_modified_490.jpg)
How could it be possible? I only have a few ideas, which I submit for general debate.
My first theory is that they have only redirected the blast. It is abundantly clear that the workers of the world are the ones who have taken the penalties this round. Life is great when someone else picks up the bill - just ask those monkeys in the Australian Parliament or the untouchables at HSBC. To this end the wheels will continue to turn so long as the working class don't drop dead from exhaustion, and the game can be extended by ensuring the populace don't realise the extent to which they are being fleeced. The exploitations are easy to spot. When I see those figures of $57 trillion in new debt (in the last seven years), just bear in mind that debt goes two-ways ... it means that some organisations and individuals now have $57 trillion worth of new ASSETS. Don't get me wrong - I know full well the value of those assets are dubious, but in the here-and-now that is $57 trillion worth of RENT-SEEKING-INSTRUMENTS that have billions of taxpaying households and individuals stiched up.
Second, I think there have been massive increases in human productivity from improvements in automation and information technology which have masked the real decline. By my reckoning we ought to be having a modern renassiance around about now but my guess is that corruption, fraud, theft, slavery and waste effectively sucks the life out of any real improvements in the standard of living which might otherwise present itself. As a result, most families/individuals just struggle along not knowing anything different when the reality is that they are still picking up the bill for the excesses of the last 40 year boom. If you have doubts about this underlying boom in human progress, just consider the economic effect when driver-less cars become common-place - effectively freeing up billions of man-hours every year worldwide (and that's just one technology).
Third, 'good old oppression, slavery and erosion of freedoms may not be alone enough to acheive their feat. Last week I had the very different task of obtaining some FIFA 2015 coins for the kids xbox game. This was my first foray into the world of virtual items purchasing and was mildly surprised to find a thriving industry with many different providers. Like many large online games, EA Sports have created a small economy which is subject to similar realword forces - for example 'flipping players' is a mini-industry all of it's own. To counter the run-away inflation inside the game economy, the game creators introduced a 'tax' (of about 5%) which applies during player or item transfers. The taxed coins simply 'vanish' from the economy - after all EA Sports doesn't really need them and can't really sell them - as a company they are after things of real value (dollars) and game economy functioning normally is necessary to keep those $$$ flowing ... they care not for the funny tokens they can create on demand and it is not problem to evaporate them into thin air. It reminded me a lot about the real world > the currency notes we trade don't really have any value to the issuer (because they can create as many of them as they want), what they do trade in is human productivity and real goods - they ensure that we strive hard to get enough funny tokens to pay real-world tax. Is it a stretch of the imagination to figure they also use simple tricks like the EA Coin Tax to regulate the supply of money in today's economy? And with the sum total of mathematical genius and resources available in the world today are we still thinking it's not beyond their power to manipulate successfully?
Finally, it could be that 'it just hasn't happened yet, you'll see', but to be honest that answer isn't working for me anymore - the attitude distracts us from the real issues. I think it's different this time - just gotta find the correct way to explain it.
Regards,
Warren James
Screwtape Files
p.s. I'm hoping some folk will disagree, please feel free to place a comment or two.
56 comments:
I'm of the opinion that GDP should be a measure of the production of material goods in a country, not goods and services. By this measure, all of the information processing technology and e-commerce functionality have not materially improved GDP. Here is an article attacking the idea of robots hiding the downturn:
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/one-where-larry-summers-demolished-robots-and-skills-arguments
So if it isn't robots or networked computers, what is it?
Part of it is world central banks successfully dealing with the crisis. This is a bit hard to stomach, but objectively it looks to me like the economy has substantially improved. I was wrong. You were wrong. Let’s check out assumptions and start over. The other part is manipulation of the statistics. Check ShadowStats for an example.
Hi Warren,
Seeing your post this morning gave me a jolt. I was involved in a discussion along these lines yesterday. You captured my feelings about all of this as well in this final paragraph:
Finally, it could be that 'it just hasn't happened yet, you'll see', but to be honest that answer isn't working for me anymore - the attitude distracts us from the real issues. I think it's different this time - just gotta find the correct way to explain it.
I hope your post prompts a discussion.
Cheers
maybe your confusion comes from the assumption that there ever was a "free market", when there was not one to begin with?
My conculsion to all of this: That's how the human super organism wants it to be. You complain correctly the monkeys in parliament. Well, let me tell you, every four years the people vote them in power and afterwards they get buttf'ed the next four years, still those dumbfucks continue to vote, although they probably even acknowledge to be lied straight in the face. Talking about stupid?
I mean, hell, what do you expect? In a certain way, this democracy is really fair: Those dumbfucks get what they deserve. (to bad I have to suffer too, although I didnt vote...)
Okay, maybe some day, some will figure out and take their money out of the bank.
Then what? I tell you: Those will be blaimed and paper cash will be outlawed (happend already in Italy, you are not allowed to pay more than 1000€ in cash). Some will complain, the rest will just swallow it. The most important thing is to find a decent scapegoat. In todays world, just blame capitalism and you get applause. (Remember Nixon's speech, why he was running out of gold - those evil speculators...)
And just like our cancellor Merkel said: "Folks, this has to happen without any alternative" (still she was voted with an even bigger majority in the next election).
Greets, AD
P.S.
Oh by the way, I finally took my retirement, because I refuse to keep up the Euro by my german working just so the PIIGS can party and the monkeys live of my 50% tax. Sold my company at a good price and moved to Galts gulch - that was my dismissal to the system, seriously.
07367c0e-e33d-11e3-8fad-73de3a080900, thanks for the robots & automation article link - lots of good stuff there especially in the comments thread.
Defining Measurements is certainly the best place to start - I counter by proposing it is no longer possible to quantify all the benefits brought about by the modern paradigm. Big statement, an example: nowadays someone with a new business idea can fully scope strengths, opportunities (market, demand), weaknesses and threats (existing competition) all within a day - using the internet. Twenty years ago the same research might take years and be less comprehensive. The economic benefit of that same individual not entering the marketplace with an inferior product is not tangible - because the wasted effort never took place. Exploring every similar element would take some time to iterate.
Your last paragraph I agree with completely. Maybe when we're looking for causality, it is fair to say that all these elements are contributing factors.
@Costata, great. Also fair to argue capitulation may be a necessary requirement before the real action can begin apace. Hence I apologise in advance for the collapse of industrial society ;)
@AD, good point to identify what could easily be a fourth reason in this list - the whole 'rigged game' scenario. I hope you will enjoy your retirement.
