• Blog

    1971: The Year That Changed Everything

    The trajectory of nearly every facet of our way of life shifted massively
    by Adam Taggart

    Friday, September 25, 2020, 9:38 AM

The year 1971 saw the trajectories of nearly every major trend relative to our way of life shift massively.

That year is such a noticeable inflection point in so many data sets, that an intriguing website WTFHappenedIn1971.com has been created to drive the point home.

The website is a parade of data series visually showing how the world changed that year.

Be it income

Productivity vs Compensation chart

the cost of living

US CPI chart

….political polarization

Political Polarization chart

the divorce rate

Divorce rate chart

…and a kitchen sink’s worth of other statistics — from the national debt to deficit spending, childhood obesity, the incarceration rate, energy use per capita — pretty much all aspects of life as we know it changed materially and permanently in the early 1970s.

This week’s guest experts, Ben Prentice and Collin, founders of WTFHappenedIn1971.com, explain how virtually all of these changes are a direct or indirect result of the monetary system “breaking” that year with the Nixon Shock and the end of the Bretton Woods System.

On a personal note, interviewing Ben and Collin was an unexpected pleasure, as I found it encouraging to discover that members of the Millennial generation are engaging with the shortcomings of our modern debt-based fiat currency system with the same passion and critical thinking as we older cohorts. Perhaps the future might just turn out OK in their hands after all…

That said, Ben and Collin echo similar concerns and advice as our previous experts. The system is unfair, unsustainable, and in desperate need of reform. The prudent investor shouldn’t expect any real positive change until a painful enough shock forces an abandonment of the status quo — so it’s best to use the time now to position prudently in advance for that inevitability:

<<

Anyone interested in scheduling a free consultation and portfolio review with Mike Preston and John Llodra and their team at New Harbor Financial can do so by clicking here.

And if you’re one of the many readers brand new to Peak Prosperity over the past few months, we strongly urge you get your financial situation in order in parallel with your ongoing physical coronavirus preparations.

We recommend you do so in partnership with a professional financial advisor who understands the macro risks to the market that we discuss on this website. If you’ve already got one, great.

But if not, consider talking to the team at New Harbor. We’ve set up this ‘free consultation’ relationship with them to help folks exactly like you.

Related content
» More

39 Comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 10:32am

    #1

    northsheep

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jun 06 2009

    Posts: 4

    2

    Why stop at the monetary system as cause?

    I find it strange that an interview by Peak Prosperity would accept uncritically the claim of monetary system break as cause of the the shift in 1971. And what caused the money shift? When we all know that US energy production peaked at the same time?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 10:58am

    Nate

    Nate

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 468

    5

    energy production peak

    Energy is the big issue here.  Until 1972 the Texas Railroad Commission limited oil production in Texas.  And then this:

    The Texas Railroad Commission today increased allowable oil production of wells in the state for April to 100 per cent of their “maximum efficient rate” for the first time since 1948. The rate for March was 86 per cent.

    The action came after executives from the nation's largest oil companies gave rosy forecasts of growing market demands in 1972. But they said domestic production simply could not meet more than a fourth of the 800,000 to 900,000 more barrels a day the nation would use this year than it did in 1971.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/17/archives/texas-oil-rate-at-100-for-first-time-since-48.html

    OPEC had 2 major price increases in the 1970's.  How did Americans respond?  The stay at home moms went into the workforce in an attempt to maintain the same standard of living.

    Worked (sort of) once.  Don't think it will play out as well in the future.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 12:56pm

    #3
    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    1

    Close, but missing key pieces

    These guys are close. For a smarter, more technical discussion as to "why" listen to hedge fund managers Hendry & Gromen explain it in detail (most people simply don't have the educational background to understand the economic reasons 1971 is the key year).

    I really enjoyed the demographic discussion (I'm only one year off your age Adam, and have the same views of 1971).

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 1:00pm

    #4
    Redneck Engineer

    Redneck Engineer

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Mar 16 2020

    Posts: 112

    5

    1971 will live in infamy

    Great headline! Looking forward to the interview.

    For the US, the only worse year, in terms of long-term ill, is 1913: it birthed the Fed and the income tax, and massive growth in Washington power (to grow further under FDR and LBJ programs).

