then the good cop comes into the room…
Good cop: You know, we don’t really want to destroy your role as the globe’s reserve currency. Honestly, we’ve got a lot of logistics we still want to work out with this BRICS currency thing. But I gotta tell ya, I’m feelin’ some heat from my buddy here. If you can work with me, just a little…
That’s the game the BRICS nations are playing with the international media right now.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Russia has been most keen to play bad cop – seeing how Washington froze the dollar-based assets of Russia’s central bank after the invasion of Ukraine.
Back on July 8, Russia’s state-run English-language news channel RT confirmed what Jim was telling us…
But India’s foreign minister stepped in to play good cop. “There is no idea of a BRICS currency,” he said.
Meanwhile, China made a bad-cop gambit when it lobbied to expand the BRICS lineup from its current five nations. As Jim previously told us, eight more countries have applied for membership, and the leaders of 17 more have expressed interest.
But supposedly Brazil wants to avoid expansion – to allay “Western concerns [that] the group is moving to become a counterweight to Washington and the European Union.” That’s according to Bloomberg, citing only “officials with knowledge of the matter.”
So what’s the real story?
First, Jim Rickards reminds us of the stakes: “The BRICS nations already represent almost one-third of the entire global GDP. In fact, the BRICS economies are bigger than the U.S., Germany, Japan, the U.K., France, Canada and Italy combined.”
And he reminds us of what’s already taken place. For instance: “China buys enormous amounts of soybeans from Brazil along with aircraft, sugar, beef and oil. Brazil buys manufactured goods from China as well as rare earths, semiconductors and solar panels.”
To carry out these transactions, they use yuan and reais – not dollars.
“This is one of many such bilateral trading arrangements springing up in which one party or the other will pay or accept currencies other than the U.S. dollar,” Jim says. “Dubai has a deal with China whereby it accepts yuan for oil. Saudi Arabia is discussing a similar deal with China.”
That’s why Jim says the Aug. 22 summit has the potential to be “the most significant development in international finance since 1971.”
All the same, he cautions that “you won’t see the dollar’s demise overnight. You won’t wake up on Aug. 23 to find the dollar has been replaced as the world’s reserve currency. This will happen in steps and what happens at the Aug. 22 meeting will be the first step in the downfall of the dollar.”
We’ll keep you abreast over the next three weeks during the countdown to the summit; Jim is eyeing some intriguing short-term trade opportunities.
But as Jim suggests, this story has a much longer arc.
That’s why we’re making it the center of this year’s Paradigm Shift Summit.
When we gather on Tuesday, Oct. 3, at the Bellagio in Las Vegas, the theme for the day will be – and we acknowledge this is a little cheesy – “Don’t Bet on the Dollar.”
Of course Jim will be speaking at this exclusive event. And so will the rest of Paradigm’s core team of experts, including Zach Scheidt, Byron King, Alan Knuckman, Ray Blanco and James Altucher.
“You will discover dozens of ways to protect and grow your wealth,” Jim promises, “for the rest of this year and beyond.”
Registration began yesterday, and we’re throwing open this offer to 322,000 readers. Only 500 total seats are available – and over 125 of them are already spoken for.
So if you want in, you’ll want to act quickly. Click here for an invitation and the chance to secure your spot before they’re all taken.
(If you can join us, Emily and I will be taking notes in the back; stop by and say hi during a break!)
Opportunity Abounds (Fossil Fuels and Nuclear)
For all the investment potential of renewable energy, there’s still plenty of money to be made from fossil fuels and nuclear power.
That was the big takeaway of Paradigm’s income investing specialist Zach Scheidt, after spending much of last week at the Rule Symposium on Natural Resource Investing. Hosted by Sprott U.S. Holdings chief Rick Rule, this event draws hundreds of people each year to Boca Raton, Florida.
“According to Rick Rule,” says Zach, “we've spent $4.8 trillion on developing renewable energy over the last decade. But with all of this spending and political pressure, fossil fuels still provide the majority of our energy needs.
“In fact, we've barely made a dent in our reliance on fossil fuels, only driving our dependence from 82% to 81% of our total energy needs. The takeaway here is that fossil fuel demand continues to be robust. And long-term investments in the companies that produce these fuels should pay out very well in the decades to come.”
Meanwhile, three factors will spur huge new demand for nuclear energy – according to conference speaker Scott Melbye, executive VP of Texas-based Uranium Energy Corp.
- Renewables haven’t lived up to their promises of either reliability or profitability
- Western sanctions on Russian natural gas have left Europe’s electricity supply vulnerable
- While there’s been a more-than-ample supply of uranium in recent years, that glut is rapidly turning into a shortfall.
“Nuclear power is one of the few ways we can supply the world with much-needed electricity,” says Zach, “while still keeping emissions and pollution to a minimum. And uranium fuel for nuclear power will continue to be in high demand for years to come.”
