>
> [long but a lot on good info]
>
> Hi Everyone:
> Dinarland continues to be “abuzz” so continue to be alert!
>
> More information below for our education…
>
> From Sara: It is my intention to bring a financial attorney with me when I do the exchange-- to be sure I am not railroaded into making statements or agreements that don’t apply or are detrimental to me or my asset protection structure that will be hard or impossible to undo later.
>
> From Sara:
> When you go to a financial institution (bank, currency trader, etc.) to exchange your dinar, the financial institution is required to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
>
> The old CTR was Fincen 104. The new one is Fincen 112 (though, when you access a sample of the report form online, it doesn’t display the number 112 anywhere on it). You will not be filling out this CTR form yourself (this is the responsibility of the financial institution, not you) but you’ll want to know in advance what questions you will be asked.
>
> For those with the STS asset protection structure, you will provide the information about your LLC, as the exchanger (not yourself) and, any information requested about you (as the person acting on behalf of the LLC) should be given as the appointed Manager of the LLC, not the owner of the LLC, or its assets.
>
> Emphasize to the banker that you want to be sure that the form is filled out accurately (insist upon it) so you aren’t listed as the owner of the assets, for tax reasons. Your name must be followed by the word Manager. In the occupation section put Appointed Manager of the xxxLLC (and that the xxxLLC is set up for estate planning purposes).
>
> Note that you must bring original documents proving that you are the appointed Manager of the LLC-- as proof of your statements. Also bring a copy of that proof for them— do not allow them to take your originals to make a copy— do not let any originals out of your hands.
>
> Also, bring the printed instructions for this CTR form with you, so you can follow along and are sure the information goes in accurately.
>
> Note that there is no place on the form for a signature.
>
> This is the link to the CTR form #112 itself:
> http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/CTR%20-%20user%20test%20site.pdf
>
> This where you can access the filing instructions for this CTR (20 pages):
> http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/FinCEN%20CTR%20ElectronicFilingInstructions%20-%20Stand%20Alone%20doc.pdf#page=2
> ###
> Please note that there is also an IRS form 8300 called: Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business. The form (including the instructions) can be found at this link:
> http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/fin8300_cashover10k.pdf
>
> But, it is my opinion that this form 8300 does NOT apply to our currency exchange because our LLCs are not a business or trade; our STS LLCs have been set up solely for estate planning purposes (there is no business license associated with this LLC and it does not engage in “business” according to the meaning of the term used here.) However, I include the form here so that you can get professional advice regarding whether you should rule this form out, or not, as it applies to your currency exchange in the name of your LLC.
>
> In either of these two possibilities, I will be requesting a copy of the completed CTR form before completing the exchange.
> ***
> 5/7/13- From a chatroom: Letter from Dave Camp, Congressman, regarding the tax obligations from the revalue of the Iraq dinar (IQD)
>
> The caller wrote to his Congressman a couple of months ago and received a response dated April 10th from Dave Camp – Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for Congress.
> [This is a transcription, not the original letter]
>
> Dear Daniel,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate knowing your concerns regarding an Executive Order issued by President Obama extending current economic policies in Iraq. As you may know, in 2004, then president, George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13303 which set various economic policies for Iraq, including opening it up to American investment. Now this Executive Order has been revised and extended several times, the most recent being President Obama’s one-year extension through May 22nd of 2013.
>
> As you know, many Americans have invested in Iraqi Dinars under the expectation that when the Federal Government’s involvement in Iraq’s economy ended, Iraq would revalue the Dinar, creating a windfall for U.S. investors holding the currency. However, the extension of Executive Order 13303 pushes back the timeframe for any proposed revaluation. As this Executive Order nears expiration, please be assured I will monitor the Administration’s actions with your concerns in mind.
>
> I also appreciate knowing your concerns regarding the tax treatment of income derived from currency trade. Many financial products based in currency trades are subject to capital gains rates taxed at a maximum of 20%. However, income resulting from actually holding a currency and converting it back into dollars is subject to normal income taxes with a top rate of 39.6%. As Chairman of the Tax-Writing House Ways and Means Committee, I have made fundamental tax reform the centerpiece of the Committee’s agenda for this year. As I examine how to improve the efficiency and fairness of taxing investment income, I will keep in mind your suggestions on this matter. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dave Camp
>
> http://camp.house.gov/
>
> Note: The letter has been confirmed as authentic by numerous people contacting Camp's office.
> ***
> The following is one person’s opinion; take what you like and leave the rest. Either way, it’s good education for us:
>
> [Term: FX= forex= foreign exchange]
>
> Doug Casey on Internationalizing Your Cash
> by Doug Casey / May 3, 2013
> (Interviewed by Louis James, Casey Research)
>
> L: Doug, we talked previously about getting assets out of your home country, especially the US, where to take them, and what to do with them. In so doing, you touched on the inevitability of currency controls just ahead, especially for Americans. Can you tell us more about that?
> Doug: Yes. I'm quite serious about what I said about "the grim reality of impending currency controls." As the global economy continues to deteriorate, governments will have to appear to be "doing something." It's going to become very fashionable to institute some sort of foreign exchange control.