    As a general comment, I have no love for 1971 and its ill effects, but some commentators have compared America before and after 1971, looking at a decade or two on either side. The problem is an anchoring bias. The postwar American boom was a unique event, because WWII took out the manufacturing centers in Europe and Asia. For nearly 20 years the US had no real manufacturing competition, which allowed the US to have a (comparative) golden age. That also meant we could start making promises for future liabilities with the idea that the good times would never end.

    So it's tempting to anchor or baseline what a "healthy" America looked like to the postwar years. But that was never representative of the prior 100 years. A real baseline for expectations of life in America should look from post civil war to the present, and look at what those averages are.

    Early, long, and comfortable retirements were never a standard experience, except for a brief period. Same with high-paying Detroit factory jobs that could comfortably support a family of four.

    Too many Americans anchor to an idealized, romanticized 1950s world as the norm - but it was always an exception to the longer history.

    * None of this is to diminish the problems coming from 1971. I want to clarify that a common criticism is somewhat false due to the anchoring bias.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 1:24pm

    #5
    Steve

    Steve

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jun 27 2009

    Posts: 183

    1

    Brother, have you got a dime?

    Responding to the video comments regarding liquidation of assets during the "great depression," ... conditions are different today.

    At the time of the great depression, the federal reserve reduced the money supply.  Literally, the average US citizen's pockets were empty.  They did not have any money, not even a penny.  There was very little money circulating.

    Today, the federal reserve is creating money like a wild banshee.  The conditions are different.  The US dollar is washing about, almost everywhere.

    Will this lead to asset liquidation of the banks and property as in the "great depression?"

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 2:18pm

    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    3

    The conditions are different

    The US dollar is washing about, almost everywhere. Will this lead to asset liquidation of the banks and property as in the "great depression?"

    No. Watch hedge fund managers Hendry & Gromen explain why in detail. In fact, the USA is a "benevolent hegemony" since 1971, as we willingly exported all our jobs so that poor nations could to go from a $1/day to wealthy in 50 years. And we did it on the backs of US labor market...while all the profits went to Washington DC.

    Basically, since 1971 the working man (breadwinners) got screwed, which caused a trickle down effect on families for the bottom 80%. The top 20% did quite well since 1971.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 3:54pm

    vshelford

    vshelford

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 13 2014

    Posts: 165

    7

    I agree with the anchor bias comment

    '71 was bad, but it wasn't unique.  I was born in '47, among the earliest of the "boomers", so my cultural roots were in the wars and the depression. My husband was born in '40, so his were even more in that earlier "no hope" time.  (Edited to add:) Thinking back even further, my Dad was born in 1908.  The Great Depression hit when he was 22, just starting out.  He took anything he could get, selling stuff door to door (and anyone less suited to that would be hard to imagine - an intensely private man of few words.)  People now worry, and rightly so, about what this period will do to young people's prospects.  Well, the 30s didn't do anything for their prospects either.  But they outlived the bad times.

    We certainly felt the effects of the changes in the early 70s.  We'd just got married, had mortgaged ourselves to the hilt to buy a piece of land, couldn't get a mortgage to build anything but could get a "vacation loan" so used that to build the foundation and then mortgaged that, etc, until the house was up.  When we started, we weren't afraid of debt - that was how you did everything, because you figured you could pay it off eventually.  But the explosion in the cost of materials was terrifying.  We'd work out the prices of whatever we needed the following week, get quotes and "promises", and by Monday the promises were dead, and prices had gone up 10 - 30%, depending on the item.  So yes, it was bad.  The Volcker solution was applied when we had to move to get to a new job, so our new home mortgage was at 20%, after a year or two went down to about 13%.  We finally got out of debt 30 years later, and vowed never to get back in.  It was a rice and beans and DIY life, but we rode the ensuing inflation up, and eventually saved enough to semi-retire by building each house ourselves and selling it when we needed to move.

    So I appreciate what these young guys are saying.  I don't know if it represents hope, or just yadayada, that we've been here before, and that this too, I hope, will pass.

    I'd like to ask again, as I did in another post elsewhere - what am I missing about bitcoin?  I realize it's an innovative technology, but it is very energy intensive when energy is about to become less reliably available.  Also, I don't see how it is any less subject to control than anything else.  Someone is doing the mining, controlling the software, instituting laws about what form of money you need for paying taxes, and also playing it up and down like a game on "the markets", just as they're doing with gold, and the Fed is doing with the US dollar.  Some of this is government, some of it is "private enterprise" (the " marks are because I wonder how much outfits like Google or JPMorgan are private enterprise anymore, and how much they're an arm of government.)