My friends call me 900 or just 9 for short ;-)
In the example you proposed, why would that NOT be represented in more ( or more valuable) tangible objects being created? This cuts to the heart of the fraud in government statistics. Efforts to "fix" the GDP numbers by adding, for example, Obamacare, profits from drugs and prostitution, etc. cover up real economic malaise, but this misses the point. The economy is in fact on the mend. The fact that it is not "mending" as fast as we would like, or benefiting the people we like is irrelevant. We need to come to grips with the fact that our theories about economic collapse did not and most likely will not pan out. I at least didn't predict that things would progress more or less like they had for ~7 years with the exception that most people would not have full time jobs etc. The collapse was supposed to be inevitable.
Of your three arguments, I was only able to understand one of them clearly. "Redirecting the Blast" means that the economy has not collapsed. The banking system is sound or something like it. This is not an explanation... I think. I don't quite know what you mean here.
Your second argument is the robot argument. It doesn't fly.
Number three is pure stream of consciousness gobbledegook. What are you getting at and how does this address the issue?
How about this alternative framework proposed by Eric Janszen: World central banks are cooperating to sunset the dollar as the world's reserve currency. This process is scheduled to take centuries, much as the British Pound was gradually phased out over a period of ~80 years. No abrupt changes in world trade flows or economic realities will be permitted. The new system to be based on SDR or some other fiat currency. The wheels didn't come off because central banks didn't want them too and they control every aspect of the economy.
-Mell
Hi Mell (or 900),
To be sure - I subscribe completely to your assertions that the economy is recovering. Part of the reason for my post is a public statement that I was certainly incorrect with my prognosis - I've also paid the price for being wrong and this is me moving on.
To condense my main points:
1. The business cycle is not dead, they put the 'bust' part on the shoulders of others (through bailouts, etc). i.e. the piper is indeed being paid, but it's coming from the pocket of households and productive individuals whether they realise or not.
2. I'll still argue that technology has contributed massive amounts and will continue to do so in the future. Measuring the extent/effect is difficult and could easily be a series of essays. Bear in mind it's not just robots and automation, it's every aspect - advances in public health can also be included in this set.
3. Just an example of how a simple strategy balances a virtual economy - how is it any different from the real world? The central banks don't make their actual strategies public so there could be any number of accounting gimmicks in play.
I'll work harder next time to improve my writing. I'm happy with your final conclusion as a framework for interpreting the modern era of finance - "The wheels didn't come off because central banks didn't want them to and they control every aspect of the economy.". Long live the new dictatorship.
AD,
I too hope you enjoy your retirement.
Warren,
There are definitely issues with the indexes and benchmarks that are used to assess economic performance. The deficiencies of consumer price indexes used around the world as official 'inflation' indicators have been pointed out so many times that I think it's hardly controversial to say they are unreliable.
I think we can add GDP to the list of unreliable indicators as well. I recently finished reading a book by Diane Coyle called "GDP - A Brief But Affectionate History". Professor Coyle thinks GDP is salvageable and worth the effort of attempting to correct its flaws and shortcomings. IMO it's a write-off. Let me share one example of a serious flaw in GDP (that has also carried over into the UN's national accounting rules).
Financial services are artificially converted from a "value subtracted" component of GDP and national accounts to a "value added" component by book-keeping fudges: Coyle (P. 100) writes below!
As the OECD GDP statistics manual puts it: "Measurement using the general formula [for constructing GDP] would result in their (banks) value added being very small, if not negative; in other words their intermediate consumption would be greater than their sales!"
So Warren I think there is a fundamental issue that we have to acknowledge upfront. The statistics, even when they are honestly produced, measure what matters to the politicians and their patrons e.g. the FIRE sector. Positive outcomes in these indicators green light the activities that politicians and their backers WANT to pursue not actions and policies that are in the best interests of society as a whole.
Cheers
@Warren,
not sure, I didnt mean "rigged" that sounds like manipulated, I meant, "none existent". It is basically like in the old-school east communism: The state sets the market with what economists would consider "supply, demand & prices", or like the populace todays considers and demands it: "mummy takes care of her minor infants".
Anglo-saxon thinking says that this does not work, their will be shortages and hyperinflation. Think again: Let's imagine the UdSSR would be worldwide, no place to run, no reference point to and of your own demise.
@900,
I think the power of the CB is far to overestimated. Yes, they can control money(supply), but they can not control the physical world. What if the physical world does not care for "money" in the sense economists consider it? Or what if the dependent and governed majority just spends whatever the leviathan just hands generously out to them? If "price discovery" is not determined by the free choice of the market participants, but rather by the power of the leviathan? At that point the power of money-supply-control is rendered useless.
I am always amused about the famous quote of Amsel Rothschild "gimme the control of money supply...". Yes, right. That dude probably couldnt ever imagined how his descendants will have been robbed just by a strike of a pencil, by the very same state Guy de Rothschild even fought personally for in WWII, not only ones, no, twice.
And that leads me to my main point: Do you care for money(="assets" in the widest sense), or do you care for the stuff("your consumption") that you assume that money buys you or do you care for this assumption of itself?
Think long and hard about that one.
Greets, AD
You know AdvocatsDiaboli, I too walk around the house dressed like Captain Morgan ( complete with eye patch) muttering to myself. I keep my gold in a 16th century chest buried under a big X. We should have a convention! A bunch of grumpy old guys in snappy suits chanting "You will get what is coming to you by and by!" Meanwhile your life is passing you by. I started this journey into lunacy in 2005. That is a decade of my life. I missed out on the stock market crash because I was invested in gold. How did gold do during the crash? It went down, just like everything else. I did my big buy in 2010. I have lost money, making it unlikely that I can retire early like you have. Especially after taking into account the lost opportunity cost of stock ( or bond ) appreciation. Do not let your moronic right wing ideology distort your thinking. If your theory doesn't work for decades, it is wrong.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here. This is a central bank managing hyperinflation. This is the only dataset I could find for a before-during-after hyperinflation, but I suspect that they all look the same:
http://buildengineer.com/itulip/y-o-y-MXN-USD.png
Note the sharp edges on those peaks. Both the upside and downsides are square and indicate that the central bank can and does plan and carry out hyperinflation ( i.e. real world material goods) management.
-Mell
Hi 900,
I pretty much agree with you: "Dont fight the CBs" and especially "Meanwhile your life is passing you by."
My "right wing ideology" does absolutely not distort my thinking. It is more the opposite, I am completely aware, that this is not going to turn out like I would maybe favor it, so I have to adopt without confirmation bias or wishful thinking. Well knowing this, what would be wise actions and were to put some nesteggs? For me personally buying stocks right now makes no sense. Not from the "value approach" and the "greater fool" approach doesnt promise enough profit compared to downside potential.