>
> Why might that be? Because obviously, people who are taking their money out of the country are unpatriotic…
>
> L: Those bastards.
> Doug: That's right. Jingoistic Americans naturally, but stupidly, see taking money out of the country as being unpatriotic. They don't understand that it's mainly those prudent people who will be able to supply the capital to rebuild a devastated economy later. Besides, getting money abroad is obviously something that only rich people would do… and of course, it's time to eat the rich, as well. For those two reasons, there won't be much resistance to controls. And the state gets to appear to be "doing something."
>
> And when they do, more people – at least those with any sense – will get scared and really try to get their money out, which will exacerbate the run to the exits. The bottom line is that if you want to get your money out, the time to do it is now. Beat the last-minute rush.
>
> I don't know what form the exchange controls are going to take, but there are two general possibilities: regulation and taxation.
>
> The regulations might take the form of a rule prohibiting you from taking more than X thousands of dollars abroad per year without special permission. No expensive vacations, no foreign asset purchases without state approval.
>
> As for the taxation, if you want to, say, buy foreign stocks or real estate, you might have to pay an "Interest Equalization Tax" or some such. So you could do it, but it'd cost you a lot of money to do it.
>
> Something like either of these, or both, is definitely in the cards.
>
> L: But aren't FX controls something from the past? I mean, where do they exist today?
> Doug: Well, FX controls have been used since the days of the Roman Empire. A country debases its currency, raises taxes beyond a certain level, and makes regulations too onerous – and productive people naturally react by getting their capital, and then themselves, out of Dodge. But the government can't have that, so it puts on FX controls. They're almost inevitable at this point.
>
> Almost every country – except for the US, Canada, Switzerland, and a few others –had them until at least the '70s. I remember leaving Britain once in the '60s, and a border guy searched me to see if I had more than 50 pounds on me. In those days, currency violations in the Soviet bloc countries could get you the death penalty. Things liberalized around the world with Reagan and Thatcher, and then the collapse of the USSR. But you have to remember that that was in the context of the Long Boom. Now, during the Greater Depression, things will become much stricter again.
>
> Right now, the US just has reporting requirements. But some places, like South Africa, make it very expensive and inconvenient to get money out. South Africa, perversely, may serve as a model for the US.
>
> L: Okay, so we talked previously about Americans at least setting up a Canadian bank account and safe deposit box, and better yet going in person to Panama, Uruguay, Malaysia, or a similar place to do the same. And once there, you advised getting with a lawyer, either referred by someone you trust or found through an interview process, to set up a corporation that can handle your assets and investments for you. This all needs to be reported, but it's wise to do it in advance of the higher costs or other limitations to come.
> Doug: Yes. While US persons must report foreign bank and brokerage accounts, safe deposit boxes are not – at least not yet – reportable. This leads me to the biggest and best "loophole" when it comes to potential foreign exchange controls, and that's foreign real estate.
>
> I'm of the opinion that, broadly speaking, real estate as an asset class is going to be a poor performer for a long time to come – but that won't be equally true across all countries. Real estate in countries that rely on mortgage debt to buy and sell will continue to be the worst hit.
>
> People don't understand that buying property with a mortgage is just the same as buying stocks on margin. It's caused speculative bubbles and mal-investment. Until the mal-investment in those countries is entirely liquidated, you don't want to invest in real estate in them. But a lot of countries, especially in the Third World, have no mortgage debt whatsoever. Zero mortgage debt. You want a piece of property, you pay for it in cash. That keeps prices down and the market much more stable. And it makes for more interesting speculations, because if a mortgage market develops in the future, it could light a fire under prices.
>
> But, from the viewpoint of FX controls, the nice thing about real estate is that there is no way they can make you repatriate it. Other than owning a business abroad, real estate is the only sure way to legally keep your capital offshore.
>
> L: I suppose it would be difficult for even Uncle Sam to seize your estancia in Argentina… not without starting a war.
> Doug: Yes. Although I don't doubt he'll be starting more wars as well… [Laughs]
>
> L: So, part of your thinking here isn't just speculative. You're talking about strategies for wealth preservation, not just in the face of foreign exchange controls, but more aggressive, predatory taxation and confiscation by the state – they can seize your assets, even real estate, in the US, but not abroad.
> Doug: Exactly. Argentina is excellent from that point of view; rights to real property are, if anything, better than those in the US. In many ways, Argentina is culturally and demographically more like Europe than Europe. Uruguay is also excellent, although culturally it's like a backward province of Argentina. Paraguay is quite secure – but a bit weird as a place to live.
>
> I'm not currently up to date on the Chilean real estate market, but Chile is definitely now the richest and most advanced South American country, and an excellent choice. Brazil is fine. Colombia is improving greatly. Ecuador has a goofy president, but parts of it are very nice, and it's about as cheap as Argentina. Eastern Bolivia is interesting, actually, despite Morales. Only Venezuela is out of the question in South America. It's just a pity they have all that oil, which is always a corrupting influence.