    Anyway, just wondering.  All money is fiat to some extent, except for barter, which is obviously very limited.  In my life at least, we just lived with it, adapted to it as best we could, and found our value in life outside those limits.  If it really is a totally new thing under the sun, I hope to understand it better.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 5:35pm

    T-Storm

    T-Storm

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jul 11 2020

    Posts: 4

    4

    Nihilistic Weimar Germany

    The historical facts that document the decay of society when money is slowly destroyed is out there for those that care to look. Hard work and saving ethics continue to gradually fade away in America. Only to be replaced with rampant speculation, greed and scheming. America can do better!!! The Federal Reserve Bank and CONgress reign of terror is literally tearing apart our great society and they must be stopped immediately before any more damage is done. Where are today’s moral leaders that will make the right decisions about money, energy and the environment, and truly serve the American people?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 6:20pm

    #9
    Charles

    Charles

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jul 21 2018

    Posts: 7

    2

    End of the American Experiment?

    Chairman Mao stated shortly after Nixon‘s move off the gold standard: “We see the end of American experiment.“

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 7:10pm

    #10
    dreinmund

    dreinmund

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2011

    Posts: 58

    1

    1971 - failure of Gold (Bitcoin)

    Fascinating thought brought up at the end of the interview. Was 1971 a failure of Gold ? Is the thought of “getting back to a Gold Standard” really just a romanticized idea of the past ? Will Bitcoin take the baton ?

    I’m not a big crypto fan, but I will give it some more thought. The advice of having some of your net worth in Gold, perhaps should apply to Gold bugs as “have some of your net worth in Bitcoin / crypto”.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 7:37pm

    #11
    nhuvelle

    nhuvelle

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 21 2020

    Posts: 52

    3

    nhuvelle said:

    vshelford,

    I will just be direct with you- you are missing a lot about bitcoin. Miners do not control the network. No one controls the software for anyone else. You control your own bitcoin. There are a lot of surface-level arguments against bitcoin that seem strong; I promise you they are not. I strongly encourage you to read and learn as much about bitcoin as you can. If you would like some suggestions I can direct you to plenty of resources.

    Also, it is a big mistake to conflate bitcoin with "crypto". Don't be discouraged if you're not getting it at first, we are still very, very, early. But at the same time, the fact that bitcoin is so difficult to understand is precisely what allows it to be such a fantastic asymmetric bet. The market doesn't understand bitcoin yet, but it will. Since it's inception bitcoin has been the best performing asset in history and I believe it will continue to be the best performing asset until it has changed the world forever.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 9:16pm

    #12
    2retired

    2retired

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 20 2020

    Posts: 74

    4

    2retired said:

    I wonder how bitcoin would fare with a 'Carington' event; I remember the event in the 60's when the power grids went down in the whole northeast, and that was a minor sized solar flare

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Sep 25, 2020 - 9:37pm

    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    0

    1971 - failure of Gold (Bitcoin)

    dreinmund, I also found that part interesting. He's right in many respects:

    1. Gold did fail in 1971 - the US hegemony successfully outlawed it for personal use, then forced/bribed the entire world to fiat. However, the central banks may be making comeback for gold as things spin out of control.

    2. Bitcoin is no better: it can be outlawed even easier if the US ever wants to (right now, it's no threat so who cares). BC also fails for many other reasons: a) it will have the threat of being replaced by another crypto that has better facets, b) various states all over the world will outlaw it if it ever gets big enough to be a threat to their power, c) it faces the same problem of gold in that it cannot easily expand for economic growth (which, right or wrong, is what put a fork in gold).

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 1:32am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 269

    3

    Short of TEOTWAWKI...

    2retired said:

    I wonder how bitcoin would fare with a 'Carington' event

    It will fare better than any bank account, mortgage account, credit card account, set of health records, or portfolio of personal info lodged with the government. It'll fare better than a car built since the 1990s, or "smart" home energy meters and solar panel power systems.

    Will BTC become inaccessible in a grid-down scenario? Yes. Locally - whatever "local" means in the event. But unlike the other, traditional items I mention, about which no one ever asks "what will happen...?", BTC is stored on tens of thousands of computers scattered across the globe. Only if power goes out or systems fry everywhere at the same time will BTC disappear. In which case, I for one won't be wondering where my medical records are, or fretting about how much BTC I've lost.