Additionally I ask myself: Why should I take risk for what, if you have enough "money"? More money digits stored in some banking computer?
So my weighted asset positions are (in declining order size): Cash&Gold (being exposed to both sides of my central bank's balance sheets sides), stocks, silver, farmland. I can live pretty well from just the yield, so why change anything and start gambling?
Greets, AD
AD, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu9KOV1U1HM
Hi 900,
thanks for the link, I have been aware of that channel, watched it a couple of times for amusement for a good laugh, just like KWN or GATA.
Basically he is part of the "Freegold for dummies".
Wanna talk about correlation? Here's a good side where you can pick your own tea leafes readings of correlations www.pricedingold.com/about
You know what the biggest danger of losses is, living in Europe? Being seized by the government, PERIOD.
e.g. Ask the people of Cypruss, they better had one million in cash, than gold.
So count me in the Armstong camp. Not that I believe in any of his TA or ECM stuff at all, but he has the best views and food for thoughts of history in terms of economics and government.
Greets, AD
@AD
I feel like I am not connecting with you. You wrote "I think the power of the CB is far to overestimated...". They you wrote: 'I pretty much agree with you: "Don't fight the CBs"'. Also '...not sure, I didn't mean "rigged" that sounds like manipulated, I meant, "none existent...: The state sets the market with what economists would consider "supply, demand & prices"".' Which is it? Either governments and "independent" central banks are all powerful, or they are not. Those are two different things.
It is pretty clear that you didn't watch the video or didn't catch the subtext. He is speaking to a mixed audience of both sophisticated investors and amateurs. Consequently you have to use interpretation. Let me break it down for you. He said: "Sell your gold and buy long dated oil futures.". You can be forgiven for not catching this. Your focus on ideology prevents you from seeing that the guy is a realist before he is a conspiracy nut. I wrote to him and got a copy of his spreadsheet. I'm not yet ready to publish, but he has a very good model for timing gold and ( in this case) US govt bond purchases. He has written several very good pieces that I want to critique.
Let's get back to the topic. BelangP essentially holds Warren's position number five "It just hasn't happened yet". This is similar to the position I am coming around to, that any revaluation or economic cataclysm will be in the distant future ( if at all) and you should act as if it is not coming for practical purposes.
Let's review some of the assumptions that went into my idea that the US (or world) economy was in trouble and would not be able to continue for more than a few years.
a) World debt levels where too high. Historically countries with high debt levels have poor economic growth. The cutoff for some sort of crisis now looks to be far north of the 100% of GDP suggested by Reinhart and Roghoff. Possibly near 400% of GDP as in Japan.
b) Serial bubble blowing and fragile economies. After a series of stock, housing and commodity bubbles got blown and popped, I was sure we would see investors flee the markets. That didn't happen. Investor psychology has changed. Why? Social safety nets perhaps? One school of thought is that private investors have indeed fled. The money is from corporations investing directly in markets. Another theory is that the Fed has been directly intervening in markets. Question: If all the money comes from the Fed and goes into stocks without passing through the pockets of consumers, does it lead to economic growth?
c) Growing health and social security commitments from developed nations intersecting with declining working age populations leading to a crisis. This one hasn't happened yet and looks to be far off the right side of the graph.
d) Crisis in Europe leading to ... something bad. It was never explained what. Greece just caved. Not going to happen. Period. There have been lot's of opportunities. Let's move on.
e) Crisis in China caused by housing overcapacity. Hugh Hendry lost his shirt on this one. China is a centrally planned economy. They don't have economic crisis. Period.
f) War in the middle east or ... somewhere leading to ... something bad. War looks like a side show these days. People don't even watch the war on TV. I'm puzzled why this is not a big deal. No idea.
g) Peak Oil leading to economic shock and subsequent collapse. I have to conclude that the world economy is just not that sensitive to oil prices. What else could explain this?
Lot's more. It is late here. I need to sleep.
-Mell
Hi Mell, or should I stay with 900? ;)
I apologize, I fastly skipped through the video, because I have seen some others of that dude, and assumed that I know his narrative pretty well by now. Let me give you the point where I basically said "that nutjob did it again". it is at 16:30, "place some savings in I Series Savings Bonds", why? "so I can buy me some more gold".
Personally I dont know how the I-Series-Savings-Bond work, I dont have to, want to, dont care..., this reasoning just reveals the stupidity of the assumptions or premises or argument of that dude.
I dont care for tokens shall it be numbers on papers or weight on a gold scale. I just care what those units will get me in the future for my consumption that I need and/or want in me entered retirement in terms of STUFF, not more not less.
To say "to get me more gold in the future is my aim", well, stupid, stupid, stupid, dumbest idiot in the world, nothing more to say, he just has not gotten the aim.
"Sell your gold and buy long dated oil futures."
Trading a real physical wealth reserve asset of unambiguous ownership for a paper promise of somebody? Is that dude completely out of his mind? Do I habe a super-tanker waiting in the red sea? No! So how can I buy oil? Despite my garage is filled with gasoline for the next years already? OMG what an expert.
"It just hasn't happened yet"
And what in particular? The dollar will loose its reserve status? yes, right, somehow I heard that BS quite some times over and over and over again. Ask me if I care.
And ask me again, if I care about the IRS agents of that cripple retard Berlin asshole visiting my facility every single year, bullying me over and over again.... which one of those incidents is REAL and which one is NOT????
See, I like gold. It is the perfect hedge against government, especially fascist, socialist ones. Nothing more, nothing less. I might as well stack copper rods in my basement. So please tell me, what is the difference of stacking copper vs. gold? I tell you, one of those has utility the other has not, since I dont have a source of copper at a decent spread, that's where I see silver comes into play.
Greets, AD
P.S.
yes, it's late here as well, where you're located?
P.P.S.
"Growing health and social security commitments from developed nations intersecting with declining working age populations leading to a crisis."
YES!!!1111 I completely agree. Since I believe this socialist cleptocrat experiment is carried out further until the final end, I am heavily invested into pharma stocks. Not that I am convinced of their product or management, I am just convinced on how the UdSSR 2.0 is run worldwide.
(1 of 3)
> AdvocatusDiaboli said...
>
> Hi Mell, or should I stay with 900? ;)
Howdy professor AD.
>
>
> I apologize, I fastly skipped through the video, because I have seen some others of that dude, and assumed that I know his narrative pretty well by now.