>
> L: Well, then, what about Central America? I know you prefer South America for speculative purposes, but what if someone wants to park a lot of wealth by buying a couple miles of beautiful beachfront property in Costa Rica, or some place like that?
> Doug: I was a big fan of Costa Rica for many years… The first time I went down there was 35 years ago – but it's a different place now. Then it was very cheap, and now it's very expensive. And it's totally overrun with gringos. So, Costa Rica is not of that much interest to me at this point; it's pleasant, but there's limited upside.
>
> I think an excellent place to be in Central America is Belize. Although culturally and ethnically, it's not really part of Central America; it's part of the Caribbean.
>
> L: And they speak English there.
> Doug: They do indeed, though things are changing. The Guatemalan government has always regarded British Honduras, which is what Belize used to be called, as part of Guatemala. There have actually been confrontations between Britain and Guatemala over this. But that's in the past; now there's a different problem. Guatemalans are rolling over the border in much the same way that Mexicans are in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
>
> So, the character of Belize is changing, but for the foreseeable future, it's still going to be Belize, and I rather like it. Aside from Panama, Belize would be my first choice in Central America.
>
> The problem with Central America, however, is that it's a bunch of small countries that have historically been very unstable. And culturally backward. Most are under the thumb of the United States… there's a long history of US invasions, most recently in Panama with Noriega. There are "Frito banditos" running around these places…
>
> The most culturally advanced country in Central America – not counting México, of course, since it's in North America – is Guatemala. But Guatemala has had huge troubles with violence, which has only recently come to an end… I hate going through checkpoints at night, manned by jumpy, uneducated, heavily armed teenagers.
>
> Nicaragua is the low-cost alternative, but it's relatively backward. Panama is probably the best choice. It's very international, very urban (in Panama City), and it's very sophisticated, infrastructure-wise.
>
> If I didn't like Argentina and Uruguay so much, I would put Panama at the top of my shopping list.
>
> L: Got it. Back to the exchange controls themselves. Do you think people will have any warning at all? It seems to me that this is the sort of thing the Powers that Be would want to spring on people.
> Doug: I think it's going to come out of left field. It always does, with at most an official denial just before it happens. In August 1971, Nixon devalued the dollar, which immediately dropped against gold and all foreign currencies. I think there's a reasonable probability that the government will do that again. Gold may not be part of the equation, but they may decide to put in some sort of fixed exchange rate between the dollar and various foreign currencies.
>
> The reason for thinking this is simple: with all the dollars outside the United States devalued by that much, that much of a liability just vanishes into thin air. And in the short term – it's never a long-term fix – US exports would go up. This would "stimulate" the domestic economy. Imports to the US would go down, which would make for fewer dollars leaving the US.
>
> L: I know you hate making predictions, but can you tell us if your guru sense is tingling on this so strongly that you think it could happen soon?
> Doug: The timing on this is really unpredictable. These people don't have a plan. They're acting ad hoc to whatever seems most urgent. All the so-called economists around government today are really just political hacks. Their world views are totally unsound.
>
> L: With all the problems the US has, do you think this could happen now? Could we be reading about new exchange controls on CNN.com this afternoon?
> Doug: Sure. Although they typically pull these stunts over a weekend. I expect something of this nature to happen any time between tomorrow morning and two years from now. If some form of currency controls are not instituted within two years, I'm going to be genuinely surprised.
>
> So if you're going to take action, you should start heading for the exits now. Not next month, and certainly not next year.
>
> L: For those who don't take action until it's too late, under the scenarios you mentioned, they'll still be able to get money out. It's just that it might be more difficult, time consuming, humiliating, and certainly more expensive to do. For every $100,000 they move, only $90,000, or $70,000, or whatever will get to where it's supposed to go. Can you foresee a more Stalinesque alternative, where they simply can't get anything out at all?
> Doug: Hopefully not. Anything is possible, and things can change so rapidly… but I'd hate to think of what conditions would be like if they ever became that draconian. It'd be so bad on other fronts that there would be all sorts of even more urgent things on your mind – Americans would get a very quick and unpleasant education in the real meaning of Maslow's hierarchy.
>
> L: Like the Mad Max-style neo-barbarians at the door with a battering ram.
> Doug: Exactly – that's when you'll definitely want to be in more pleasant climes. I'd want to be watching it on my widescreen, in comfort, not out my front window.
>
> L: We're talking about extremes here…
> Doug: You know, back in the 1970s there was a spate of books published on financial privacy. In those days, financial privacy was still possible. Now, it's not only no longer truly possible, short of embracing a completely outlaw lifestyle, it's very dangerous to write about it or even talk about it. I kid you not. These days, people who ask too many questions about privacy techniques may well be government stooges…
>
> There's lots of handwriting on the wall. All those books on financial privacy were published in the '70s – if you look on Amazon, you can still find them. But there's nothing really worth reading that's been written on the subject in 20 years. It's actively discouraged by the government. I could name – but I won't – at least two authors who got themselves into a real jackpot this way. Forget about the First Amendment.
>
> In fact, I even feel uncomfortable talking about it in this interview.
>
> So let me once again emphasize that I advise everyone to stay fully within the bounds of the law.