Zach picked up on dozens of company names in both the fossil fuel and nuclear sectors last week and he’s begun the process of pinpointing the ones most appropriate for his readers. Stay tuned…
Crude is pulling back today – but still over $80 a barrel. At last check a barrel of West Texas Intermediate was down just over a buck to $80.76.
Precious metals are getting whacked again – and unlike a few days ago, the selling doesn’t even coincide with the release of a big economic number. Gold is down 20 bucks to $1,945 and silver is down 55 cents to $24.17.
As for stocks, the Dow is pancake-flat at 35,572 while the other major indexes are in the red. The S&P 500 has pulled back over a quarter percent to 4,575 and the Nasdaq is down almost a half percent at 14,286.
The lone economic number of note is the ISM Manufacturing Index, and it’s not telling us anything new. At 46.4, the July number is up slightly from June – but the U.S. factory sector has been in a slump with sub-50 readings for nine straight months.
Heh, get a load of the “concern trolling” in today’s New York Times…
Yeah, you’ll never see that spin about a war waged by the U.S. government.
Better Climate Through Lawfare?
So now the idea is to just sue Big Oil out of existence and try to decarbonize the world that way?
Four U.S. senators have fired off a letter urging the Justice Department to sue fossil fuel producers for what they call “a clear violation of federal racketeering laws, truth in advertising laws, consumer protection laws and potentially other laws.”
The senators are Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Massachusetts Democrats Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren.
The letter harks back to the litigation targeting Big Tobacco in decades gone by. "The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change and the role that burning fossil fuels plays in increasing global temperatures for more than 50 years," it says. Nonetheless, “they chose to participate in a decades-long, carefully coordinated campaign of misinformation…”
Hmmm… The difference here is that no one really questioned tobacco’s cancer-causing properties – not even most smokers!
But plenty of scientists question the conventional wisdom about climate change – and presumably some of them would be willing to testify for the defendants, or at least file an amicus brief.
We’ll see if this gambit goes anywhere. For what it’s worth, the story is getting precious little mainstream attention: The only coverage I’m seeing is from Fox News and the left-leaning Truthout site.
What’s in a Name? (Free Subs, That’s What)
I’m tempted to file this one under “stupid marketing tricks”...
“In an influencer- and celebrity-driven media era when your literal name can be a brand name, your name can be your whole livelihood,” says an article at Food & Wine. “But Subway's latest promotion flips things around the other way, seeking people who are willing to adopt the brand's name as their own — with the promise of free footlongs to boot.”
Yup. If you change your first name to Subway, you get a lifetime of free Subway grub.
Well, first, you have to win a contest. Entries opened today and continue through Friday night.
“Part of that entry,” the article continues, “will include committing in no uncertain terms to changing your name should you win. Then, upon winning, Subway will foot the bill for your official name change documentation and processing fees on LegalZoom (about $750). Finally, you'll have four months to show proof of your official name change to Subway before claiming your grand prize.”
So a couple of random thoughts here: First, is it just me or does the idea of “free subs for life” bring up uncomfortable memories of Jared Fogle? You know, Subway’s longtime pitchman who lost a ton of weight by eating a near-daily diet of Subway? Yeah, that guy – he’s eight years into a 16-year sentence for underage sex offenses.
The other thing that occurs to me is this: Whoever wins better get a lawyer who reads the fine print: Subway’s owner – the privately held Doctor’s Associate Inc. – is looking into a sale of the company. That “free subs for life” commitment better transfer to the new owners!
Congress Could Have Relieved the Pilot Shortage – But Didn’t
After the name of Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) turned up in yesterday’s edition, we heard from one of his constituents…
“My vote is going elsewhere,” he tells us, “because Simpson voted against rehiring pilots fired for not COVID jabbing.
“No cuts to spending – and he wants to remove power-producing dams. That’s it for me!”
Dave responds: I’m not really a political geek but I’m not an ignoramus about Congress, either. Still, I confess I’d never heard of the guy until yesterday – and he was first elected in 1998!
As for the pilots, the reader refers to something that happened last month…
As a reminder, all the major airlines do government work – which means they’re federal contractors. And there was a COVID vaccine mandate for federal contractors. It was challenged in the courts, but this one never made it to the Supreme Court.
The Biden administration dropped the mandate in May, coinciding with the official end of the “public health emergency” – but that was no guarantee the unvaccinated would be rehired.
“The full extent of how many pilots were fired or quit over vaccine mandates remains unclear,” reports The Daily Wire, “but some airlines strictly enforced the policy, with United Airlines firing hundreds of employees who chose to remain unvaccinated.”
My own worthless congressman Jack Bergman – excuse me, that’s Lt. Gen. Jack Bergman, as he reminds us every two years on his campaign signs – voted “nay” as well.
I was aware when all of this went down last month, but didn’t have the occasion to include here in our 5 Bullets. Thank you, dear reader, for the chance to make amends.
Best regards,
Dave Gonigam
Managing editor, Paradigm Pressroom's 5 Bullets