Economic thinking requires rigor and attention to detail. If you cannot take the time to read a document, look at a chart or listen to a ten minute lecture, you don't get to play the game. Let's hear some thoughts from the guy up above who took the time to read a book on GDP.
>
> Let me give you the point where I basically said "that nutjob did it again". it is at 16:30, "place some savings in I Series Savings Bonds", why? "so I can buy me some more gold".
> Personally I dont know how the I-Series-Savings-Bond work, I dont have to, want to, dont care..., this reasoning just reveals the stupidity of the assumptions or premises or argument of that dude.
> I dont care for tokens shall it be numbers on papers or weight on a gold scale. I just care what those units will get me in the future for my consumption that I need and/or want in me entered retirement in terms of STUFF, not more not less.
> To say "to get me more gold in the future is my aim", well, stupid, stupid, stupid, dumbest idiot in the world, nothing more to say, he just has not gotten the aim.
Wow. Where to begin. I'm still responding to you because I think that other people on this web site hold these opinions. Let me start by saying that I think that you are the stupid one here. This does however give me an opportunity to review and summarize my thinking on gold and investing in general and how it has evolved.
To start with there are ( at least ) two schools of thought about why and how to buy gold. The first is that gold is an investment much like buying a stock in IBM or Exxon. The second is that gold is "insurance" against currency collapse. These two ideas are very much at odds. You seem to be holding both ideas in the same post and changing your position between sentences. My feelings about this are still evolving, but let's draw this out and show the conflicts clearly.
*) If gold is the rough equivalent of a stock or bond, we should not feel any emotional attachment to it. There should be no compunction against selling gold if it reaches historic highs. In particular if gold is similar to copper than it should behave like copper over long time periods. How has gold done against things that people need to buy like wheat or copper ( a constituent of most homes)? In short it is going up like a rocket since 1950. A chart dating back to 1250AD shows that gold has mostly lost value, albeit at a rate of less than 1%/ year.
http://buildengineer.com/blog/charts/bffbgjgc.png
A gold advocate might point out that gold has held roughly stable value for most of that time. If you squint. This chart by the way is from ShareLynx. You will find it in the links on the right hand side of this blog. Are you sure you read this site regularly?
BelangP advocates buying US treasury bonds. If you believe the primary premise of this post ( that there will be NO crisis in the foreseeable future ), than you should have no compunction against buying what has, up until now, been an extremely stable store of value. The ideological nut-job here is YOU not BelangP. Clear?
(2 of 3)
*) If on the other hand gold is insurance against financial catastrophe, what does than mean for a gold allocation? It means you have to evaluate the likelihood of the wheels coming off the bus. I'm going to put that at a ~10% chance in the next 10-20 years. I.E. not going to happen. So as far as gold goes where do we stand? You buy more flood insurance if you live by a river and possibly none if you live on a mountain. This is a "Gold Bug" web site in the broadest sense and I still cling to the idea that everything is not right with the world, but we need to act rationally not emotionally.
>
> "Sell your gold and buy long dated oil futures."
> Trading a real physical wealth reserve asset of unambiguous ownership for a paper promise of somebody? Is that dude completely out of his mind? Do I habe a super-tanker waiting in the red sea? No! So how can I buy oil? Despite my garage is filled with gasoline for the next years already? OMG what an expert.
Once again for the benefit of other people, long dated oil futures pay off in dollars. You cannot get any oil at all from buying a futures contract.
>
>
> "It just hasn't happened yet"
> And what in particular? The dollar will loose its reserve status? yes, right, somehow I heard that BS quite some times over and over and over again. Ask me if I care.
> And ask me again, if I care about the IRS agents of that cripple retard Berlin asshole visiting my facility every single year, bullying me over and over again.... which one of those incidents is REAL and which one is NOT????
The premise here is that we (that is I) where wrong about precisely this issue. This web site that you are reading right now, has been predicting for some time that a crisis would happen in the dollar or world economy. Warren has done an exhaustive examination of the gold bars held in world vaults looking for evidence of collusion to prop up the dollar via fraud in the gold markets ( so far without success) . It has been a central premise of most "Gold Bug" thinking for 30 or 40 or maybe 50 years.
Your emotional rant about the IRS ( Is this the United States IRS you are talking about?) is designed to point out that US imperial power is as strong as ever and that the dollar will never die. This argument rings a bit hollow to me, it does however stay on message. Good job there. I think that increased militarism and aggressive tax collection are a sign of an empire in trouble.
( 3 of 3 geez I hate this blog software)
>
> See, I like gold. It is the perfect hedge against government, especially fascist, socialist ones. Nothing more, nothing less. I might as well stack copper rods in my basement. So please tell me, what is the difference of stacking copper vs. gold? I tell you, one of those has utility the other has not, since I dont have a source of copper at a decent spread, that's where I see silver comes into play.
Here you are conflating the two major streams of thought on gold. This is what typically happens when I try to have a conversation with people about this. It typically ends with "You can't eat gold!". To recap; "Gold is a hedge against corrupt governments" ( doing what exactly?) or "Gold is an investment much like holding copper bars". Which is it?
Fascism and Socialism are not the same thing. For instance:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
Socialists want to dismantle corporations and end market economies. If you haven't noticed, Socialists and Fascists shoot at one another.
>
> Greets, AD
>
> P.S.
> yes, it's late here as well, where you're located?
>
> Thu Mar 05, 01:44:00 AM GMT
I live in France, a country noted for it's high taxes. I gladly pay the tax man because we have the best health care system in the world here. The social programs are second to none and the economy is doing OK. I don't confuse this with Socialism nor do I think that aggressive enforcement of tax laws constitutes Fascism.
Let's try to keep this on topic, OK?
-Mell
"The first is that gold is an investment much like buying a stock in IBM or Exxon. The second is that gold is "insurance" against currency collapse. These two ideas are very much at odds. You seem to be holding both ideas in the same post and changing your position between sentences."
I like to say, that I live in Germany, so all my considerations concern my personal outcome in that location. This website looks at what's going on from the australian view. Lately not only looking at gold, but also at the overall development. There comes the point why I hold gold, it is bascially the Armstrong view on gold: I dont want to hold an asset that my government is proud and able to steal from, simple as that. Armstrong calls it hedge against government.
I see what is happening in Europe: The PIIGFS eat up all value that the german people work for that backs the euro. In order to have the PIIGFS still being feed and since the PIIGS can not so easily print Euros by themself (which might change soon), the german government has to arrange the transfers (e.g. by the ESM, EU, EZB...). In order to do so, they have to steal the money tokens from the people that have those received for their work, either currently or in the future, or somebody has to print those up. Which way it will happen? Nobody knows. That's the point why I personally hold gold, it is tax free and can not be tracked, and being on the central banks balance sheets, it tells me that it's "money". The hedge on the other side is paper cash.