>
> That's not for moral reasons, of course; there is no morality to the law. It's strictly for reasons of practicality. Risk-reward ratio.
>
> L: Understood. Loud and clear. Any more investment implications, besides foreign real estate, that you want to draw attention to here?
> Doug: Yes – and it's another reason for those so very clever boys in Washington to embrace currency controls. They will be disastrous for the US economy, but there's a very good chance that, in the short run, they'll be very good for the stock market. That's partly for the reasons I already mentioned about it temporarily boosting US exports, and hence earnings of US exporters, but also because all that money that can't leave the US will have to go into something.
>
> Investors will probably want to put it into equity rather than debt while the dollar is depreciating. Again, it's disastrous over the long term, but as a short-term play, buying the blue chips the day the exchange controls are instituted could be a good move.
>
> L: You'd buy the Dow?
> Doug: I might, if I couldn't think of anything more intelligent or original to do. We'll just have to see what the situation is like.
>
> L: Thanks again, Doug – you've given us a lot to think about.
> Doug: My pleasure.
>
> You can learn more about internationalizing your wealth in a timely new report from Casey Research, Going Global 2013.
>
> Here you'll find actionable advice you can start implementing today, including information on second passports and foreign real estate… moving your IRA overseas… starting up an offshore LLC… investing in foreign annuities… and much, much more. This report is a must have resource for anyone interested in international diversification. For more information, please visit this web page.
> ***
> Definition of 'Zero Balance Account – ZBA:
> A checking account in which a balance of zero is maintained by automatically transferring funds from a master account in an amount only large enough to cover checks presented
>
> How Do Zero Balance Accounts Work?
> A zero balance account is any account that is maintained with a purposeful balance of zero. Businesses use them to make payments, only keeping enough in the account to cover pending debits. Since these accounts don't have a running balance, there's no interest earned on them. However, they're a useful method of keeping money liquid and separate from interest-earning balances.
>
> Read more: How Do Zero Balance Accounts Work?
> http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4925234_zero-balance-accounts-work.html#ixzz2SrUyDl5z
> ***
> Consider using an offshore email provider that can securely host your account abroad. There are a number of them available, services like:
>
> https://secure.runbox.com/ (Norway)
>
> http://www.SwissMail.org/ (Switzerland)
>
> http://www.NeoMailbox.com/ (Switzerland)
> ***
> Sara: I hardly believe anything I read or watch anymore since so much in the media is designed to manipulate us into embracing a certain viewpoint, rather than to present facts accurately. For me, this even extends to alternative media, though I really appreciate this writer’s attempt to applaud those who appear to be honest in their communications.
>
> Monday, June 13, 2011
> 10 Most Influential People in the Alternative Media (2011)
>
> Activist Post
>
> Many readers will expect to see Matt Drudge or Arianna Huffington on this list. Although they both indeed have leading Internet news websites that cover some fringe stories and report on systematic injustices more so than the mainstream media, they primarily aggregate mainline news. Therefore, they are excluded from our "alternative media" label.
>
> The criteria we've chosen to base these rankings of the most influential alternative media figures are the following:
>
> • people that have the courage to seek the truth no matter where the information leads them;
>
> • those with the courage to question 9/11;
>
> • those who don't buy into the false left-right political paradigm;
>
> • those who are grounded in peace and liberty;
>
> • those with the communication skills and platform to affect real change.
> For the rest of the article and a list of the top 10, plus the runners up, go to:
> http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/10-most-influential-people-in.html
> ***
> 4 min video worth your time about the importance of holding physical gold. Porter Stansberry on Glenn Beck show:
> http://www.stansberryresearch.com/news/Porter-Stansberry-Talks-Gold-With-Glenn-Beck
> ***
> This Aug 1, 2011 video (10 min) is worth watching if you don’t know the difference between a democracy and a republic. The USA is a republic, not a democracy, and if you don’t know the difference, then you don’t know how fortunate we are that the USA was set up as a republic.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZPZOpFLHVE
> ***
> Disclosure:
> The 5 min video of a recent news broadcast at the link below is not “news” to many of you. Some of you may be upset about its inclusion in this update but part of the purpose of these updates is to expand our understanding of all things that have been covered up. This is the time for all that has been hidden to be exposed. Please notice the caliber of people involved in this; it is NOT tabloid news.
>
> Some may have doubts, but this topic is not in conflict with religion and, just like anything we are exposed to as we have grown up, we learn that ideas we were closed to at first, due to our ignorance, we were able to accept later as we opened up to the truth. So, for those who are upset by this, all I can say is “more will be revealed” and let God guide you to increased understanding.
>
> I was introduced to this topic many, many years ago through personal experience and was resistant at the time, so I understand any resistance you may have to it as well. If any of you want a little more about this, ask me for an email with some links to the high level disclosure events that have been going on recently in Washington DC, etc.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T5ygw-6aDU4
> ____________________________________________________________
> 1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
> Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes?
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/519094dc7c31c14db74dbst02duc
> [long but a lot on good info]
>
> Hi Everyone:
> Dinarland continues to be “abuzz” so continue to be alert!
