We’ve all heard that globalization lifts all boats and increases our prosperity … But mainstream economists and organizations are now starting to say that globalization increases inequality. The National Bureau of Economic Research – the largest economics research organization in the United States, with many Nobel economists and Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers as …

[See also The Numbers Show Trump Win NOT Due to Racism and Sexism]

You can only understand the victory of Donald Trump and Brexit once you understand the failure of globalization …
Trump
Trump made rejection of globalization a centerpiece of his campaign. In his July 21st acceptance speech as the Republican nominee, he said:

Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.
The Boston Globe bannered this headline on Thursday:  “Trump won. Globalization lost. Now what?”
On election night, CNN’s Jake Tapper explained that many Americans voted for Trump because they are sick of the income inequality, globalization, and politics-as-usual that the status quo have given us. He pointed out that only a handful of people have gotten rich off of globalization, and a lot of people have been left behind.
Counterpunch wrote Friday:

The real meaning of this upset is that Wall Street’s globalization project has been rejected by the citizens of its homeland.
***
Trump voters had several reasons to vote for Trump other than “racism”.  Most of all, they want their jobs back, jobs that have vanished thanks to the neoliberal policy of transferring manufacturing jobs to places with low wages.
Brexit
Similarly, Brexit was largely a vote against globalization.

[See also The Numbers Show Trump Win NOT Due to Racism and Sexism]
 
You can only understand the victory of Donald Trump and Brexit once you understand the failure of globalization …
Trump
Trump made rejection of globalization a centerpiece of his campaign. In his July 21st acceptance speech as the Republican nominee, he said:
Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

The Boston Globe bannered this headline on Thursday:  “Trump won. Globalization lost. Now what?”
On election night, CNN’s Jake Tapper explained that many Americans voted for Trump because they are sick of the income inequality, globalization, and politics-as-usual that the status quo have given us. He pointed out that only a handful of people have gotten rich off of globalization, and a lot of people have been left behind.
Counterpunch wrote Friday:
The real meaning of this upset is that Wall Street’s globalization project has been rejected by the citizens of its homeland.
 
***
 
Trump voters had several reasons to vote for Trump other than “racism”.  Most of all, they want their jobs back, jobs that have vanished thanks to the neoliberal policy of transferring manufacturing jobs to places with low wages.

Brexit
Similarly, Brexit was largely a vote against globalization.
For example, the Guardian ran an article in June explaining, “Brexit is a rejection of globalisation”:
Britain’s rejection of the EU.

Gold and Silver Are Manipulated
Deutsche Bank admitted today that it participated with other big banks in manipulating gold and silver prices.
In 2014, Switzerland’s financial regulator (FINMA) found “serious misconduct” and a “clear attempt to manipulate precious metals benchmarks” by UBS employees in precious metals trading, particularly with silver. Reuters reported:

Swiss regulator FINMA said on Wednesday that it found a “clear attempt” to manipulate precious metals benchmarks during its investigation into precious metals and foreign exchange trading at UBS …

And the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority found that Barclays manipulated the price of gold for a decade, sending “bursts” of sell orders to manipulate the market.
Gold and silver prices have been “fixed” in daily conference calls by the powers-that-be for a long time.
Bloomberg reported in 2013:

It is the participating banks themselves that administer the gold and silver benchmarks.

So are prices being manipulated? Let’s take a look at the evidence. In his book “The Gold Cartel,” commodity analyst Dimitri Speck combines minute-by-minute data from most of 1993 through 2012 to show how gold prices move on an average day (see attached charts). He finds that the spot price of gold tends to drop sharply around the London evening fixing (10 a.m. New York time).

A Huge Leak
The “Panama Papers” tax haven leak is big …
After all, the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over the leak, and investigations are taking place worldwide over the leak.
But Why Is It Mainly Focusing On Enemies of the West?
But the Panama Papers reporting mainly focuses on friends of Russia’s Putin, Assad’s Syria and others disfavored by the West.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray notes:
Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.
 
Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent. 
 
But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

Trump and Sanders have whipped up a lot of popular support by opposing “free trade” agreements.
But it’s not just politics and populism … mainstream experts are starting to reconsider their blind adherence to the dogma that more globalization and bigger free trade agreement are always good.
UC Berkeley Economics professor Robert Reich – Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor – wrote last month:

Suppose that by enacting a particular law we’d increase the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. But almost all that growth would go to the richest 1 percent.
 
The rest of us could buy some products cheaper than before. But those gains would be offset by losses of jobs and wages.
 
This is pretty much what “free trade” has brought us over the last two decades.
 
I used to believe in trade agreements. That was before the wages of most Americans stagnated and a relative few at the top captured just about all the economic gains.
 
Recent trade agreements have been wins for big corporations and Wall Street, along with their executives and major shareholders.
 
***
 
But those deals haven’t been wins for most Americans.
 
The fact is, trade agreements are no longer really about trade.

Indeed, while it’s falsely called a “trade agreement”, only 5 out of 29 of the Trans Pacific Partnership’s chapters have anything to do with trade.