"I gladly pay the tax man because we have the best health care system in the world here. The social programs are second to none and the economy is doing OK. I don't confuse this with Socialism nor do I think that aggressive enforcement of tax laws constitutes Fascism."
good joke. Although I know the french for a different humour.
If I would live in France I would buy gold hand over fist, probably would have put >>90% into gold.
But probably you enjoy paying property taxes. And whenever you want to hand over your heritage to you family, you also want to share it with your wise clever President Mr. Hollands, right? To give him a "fair share" to run such a Grande Nation?
Greets, AD
P.S. My wife is french. She is a proud voter of LePen :D
I pray, that LePen wins in 2017 to burn down this shitty socialist Europe. I know, she is a nationalsocialist, does not matter, as long is she burns it down, she's okay.
you're really funny man.
Besides that, to take that serious, because of the leftist presstitude we get that to hear in Germany all the time:
You fuckers murdered my family.
Who do you actually refer to? Me?
Nope, I didnt fight the WWII, my grandfather did, but in Russia, so could be him.
Well, with you, do you mean "germans"? So what if my wife takes on the german citizenship? Is she suddenly as guilty from than on?
See, phrases like yours reveal the real sick nationalist.
Greets, AD
P.S.
"Someday a righteous working class will see you swing from the trees."
YES, there it is. The real prudent frenchmen. Dont worry for me, I will be in Galts gultch, that's why I cashed out of my company to an international multi and everybody got kicked.
Since you're french, let me give you a good book recommendation: La Grève (roman d'Ayn Rand)
Back to Warren's question: Just hasn't happened yet, you'll see . . . Is it really different this time?
I do not know that we are able to answer that question unless and until there is another major shock to the system. We had a series of shocks spread years apart from 1987 crash, S&L, Asian Flu, LTCM, dotcompop, subprime/Bear/Lehman and its aftermath. I consider the PIGS hiccup to be aftermath of subprime/Bear/Lehman rather than a crisis of its own. Now after a period of relative stability we sit with interest rates down to zero or in some cases negative. So what next? What happens when the next shock hits? What ammo is left? How long can the narrative of central bank omnipotence last?
Although the economy certainly has picked up, that should not come as a surprise given how much additional debt has been piled on, no?
When you suggest it may be different this time, do you mean to suggest that there will not be any future shocks? I look at what happened to survive the last crisis and see (1) nobody went to jail, (ii) rampant control fraud, (iii) changing accounting rules to mark to fantasy, (iv) lack of meaningful regulation, (v) TBTF banks even bigger and systematically important than before, and (vi) a return to subprime.
As a matter of human nature, if you don't punish fraud, if instead you reward it, then you end up with more fraud, no? And if the recovery and restabilization of the system is built on fraud . . .
I think it's too early to tell.
@Robert, I wish I had good answers to your questions.
When I suggest it's different this time I mean we appear to be in a different economic paradigm than what is traditionally known, this is important since it means the old measurement tools start breaking down and describing our way through it will take some time as we readjust ourselves.
Fraud-upon-fraud is indeed a good way of describing modern finance however collapse can only occur if the core structure is shaky - my contention (shown in the article) is that the core is in fact robust .. held together by the sweat of the workers and the wonders of our modern infrastructure.
What I would expect from here is: more 'apparent crisis', i.e. news about the next shock to get reactions and then ... more news. Wasn't it only a few years ago that the Mexico gulf oil spill was about to end humanity? Or a few weeks ago the swiss abandoned the peg and all hell was breaking loose? Perhaps the best description is 'The Bullshit Economy', with all the things that go with it.
Mell's point above about living as if it will not occur is well taken - the death of any economic system is sometimes on a time-scale which eclipses our short lives, certainly our new 'instant gratification' culture forces us to place abnormal expectations on timings. At the end of the day, we as individuals do not have the resources to remain eternally alert so the prudent thing is better strategy (e.g. hedging for uncertainty). For my own part I certainly could have saved some anxiety had I never come across any precious-metals blogs .. Gold today is the same price it was six years ago!!! USD $1200 (although it's clear it won't stay that way for long. Anyone got a call for which direction this breaks?).
best,
Warren
I recently had a flashback from many many years ago when I was in high school and Miami Vice was the most popular show on television (this was back in the days when I actually watched television). Miami Vice was everywhere. My brother wore nothing but zoot suits and shirts combining clashing, over-saturated colors. It was nuts. Yet I remember as if it were yesterday someone on TV made a comment that "Believe it or not, the day will come when Miami Vice loses its popularity." At the time I thought to myself "Probably right, but it sure seems inconceivable now." And then two years later Miami Vice was completely forgotten and so were all those colorful clothes.
I had that flashback when I read Ben Hunt's essay about the narrative of central bank omnipotence and his statement to the effect "Believe it or not, but the narrative of central bank omnipotence will one day come to an end." And I thought to myself "yeah, just like Miami Vice."
I guess the jury will be out for me until I can look around and say "The narrative of central bank omnipotence has finally come to an end." Obviously the SNB was a crack in the dike, but I think the narrative is still intact.
Hi Robert,
I would like to comment on this issue of CB 'omnipotence'. Last year I listened to an interview with William R White. He is a former chief economist for the BIS. He also has the distinction of having warned about the impending US real estate meltdown and financial system crisis. White actually did a presentation on this at Jackson Hole when Greenspan was Fed Chair. (Greenspan was in the audience.)
White's career with organisations like the IMF, BIS etc goes back to the 1960s. So he was speaking from extensive firsthand experience. In that interview I listened to White described CB monetary policy and management as following a series of "fads" which all ultimately proved to be total failures. He mentioned a few (including targeting monetary aggregates) that he helped implement and believed in at the time.
White believes that interest rate and/or inflation targeting will prove to be total failures as well. I realize that people argue that the claims that 'main street' benefits from these policies are in fact smoke screens for the 'real' policy objective of bailing out banks, governments and elites in general. I think the fact that the banks etc keep going under again (i.e. they don't stay bailed out) suggests that the truth is more nuanced.
Perhaps academics like Bernanke and Yellen are chosen because their mainstream economics ideology leads them to see banks as the conduit for delivering some of the critical economic 'medicine' a sick economy needs - getting credit flowing again.