>
> More information below for our education…
>
> From Sara: It is my intention to bring a financial attorney with me when I do the exchange-- to be sure I am not railroaded into making statements or agreements that don’t apply or are detrimental to me or my asset protection structure that will be hard or impossible to undo later.
>
> From Sara:
> When you go to a financial institution (bank, currency trader, etc.) to exchange your dinar, the financial institution is required to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
>
> The old CTR was Fincen 104. The new one is Fincen 112 (though, when you access a sample of the report form online, it doesn’t display the number 112 anywhere on it). You will not be filling out this CTR form yourself (this is the responsibility of the financial institution, not you) but you’ll want to know in advance what questions you will be asked.
>
> For those with the STS asset protection structure, you will provide the information about your LLC, as the exchanger (not yourself) and, any information requested about you (as the person acting on behalf of the LLC) should be given as the appointed Manager of the LLC, not the owner of the LLC, or its assets.
>
> Emphasize to the banker that you want to be sure that the form is filled out accurately (insist upon it) so you aren’t listed as the owner of the assets, for tax reasons. Your name must be followed by the word Manager. In the occupation section put Appointed Manager of the xxxLLC (and that the xxxLLC is set up for estate planning purposes).
>
> Note that you must bring original documents proving that you are the appointed Manager of the LLC-- as proof of your statements. Also bring a copy of that proof for them— do not allow them to take your originals to make a copy— do not let any originals out of your hands.
>
> Also, bring the printed instructions for this CTR form with you, so you can follow along and are sure the information goes in accurately.
>
> Note that there is no place on the form for a signature.
>
> This is the link to the CTR form #112 itself:
> http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/CTR%20-%20user%20test%20site.pdf
>
> This where you can access the filing instructions for this CTR (20 pages):
> http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/FinCEN%20CTR%20ElectronicFilingInstructions%20-%20Stand%20Alone%20doc.pdf#page=2
> ###
> Please note that there is also an IRS form 8300 called: Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business. The form (including the instructions) can be found at this link:
> http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/fin8300_cashover10k.pdf
>
> But, it is my opinion that this form 8300 does NOT apply to our currency exchange because our LLCs are not a business or trade; our STS LLCs have been set up solely for estate planning purposes (there is no business license associated with this LLC and it does not engage in “business” according to the meaning of the term used here.) However, I include the form here so that you can get professional advice regarding whether you should rule this form out, or not, as it applies to your currency exchange in the name of your LLC.
>
> In either of these two possibilities, I will be requesting a copy of the completed CTR form before completing the exchange.
> ***
> 5/7/13- From a chatroom: Letter from Dave Camp, Congressman, regarding the tax obligations from the revalue of the Iraq dinar (IQD)
>
> The caller wrote to his Congressman a couple of months ago and received a response dated April 10th from Dave Camp – Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for Congress.
> [This is a transcription, not the original letter]
>
> Dear Daniel,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate knowing your concerns regarding an Executive Order issued by President Obama extending current economic policies in Iraq. As you may know, in 2004, then president, George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13303 which set various economic policies for Iraq, including opening it up to American investment. Now this Executive Order has been revised and extended several times, the most recent being President Obama’s one-year extension through May 22nd of 2013.
>
> As you know, many Americans have invested in Iraqi Dinars under the expectation that when the Federal Government’s involvement in Iraq’s economy ended, Iraq would revalue the Dinar, creating a windfall for U.S. investors holding the currency. However, the extension of Executive Order 13303 pushes back the timeframe for any proposed revaluation. As this Executive Order nears expiration, please be assured I will monitor the Administration’s actions with your concerns in mind.
>
> I also appreciate knowing your concerns regarding the tax treatment of income derived from currency trade. Many financial products based in currency trades are subject to capital gains rates taxed at a maximum of 20%. However, income resulting from actually holding a currency and converting it back into dollars is subject to normal income taxes with a top rate of 39.6%. As Chairman of the Tax-Writing House Ways and Means Committee, I have made fundamental tax reform the centerpiece of the Committee’s agenda for this year. As I examine how to improve the efficiency and fairness of taxing investment income, I will keep in mind your suggestions on this matter. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dave Camp
>
> http://camp.house.gov/
>
> Note: The letter has been confirmed as authentic by numerous people contacting Camp's office.
> ***
> The following is one person’s opinion; take what you like and leave the rest. Either way, it’s good education for us:
>
> [Term: FX= forex= foreign exchange]
>
> Doug Casey on Internationalizing Your Cash
> by Doug Casey / May 3, 2013
> (Interviewed by Louis James, Casey Research)
>
> L: Doug, we talked previously about getting assets out of your home country, especially the US, where to take them, and what to do with them. In so doing, you touched on the inevitability of currency controls just ahead, especially for Americans. Can you tell us more about that?
> Doug: Yes. I'm quite serious about what I said about "the grim reality of impending currency controls." As the global economy continues to deteriorate, governments will have to appear to be "doing something." It's going to become very fashionable to institute some sort of foreign exchange control.
>
> Why might that be? Because obviously, people who are taking their money out of the country are unpatriotic…
>
> L: Those bastards.
