Federal Reserve remains only institution not seeing the coming financial crisis

This morning on CNBC (aka… CNBS), the central bank lackey Steve Liesman spoke with the NY Fed President Bill Dudley on rate outlooks for the remainder of the year.  And contrary to the fact that the FOMC choose not to raise rates in September, Dudley used the term ‘very good economy’ at least five times in less than five minutes during his interview, showing how out of touch the Fed really is when it comes to the true economy, and their need to persist in their propaganda manipulation.

Here is the interview with NY Fed President Bill Dudley citing continuously on how good the U.S. economy is

The reason that we are being critical of the Fed here is due to the fact that nearly all other important Western financial centers are admitting publicly of a coming financial crisis, and a marked slowdown of economies that in some cases, point to the fact that much of the world is already in recession.

IMF: $3 trillion corporate credit crunch looms as debtors face day of reckoning, says IMF

Citigroup: Recession buzz is heating up on Wall Street

UN: New UN report shows global youth unemployment rate still above financial crisis levels

BIS: BIS Warns Of The Next Financial Crisis

And of course there is the Bank of England’s Andy Haldane who is calling for not only negative interest rates, but ending cash in domestic and global economies.

Fed-rogue-bubble-machine

The fact of the matter is, consumer spending is way down, trade deficits have increased, unemployment numbers don’t reflect the fact that 94 million Americans are out of work, and deflation is proving that the overall global economy is well into a recession.  And since the stock market has already capitulated to a small extent, and no longer accepts all the propaganda and rhetoric of the business news talking heads, what remains is something that might have been unheard of in decades past, but is being talked about now in new and more critical ways… that the Federal Reserve’s credibility is being questioned, and how they are quickly losing the gravitas to make tough and accurate decisions that are instead being made by other channels and financial institutions.

Kenneth Schortgen Jr is a writer for Secretsofthefed.comExaminer.com, Roguemoney.net, and To the Death Media, and hosts the popular web blog, The Daily Economist. Ken can also be heard Wednesday afternoons giving an weekly economic report on the Angel Clark radio show.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’