So long story short, this mess may be an infernal mix of bad or useless policy driven by bad economics and a system that places the emphasis on the banks and governments as the facilitators of economic recovery who need to be assisted with ultra-low interest rates, debt monetization and currency devaluation.
Cheers
Hi Warren,
I can follow you in most of your points. What I dont understand, is what you mean repeatingly by "fraud" in particular? Any examples? Might be the language or cultural/jurisdiction difference, but I dont see fraud in the legal sense at all.
Greets, AD
Hi AD, sure - "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain (via wikipedia)". Most recent example I saw is Insurance companies collecting premiums but then falsifying reports (on a large scale) to get out of claims.
I personally would argue that income tax, derivatives, home mortgages and central banks 'paying interest' all fall into this fraud classification - but all the latter are considered 'lawful', whatever that means ... I hear HSBC has a different set of rules they work by ... and that's really the start of the problem getting the definition.
Warren,
Capital life insurances I personally would not consider fraud. Why? Because >90% of the customers simply dont want to know. So if the customer dont want to know, how can he be "deliberately decepted"? The regular people I tried to explain how it works, did not want to hear, they refused to listend and just signed the documents. In my company I was obliged by law to offer the employies the option to take a special capital insurance directly paid by the company from their salary (did not affect the company). I made a one hour presentation on how that works and what they are doing when they sign it. Guess what, half of the people still signed it, and the other didnt, because they wanted the maximum money to spend immediately anyway. Now, after the company is closed, I had to hand over the contracts including a interrim balance sheet. Well, guess what, how dumb those sheeple looked! But I assume next time in the next company, when some insurance agent makes a nice presentation, they will sign up again.
Besides your wiki definition includes the key word "unfair". Come on Warren, "unfair" is maybe a kindergarten term, but not a term of capitalism or rule-of-law. The customer get's what's written in the fine print and written in the law. I dont see any problem at all, those people simply deserve what they voluntarily get and want. It is these ignorant people that keep this system running, first they vote for the system and second they pay for it voluntarily when they buy those products.
Any kind of tax I personally dont consider fraud. It is straight out protection money, collected by the mafia that set's the tarifs however they please and enforces it through the barrel of a gun.
Home mortages, what's the problem with that? At least here in Germany all mortages have a fixed interest rate for a fixed time. The customer knows exactly what he signs voluntarily up for. And remember, those people consider themself adult and vote for this awesome democracy, but dont wanna held responsible for their choices?
About the bail outs, well. Cant think of any reasonable term about that crime. Something between counterfeit and embezzlement?
Greets, AD
@AD, I know better than to argue with you - but please read the article on the link. The reports that the engineers submitted on inspecting the damage, were altered specifically so the payout was less than what it out to have been, and people are ruined. Not just on a casual basis, the deception was systematic.
Okay, condense all that money stuff to a single word - ursury. You are very correct : no one holds a gun to anyones head and makes them use a credit card, but it is my understanding that most mortgage debt is simply derivatives of the original deposit. Does that money really exist? Not in the classic sense, and it's a fraud to sell something that doesn't exist (or used to be anyway). They make out as if it is real but really it is all about the signed document which becomes a money-producing security which can be swapped, sold, bundled, sliced, diced, etc.
You can say what you like about the relative 'fairness' of the system - I can't speak for your generation but I can speak for mine - we are the new economic slaves because of the way things have been set up .. trapped rats in the treadmill running faster and faster because it's impossible to get off. Some of us are figuring out the mechanics of our demise, are we are very, very angry.
Hi Warren,
does fraud exist, Yes!!!111 I wasnt trying the argue that.
And yes, I understand that you are pissed (looks like we are sitting in the same boat on that one ;)
What I am trying to show, or what I am feeling when I read your posts is, that you are barking the wrong tree.
"Does that money really exist? Not in the classic sense, and it's a fraud to sell something that doesn't exist"
hmmmm, you got a point there. On the other hand, isnt that the very essential point of banking in and of itself? I mean, trading promises against risk and time in and of itself?
"trapped rats in the treadmill running faster and faster because it's impossible to get off."
Again, I understand what you are saying. But this fact has IMHO a completely different reason: statism and social welfare.
Just try the following thoughts experiment: You are an alien, sitting on the moon, watching the little human ants on planet earth in their treadmills. From the concept of money you have no idea, since you can not see it, it is just in their heads and numbers in some computers.
Now what are those ants doing in their treadmills? Yes they work, and some of the produced resources goes into investment constructs and some of the fruits are consumed right away by some of the ants.
Isnt it fair to say, that those few "OG Warren Buffets" and evil HSBC insurance agents of the world do not really consume that much of the treadmill producted goods? Regardless of what the concept of money is in the head of those human ants down there?
So since IMHO those financial crooks give a good and valid scapegoat, isnt it social welfare statism that consumes most of this, while the treadmill ants are left with less and less?
Greets, AD
Hi AD, sounds like we we have some common understanding? Yep, don't worry I've done that particular thought experiment and thought long and hard about the nature of money in all its forms and expressions.
So is your question "whether welfare statism consumes more real productive effort than financial parasitism?" That is a question worthy of a separate article: both cannot be casually dismissed and in today's world both have a critical mass.
If I used my own balance sheet as reference, government theft only comes a close second to the banks ursury. In the world known to me > to get a house and land I have to work hard for 30 years (basically my entire productive lifespan and health). In my father's generation they typically had a house paid off in 2 or 3 years, wow imagine that freedom. Society fell under the spell of cheap credit and it all sort of snowballed from there.
Or maybe, just maybe, all that doomsday scaremongering is just a complete load of bullshit.
Just a marketing tactic, a business model, to sell you coins, canned food, subscriptions, water filters, and a particular political persuasion.
Hi Warren,
then do that experiment over and over again. While doing it, you might wanna consider (re)reading FOFOAs "moneyness", "Freegold fondation" and "Tigers Trail" (they are quite good, if you ignore the "giant" gold BS parts).
The consideration of making an article of where the parasitism might be located is good. Go ahead. While doing it consider that the state expenditure quote is in most western countries >=50%. During your farthers generation the state might have directed resources more on overall productive stuff because there were more things needed that the state might have some productivity to do, what is it spending right now? You might also take into consideration who the useless eaters are and what they are "eating". Again IMHO the "evil fraudulent unproductive" banking sector is in that context an very small part of the consumption pie.
Now the part that I dont want you to take personally: The younger generation better stop wining!!111 It is embarassing with this type of occupy-wall-street talk, while the very same people go to Starbucks and McDonalds in their break from cursing against the banks, twittering all kinds of garbadge on plastic adult toys, while being in Thailand on holiday, instead of being really productive.