> Doug: That's right. Jingoistic Americans naturally, but stupidly, see taking money out of the country as being unpatriotic. They don't understand that it's mainly those prudent people who will be able to supply the capital to rebuild a devastated economy later. Besides, getting money abroad is obviously something that only rich people would do… and of course, it's time to eat the rich, as well. For those two reasons, there won't be much resistance to controls. And the state gets to appear to be "doing something."
>
> And when they do, more people – at least those with any sense – will get scared and really try to get their money out, which will exacerbate the run to the exits. The bottom line is that if you want to get your money out, the time to do it is now. Beat the last-minute rush.
>
> I don't know what form the exchange controls are going to take, but there are two general possibilities: regulation and taxation.
>
> The regulations might take the form of a rule prohibiting you from taking more than X thousands of dollars abroad per year without special permission. No expensive vacations, no foreign asset purchases without state approval.
>
> As for the taxation, if you want to, say, buy foreign stocks or real estate, you might have to pay an "Interest Equalization Tax" or some such. So you could do it, but it'd cost you a lot of money to do it.
>
> Something like either of these, or both, is definitely in the cards.
>
> L: But aren't FX controls something from the past? I mean, where do they exist today?
> Doug: Well, FX controls have been used since the days of the Roman Empire. A country debases its currency, raises taxes beyond a certain level, and makes regulations too onerous – and productive people naturally react by getting their capital, and then themselves, out of Dodge. But the government can't have that, so it puts on FX controls. They're almost inevitable at this point.
>
> Almost every country – except for the US, Canada, Switzerland, and a few others –had them until at least the '70s. I remember leaving Britain once in the '60s, and a border guy searched me to see if I had more than 50 pounds on me. In those days, currency violations in the Soviet bloc countries could get you the death penalty. Things liberalized around the world with Reagan and Thatcher, and then the collapse of the USSR. But you have to remember that that was in the context of the Long Boom. Now, during the Greater Depression, things will become much stricter again.
>
> Right now, the US just has reporting requirements. But some places, like South Africa, make it very expensive and inconvenient to get money out. South Africa, perversely, may serve as a model for the US.
>
> L: Okay, so we talked previously about Americans at least setting up a Canadian bank account and safe deposit box, and better yet going in person to Panama, Uruguay, Malaysia, or a similar place to do the same. And once there, you advised getting with a lawyer, either referred by someone you trust or found through an interview process, to set up a corporation that can handle your assets and investments for you. This all needs to be reported, but it's wise to do it in advance of the higher costs or other limitations to come.
> Doug: Yes. While US persons must report foreign bank and brokerage accounts, safe deposit boxes are not – at least not yet – reportable. This leads me to the biggest and best "loophole" when it comes to potential foreign exchange controls, and that's foreign real estate.
>
> I'm of the opinion that, broadly speaking, real estate as an asset class is going to be a poor performer for a long time to come – but that won't be equally true across all countries. Real estate in countries that rely on mortgage debt to buy and sell will continue to be the worst hit.
>
> People don't understand that buying property with a mortgage is just the same as buying stocks on margin. It's caused speculative bubbles and mal-investment. Until the mal-investment in those countries is entirely liquidated, you don't want to invest in real estate in them. But a lot of countries, especially in the Third World, have no mortgage debt whatsoever. Zero mortgage debt. You want a piece of property, you pay for it in cash. That keeps prices down and the market much more stable. And it makes for more interesting speculations, because if a mortgage market develops in the future, it could light a fire under prices.
>
> But, from the viewpoint of FX controls, the nice thing about real estate is that there is no way they can make you repatriate it. Other than owning a business abroad, real estate is the only sure way to legally keep your capital offshore.
>
> L: I suppose it would be difficult for even Uncle Sam to seize your estancia in Argentina… not without starting a war.
> Doug: Yes. Although I don't doubt he'll be starting more wars as well… [Laughs]
>
> L: So, part of your thinking here isn't just speculative. You're talking about strategies for wealth preservation, not just in the face of foreign exchange controls, but more aggressive, predatory taxation and confiscation by the state – they can seize your assets, even real estate, in the US, but not abroad.
> Doug: Exactly. Argentina is excellent from that point of view; rights to real property are, if anything, better than those in the US. In many ways, Argentina is culturally and demographically more like Europe than Europe. Uruguay is also excellent, although culturally it's like a backward province of Argentina. Paraguay is quite secure – but a bit weird as a place to live.
>
> I'm not currently up to date on the Chilean real estate market, but Chile is definitely now the richest and most advanced South American country, and an excellent choice. Brazil is fine. Colombia is improving greatly. Ecuador has a goofy president, but parts of it are very nice, and it's about as cheap as Argentina. Eastern Bolivia is interesting, actually, despite Morales. Only Venezuela is out of the question in South America. It's just a pity they have all that oil, which is always a corrupting influence.
>
> L: Well, then, what about Central America? I know you prefer South America for speculative purposes, but what if someone wants to park a lot of wealth by buying a couple miles of beautiful beachfront property in Costa Rica, or some place like that?