And back to the topic. Why should the wheels come off at all in the first place, if all the human ants act tomorrow like they did today or rather continue with the trend even more?
And even if some ants start to act differently, the system will just punish those few and make up some other rules under some stupid unlogical "fraudulent" ;) reasoning...
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtschaft/geld/Wenn-Banken-ihre-Kunden-verdaechtigen/story/16138781
Greets, AD
P.S.
I am not that much older than you Warren, just raised old school german prussian way.
Warren and AD:
Some thoughts from a former 'worker ant' from an older generation:
Wasn't it Bismarck, the Prussian. who introduced the first ever modern 'welfare' state'? Or was it a prototype 'Welfare-Warfare State'?
Don't neglect Eisenhower’s 'Military-Industrial Complex' in terms of how much it 'consumes' (or squanders) of revenue coerced (directly or indirectly) from the productive worker ants in so many parts of the world, not just the USofA . It also kills a number of folks outright.
On 'Collapse', Orlav's recent 'Five Sages of' book may or may not be instructive of what could occur. As you may know, he illustrates a sequence, beginning with Financial and then Economic Collapse, evolving into Political, then Social, and final Cultural Collapse. Many doom-see-ers (or seekers) out there in Internet Land assume that their anticipated impending crisis will be immediately and catastrophically complete - all five of Orlav's stages occurring simultaneously and terminally. History (and archaeology) shows us that, unlike Hemmingway's purported 'Going Broke' quote ('very slowly, but then suddenly'), the process can involve a gradual decline that never has an abrupt climax phase, or that the process can be suspended, or even ended, at any stage along the way.
So, indeed, the wheels have not (yet, anyway) come off of the bus, but some are wobbling and the driver appears to be drunk and/or nodding off to sleep. Perhaps all that is needed is for some (or even one) of the passengers to go up to the front and give the driver a poke (just to get his attention) and suggest (or even demand) that he slow down and then change course to avoid the sink-holes now visible in the road ahead. Although it may be too late by now, we won't know unless somebody does something to start changing the trajectory. Or maybe some few passengers can manage to jump off the racing bus, although that has its grave dangers, too. Or maybe some can wrap themselves up in enough cushioning, padded blankets that are more substantial than the mere security sort that are wrapped around the unwitting majority.
Slow Loris
Warren, there's nothing new under the sun.
Whether we live in a system of an empire, a monarchy, a dictatorship, a republic, or a democracy, the pattern is always the same. It's the same this time.
The pattern is: a state/empire advances and develops out of some sort of chaos. As the state develops and grows, its rulers grow stronger and wealthier. In order to further its power, it expands and conquers others. It eventually grows to be fat, bloated and lazy, and the masses have to be kept happy, so money is devalued. Eventually the state collapses under an invasion or a revolution.
Out of the invasion or revolution, the whole pattern repeats. Sociopaths number about 5% of the world population, they drive these cycles, until they drive them too far. Hard to see sociopaths ever changing their ways, or disappearing as a subset.
We're currently in a world where socialism and state control are getting to extreme levels. Sociopaths are everywhere, as usual, pulling the strings. Corporations, governments, central banks, security agencies. All driven by sociopaths.
It will all collapse in a giant heap, but gradually over the next 10-30 years.
If we make it through this period without global nuclear war, that will be a great result. Quite hard to see that being avoided though.
So, no point worrying or becoming frustrated, as a species we will never change. And then one day the sun explodes anyway.
Be thankful for the years you've had, and try to find a bolt hole post- retirement, if you're lucky enough to be able to do so before the real trouble starts, around 2020.
(Solar cycles are a big influence on mankind too, hence the business cycle, worth researching, currently solar activity is on the wane, so speculation and effort are already reducing, and we are heading into a recession globally).
Warren
If you don't mind I would like to point out, with wry amusement, that you have just declared a 'new paradigm' in the government debt/currency bubble of the last few decades.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Stages_of_a_bubble.png
You are likely not the first, nor will you be the last. Towel-throwing seems to abound at present.
If mass psychology is any guide, what comes next should prove interesting. :)
TF
Costata,
Did you by any chance get to read this article by White?
I thought it was pretty interesting.
Hi e_r,
Thanks for the link. I will read that paper.
Cheers
from the article introduction (the premise itself):
"The present global currency system does not really work."
why doesn't it work? I mean come on, as far as I can see, it works quite fantastic: Every monkey has a spyphone, and stupid Chen has the "exorbitant priviledge" to work for lazy Ben, in the east, in the west and from west to east.
What's "wrong" with that? Isn't that exactly how the hard gold standard haters described this "best world"?
I guess it is just a perspective on what you consider morally wrong or right. Everything else, like Mr. "I-like-balance-sheets" White calls this "non system" can be fixed in a computer pressing some numbers. And as long as the rulers can press the keys, they will press the keys, simple as that.
"Freegold" *LOL* makes no exception to this, as long as the unit of account and tax token can be forced and/or printed upon the productive by the unproductive.
Just keep the treadmill ants busy, those are not the ones changing something, never have been and never will be.
Greets&happy slaving, AD
I would like to thank all the contributors to this comments thread - there is a wealth of perspectives expressed here and I have found them all incredibly useful.
This is an interesting thread so I will post. I'm a long time follower of FOFOA.
You may not like what I'm going to say, but consider it the "George Carlin" view of the world. Basically, we post- modern people threw away all of the gains of the enlightenment and the progressive era to accumulate more goodies that the banks and corporations dangle in front of us. So we work...and work some more. We gather more stuff, none of it good enough, none of it satisfying. We go into more debt. We keep running on the treadmill faster and faster and convince our kids to do the same, depleting the natural capital of the world to produce more and more junk, patting ourselves on the back.
The matrix is, well, perfect. It's perfectly adapted to the psychology of 7 billion humans all climbing over each to prove that they "won" the game of life.
The system will just keep going and going and going and then one day (or month, or year?) it's sort of going to die and nobody is quite going to know what to make of it. Think Rome, except this time on a global scale and involving every single person on the planet, and leading to a more or less permanent dark ages.
That's my take on it.
Hi e_r,
I read that article by White. The "non-system" monetary system is a theme he has written about many times. Still good to see his latest thinking on the subject so thanks for that link.
I hope you didn't delete your follow up comment because of AD's rant. I, for one, happened to agree with it - AD's usual strawmanning antics notwithstanding.
Cheers
Hi Random,
"We gather more stuff,..."