> Doug: I was a big fan of Costa Rica for many years… The first time I went down there was 35 years ago – but it's a different place now. Then it was very cheap, and now it's very expensive. And it's totally overrun with gringos. So, Costa Rica is not of that much interest to me at this point; it's pleasant, but there's limited upside.
>
> I think an excellent place to be in Central America is Belize. Although culturally and ethnically, it's not really part of Central America; it's part of the Caribbean.
>
> L: And they speak English there.
> Doug: They do indeed, though things are changing. The Guatemalan government has always regarded British Honduras, which is what Belize used to be called, as part of Guatemala. There have actually been confrontations between Britain and Guatemala over this. But that's in the past; now there's a different problem. Guatemalans are rolling over the border in much the same way that Mexicans are in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
>
> So, the character of Belize is changing, but for the foreseeable future, it's still going to be Belize, and I rather like it. Aside from Panama, Belize would be my first choice in Central America.
>
> The problem with Central America, however, is that it's a bunch of small countries that have historically been very unstable. And culturally backward. Most are under the thumb of the United States… there's a long history of US invasions, most recently in Panama with Noriega. There are "Frito banditos" running around these places…
>
> The most culturally advanced country in Central America – not counting México, of course, since it's in North America – is Guatemala. But Guatemala has had huge troubles with violence, which has only recently come to an end… I hate going through checkpoints at night, manned by jumpy, uneducated, heavily armed teenagers.
>
> Nicaragua is the low-cost alternative, but it's relatively backward. Panama is probably the best choice. It's very international, very urban (in Panama City), and it's very sophisticated, infrastructure-wise.
>
> If I didn't like Argentina and Uruguay so much, I would put Panama at the top of my shopping list.
>
> L: Got it. Back to the exchange controls themselves. Do you think people will have any warning at all? It seems to me that this is the sort of thing the Powers that Be would want to spring on people.
> Doug: I think it's going to come out of left field. It always does, with at most an official denial just before it happens. In August 1971, Nixon devalued the dollar, which immediately dropped against gold and all foreign currencies. I think there's a reasonable probability that the government will do that again. Gold may not be part of the equation, but they may decide to put in some sort of fixed exchange rate between the dollar and various foreign currencies.
>
> The reason for thinking this is simple: with all the dollars outside the United States devalued by that much, that much of a liability just vanishes into thin air. And in the short term – it's never a long-term fix – US exports would go up. This would "stimulate" the domestic economy. Imports to the US would go down, which would make for fewer dollars leaving the US.
>
> L: I know you hate making predictions, but can you tell us if your guru sense is tingling on this so strongly that you think it could happen soon?
> Doug: The timing on this is really unpredictable. These people don't have a plan. They're acting ad hoc to whatever seems most urgent. All the so-called economists around government today are really just political hacks. Their world views are totally unsound.
>
> L: With all the problems the US has, do you think this could happen now? Could we be reading about new exchange controls on CNN.com this afternoon?
> Doug: Sure. Although they typically pull these stunts over a weekend. I expect something of this nature to happen any time between tomorrow morning and two years from now. If some form of currency controls are not instituted within two years, I'm going to be genuinely surprised.
>
> So if you're going to take action, you should start heading for the exits now. Not next month, and certainly not next year.
>
> L: For those who don't take action until it's too late, under the scenarios you mentioned, they'll still be able to get money out. It's just that it might be more difficult, time consuming, humiliating, and certainly more expensive to do. For every $100,000 they move, only $90,000, or $70,000, or whatever will get to where it's supposed to go. Can you foresee a more Stalinesque alternative, where they simply can't get anything out at all?
> Doug: Hopefully not. Anything is possible, and things can change so rapidly… but I'd hate to think of what conditions would be like if they ever became that draconian. It'd be so bad on other fronts that there would be all sorts of even more urgent things on your mind – Americans would get a very quick and unpleasant education in the real meaning of Maslow's hierarchy.
>
> L: Like the Mad Max-style neo-barbarians at the door with a battering ram.
> Doug: Exactly – that's when you'll definitely want to be in more pleasant climes. I'd want to be watching it on my widescreen, in comfort, not out my front window.
>
> L: We're talking about extremes here…
> Doug: You know, back in the 1970s there was a spate of books published on financial privacy. In those days, financial privacy was still possible. Now, it's not only no longer truly possible, short of embracing a completely outlaw lifestyle, it's very dangerous to write about it or even talk about it. I kid you not. These days, people who ask too many questions about privacy techniques may well be government stooges…
>
> There's lots of handwriting on the wall. All those books on financial privacy were published in the '70s – if you look on Amazon, you can still find them. But there's nothing really worth reading that's been written on the subject in 20 years. It's actively discouraged by the government. I could name – but I won't – at least two authors who got themselves into a real jackpot this way. Forget about the First Amendment.
>
> In fact, I even feel uncomfortable talking about it in this interview.
>
> So let me once again emphasize that I advise everyone to stay fully within the bounds of the law.
>
> That's not for moral reasons, of course; there is no morality to the law. It's strictly for reasons of practicality. Risk-reward ratio.