True. Do you follow the Blog of ActingMan? He posts regularily articles of Bill Bonner. Maybe you wanna check out this one, about "Emile", (end of the article) http://www.acting-man.com/?p=36125#more-36125
I know two people living like that, one who is a friend of my family in France and the other I met was Brendon Grimshaw on Île Moyenne.
"Think Rome..."
Yes, that is a good comparasion of what is happening. I bet the people of Rome didnt even notice what was going on. Since the demise into the dark ages dragged itself over more than 200yrs.
Greets, AD
Was the fall of Rome really as catastrophic as we have been led to believe? If so, if that means we entered into the Dark Ages, where was it dark? Was life in Italy worse in the Eighth Century than it had been in the Third century? Was life really so bad under the Lombards, with more localized control? If so, why do you think so? What metric do you use to measure enlightenment or darkness? In the Eastern capital of Constantinople, the Empire continued on for another 1000 years, and until the 11th Century had a very stable monetary system. If wonder if we have been brainwashed by our masters to believe that we need great empires. Do we?
Robert,
good question. Since it is philosophical, I guess there is not really an answer. It comes down to what do you desire
Can you answer that one without any bias?
Greets, AD
costata,
Thanks for the feedback. I think his point about agreeing that there are fundamental problems in the international monetary non-system is well stated.
AD,
I think you've already made up your mind in terms of the perspective being shared by folks. It's hard to present a view when one's mind is too rigid to see that view.
All problems in the world cannot be solved by the central banks (assuming
you are talking about them when you mean "rulers", which is a vague term) pressing the keys. That's the point of the White article.
e_r,
sorry by not being precise about the word "ruler". Ruler is who make the rules.
Looking at e.g. Germany, who makes the rules? And what rules? Rules to abandon the free market:
We have a minimum wage, and with rising progressive income tax (and the mob cheering Piketty), we reached almost also maximum wage (even already proposed as legislation in Switzerland).
Addionally, it is being ruled, when you are allowed to work, what you are allowed to work, how you are allowed to work, where you are allowed to work. And even if you dont work, they decide what you receive as an incentive not to work.
Prices of energy are set by some circle of commisioners, just as housing rents....
In France they even have a mafia, called S.A.F.E.R., that decides who may buy/sell what land from whom at what prices.
And how you save, in what you save is also governed by your rulers: In their debt!
And even how banking is done, nothing about "free banking", no way, therefore we have the BIS, that governs what is an asset, and what isnt.
In this environment, how much does it really matter what the CB do, as long as you can dictate the market, that exclusively starts to exist from dependants?
Greets, AD
Somewhat off topic, but this article should give the many US-haters/Russia-lovers pause for thought. Although I suspect most of them have too many biases to consider the game being played out.
http://www.jrnyquist.com/it-takes-a-traitor.html
Gary, Yyu're right, that article was off topic. Call be a US-hater/Russia-lover if you must, but I thought it was complete and utter nonsense, written by an apologist for the deep state. The article distorts the facts. Did you not hear Victoria Nuland? Did you not hear for yourself?
Good morning Garry,
although I dislike Nyquist and find most of his stuff nonsense and just like Warren would call him "apologist for the deep state", there is one good take away from the article to note:
"Whatever the dictator says his victim is planning to do, totalitarian psychology suggests the dictator is planning to do it himself!"
Greets, AD
P.S.
Something for the record? ;)
Robert, I have no love for America at all. I recognise the deep state is pulling the strings.
But it would appear that Joe McCarthy was indeed correct, the USA was infiltrated massively, and is indeed heading for collapse and IMO civil war because of this.
The many millions who present Putin (and Russia) as an innocent victim of American scheming and aggression have been well & truly duped.
I read Nyquist (knowing he has his head in the sand about many US issues) because he presents some fascinating insights into Russian tactics.
The Russian deep state is in a similar league as the US deep state (both have caused millions of deaths around the world to suit their own agenda). But millions seem to forget or choose to ignore the facts, having been so easily duped by Russian propoganda in the past 25 years.
So, perhaps Russian admirers need to consider their gullibility. Or not, it's a free world (LOL).
AD, yes,I agree, that was why I posted this link, poor Nyquist, I share his frustration that his country has been captured by evil, with sociapaths in every government (and of course behind the scenes too).
Good luck to us all.
Gary,
"The many millions who present Putin (and Russia) as an innocent victim"
to which "millions" do you refer? Would you count me also to one of those millions, if I am not willing to swallow the crap forced and fed to me in Germany MSM by the Atlantik Brücke Propaganda Think Tank
Let's face it: That stuff is REAL! On the other hand that few Russia Today stuff is just child play.
And when I read about George Sorros engagement in the Ukraine, hmmmm, call me a conspiratist, but do you believe in his engagement because of for human rights and that crap?
Greets, AD
AD,
There are certainly millions around the world who do view Russia as innocent victims, one juts has to read widely to appreciate that view.
There is an anti-US consensus building, pretty much everywhere from what I read (even in America).
It is foolish to ignore Russia's machinations in the long-term strategy to implement socialism the world over via propaganda and infiltration: it is a fait accompli, the world is red all over.
It will also be foolish to view the impending conflicts as driven by one side or the other. Both have agendas, neither are the 'good guy', and the world is going to suffer for many more years (forever) due to our species inability to avoid being duped by sociopaths. (Huge number of fools in this world).
However, let's not allow those facts to get us down eh? Life is to be enjoyed.
An interesting chart:
http://www.marketanthropology.com/2015/03/size-matters-their-estimates-are-still.html
Where we are now in this cycle seems to equate to 1946 in the previous cycle.
So, that would mean only 35-40 years to wait for Freegold!!
Ha ha ha.
@Warren,
some interesting thoughts of Keith Weiner and Prof.Fekete, on why you might consider yourself in a monetary treadmill:
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=36462
@Gary,
yes, forget FG. Besides that. If I look at those kind of charts, I always wonder if the monetary plane lives in an dimension of its own. I mean, does the monetary plane care for the underlying physical plane at all (like innovations, government interventions, catastrophies, wars...)? Because staring at such charts implies this in a certain way.
@300
They just simply outlaw cash, put up capital controls and tax you for whatever they feel "reasonable".
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/03/24/frankreich-schraenkt-verwendung-von-bargeld-drastisch-ein/
But probably you are okay with that, as long as you get your social welfare "for free" and dont mind if they BS and rob you.
Greets, AD
Would you like a laugh at the expense of economists everywhere?
Have a read of this article:
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/zero-uk-inflation.html?showComment=1427290471826#c5282544320728990930
Someone left a somewhat sarcastic comment too.
Post a Comment