>
> L: Understood. Loud and clear. Any more investment implications, besides foreign real estate, that you want to draw attention to here?
> Doug: Yes – and it's another reason for those so very clever boys in Washington to embrace currency controls. They will be disastrous for the US economy, but there's a very good chance that, in the short run, they'll be very good for the stock market. That's partly for the reasons I already mentioned about it temporarily boosting US exports, and hence earnings of US exporters, but also because all that money that can't leave the US will have to go into something.
>
> Investors will probably want to put it into equity rather than debt while the dollar is depreciating. Again, it's disastrous over the long term, but as a short-term play, buying the blue chips the day the exchange controls are instituted could be a good move.
>
> L: You'd buy the Dow?
> Doug: I might, if I couldn't think of anything more intelligent or original to do. We'll just have to see what the situation is like.
>
> L: Thanks again, Doug – you've given us a lot to think about.
> Doug: My pleasure.
>
> You can learn more about internationalizing your wealth in a timely new report from Casey Research, Going Global 2013.
>
> Here you'll find actionable advice you can start implementing today, including information on second passports and foreign real estate… moving your IRA overseas… starting up an offshore LLC… investing in foreign annuities… and much, much more. This report is a must have resource for anyone interested in international diversification. For more information, please visit this web page.
> ***
> Definition of 'Zero Balance Account – ZBA:
> A checking account in which a balance of zero is maintained by automatically transferring funds from a master account in an amount only large enough to cover checks presented
>
> How Do Zero Balance Accounts Work?
> A zero balance account is any account that is maintained with a purposeful balance of zero. Businesses use them to make payments, only keeping enough in the account to cover pending debits. Since these accounts don't have a running balance, there's no interest earned on them. However, they're a useful method of keeping money liquid and separate from interest-earning balances.
>
> Read more: How Do Zero Balance Accounts Work?
> http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4925234_zero-balance-accounts-work.html#ixzz2SrUyDl5z
> ***
> Consider using an offshore email provider that can securely host your account abroad. There are a number of them available, services like:
>
> https://secure.runbox.com/ (Norway)
>
> http://www.SwissMail.org/ (Switzerland)
>
> http://www.NeoMailbox.com/ (Switzerland)
> ***
> Sara: I hardly believe anything I read or watch anymore since so much in the media is designed to manipulate us into embracing a certain viewpoint, rather than to present facts accurately. For me, this even extends to alternative media, though I really appreciate this writer’s attempt to applaud those who appear to be honest in their communications.
>
> Monday, June 13, 2011
> 10 Most Influential People in the Alternative Media (2011)
>
> Activist Post
>
> Many readers will expect to see Matt Drudge or Arianna Huffington on this list. Although they both indeed have leading Internet news websites that cover some fringe stories and report on systematic injustices more so than the mainstream media, they primarily aggregate mainline news. Therefore, they are excluded from our "alternative media" label.
>
> The criteria we've chosen to base these rankings of the most influential alternative media figures are the following:
>
> • people that have the courage to seek the truth no matter where the information leads them;
>
> • those with the courage to question 9/11;
>
> • those who don't buy into the false left-right political paradigm;
>
> • those who are grounded in peace and liberty;
>
> • those with the communication skills and platform to affect real change.
> For the rest of the article and a list of the top 10, plus the runners up, go to:
> http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/10-most-influential-people-in.html
> ***
> 4 min video worth your time about the importance of holding physical gold. Porter Stansberry on Glenn Beck show:
> http://www.stansberryresearch.com/news/Porter-Stansberry-Talks-Gold-With-Glenn-Beck
> ***
> This Aug 1, 2011 video (10 min) is worth watching if you don’t know the difference between a democracy and a republic. The USA is a republic, not a democracy, and if you don’t know the difference, then you don’t know how fortunate we are that the USA was set up as a republic.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZPZOpFLHVE
> ***
> Disclosure:
> The 5 min video of a recent news broadcast at the link below is not “news” to many of you. Some of you may be upset about its inclusion in this update but part of the purpose of these updates is to expand our understanding of all things that have been covered up. This is the time for all that has been hidden to be exposed. Please notice the caliber of people involved in this; it is NOT tabloid news.
>
> Some may have doubts, but this topic is not in conflict with religion and, just like anything we are exposed to as we have grown up, we learn that ideas we were closed to at first, due to our ignorance, we were able to accept later as we opened up to the truth. So, for those who are upset by this, all I can say is “more will be revealed” and let God guide you to increased understanding.
>
> I was introduced to this topic many, many years ago through personal experience and was resistant at the time, so I understand any resistance you may have to it as well. If any of you want a little more about this, ask me for an email with some links to the high level disclosure events that have been going on recently in Washington DC, etc.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T5ygw-6aDU4
> ____________________________________________________________
> 1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
> Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes?
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/519094dc7c31c14db74dbst02duc
1 comment:
Please tell me that youre heading to keep this up! Its so great and so important. I cant wait to read a lot more from you. I just feel like you know so substantially and know how to make people listen to what you might have to say. This blog is just too cool to become missed. Terrific stuff, genuinely. Please, PLEASE keep it up!
Post a Comment