    That kind of scenario is the case for also having some pm (at home, not in a vault somewhere) and some cash on hand, right? Or, better - since food on the table is not guaranteed for long by a pile of pm and a wad of cash in the safe - productive land.

    The real question, however, is: short of TEOTWAWKI, what's the value of BTC? That's the intriguing, and promising, question. Drop down that rabbit hole: it's far more likely.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 2:57am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 269

    4

    Show me the incentive...

    @MKI: What "put a fork in gold" was the habit of deficit spending adopted by government, especially the US, and the "endless summers" scenario of ever-increasing resource consumption that we'd been on since WWII. The global problem was that the restoration of Europe's War-devastated economies had largely taken place, so the wealth-generating productivity of the US was facing increased competition. Our high standard of living could no be longer maintained on the back of mostly one-sided international sales. As the world increasingly provided its own domestic goods, our markets were closing, but no politician here wanted to encourage Americans to shift to a lower relative standard of material consumption. It's no mistake that planned obsolescence has gone hand in hand with debt-based economics.

    IMO, the US did not abandon Bretton Woods because the gold standard could not keep pace with GDP growth. The problem was the government needed to be able to spend more than it brought in to realize the "American Dream" for all Americans as the working population grew while international markets contracted. "American Dream" was defined as "ever-increasing consumption," which is not identical to "high standard of living." Deficit spending and increased consumption, together, dictated going off the gold standard, not rising GDP. It was a political decision to support vote purchasing, and a business decision to benefit the high-production factory owners - both at the expense of the long-term welfare of the American people and environment (about which few thought very much at the time).

    Had we stayed on the gold standard, we would not see our wealth inflating away. Rather, we'd see our wealth growing as increased productivity/hour and (essentially) non-existent government spending caused goods prices to decrease. Quite likely, were our earnings not taxed and inflated away to provide us "benefits," the once-vaunted promise of more leisure and less wage-work through increasing production efficiencies could have been realized.

    We wouldn't need government benefits in such a case. Personal savings would be strong if tomorrow a dollar will buy more than it does today, so consumption would reduce as people adopt long time horizons and make more prudent decisions about what artifacts are "must have's." Planned obsolescence goes out the window, too, as people demand longer-lasting consumer goods. So there enters the resource-use discipline we're lacking and can't seem to instill despite long, costly educational campaigns.

    As Munger said: "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."

    Bitcoin offers an opportunity to opt for a non-State coin that has the same hard money characteristics as a gold standard. It's virtue is that it remains constantly hard, and increases in nominal value as fiats continue to be inflated toward worthlessness.

    Can BTC be outlawed? Yes. Can it be suppressed? Well, even Venezuela and China are finding it incredibly difficult to curtail its use. Can the US do better? Possibly, if our government becomes as oppressive, but so far people less accustomed to individual liberty than us have resisted, and have used BTC to preserve wealth and move it outside of national boundaries.

    What we actually see, however, is the US government slowly embracing crypto in general, and BTC in particular. Thus the new Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) legal framework codified in Wyoming a year ago this month; and now the first approved SPDI bank charter - given this month to Kraken, a cryptocurrency exchange. There is at least one more SPDI bank charter coming soon, to a startup called Avanti.

    These banks will be operating within a year, able to custody both dollars and cryptocurrencies across the US, in the same bank accounts, and offer all of the services banks normally offer. The one thing they cannot do that all other US banks do, is take possession of customer deposits and redeploy them as the bank chooses. SPDIs are custodians; they custody monetary assets as a custodian depository for gold custodies customer gold - each in its own silo, forever owned by the person who placed it there for safekeeping.

    This development is not the path of segregating and forbidding crypto; quite the opposite. And as increasing big-money financial firms add crypto (esp. and mostly BTC) into their investment portfolios, politicians on the receiving end of big money contributions lose appetite for suppression. This is not 1971, and we are headed in an opposite trajectory because those same commercial interests that made real money by abandoning gold now see that the real money in the future is not in overly inflated and hypothesized currency. Debt expansion, like resource consumption, is reaching its end-point. The future is in hard money currencies. (Thus Russia, China, India, Brazil, and even Western European countries are reclaiming gold stored out-of-country, and are adding to their sovereign gold holdings.)

    Bitcoin plays into that hard-money scenario, and smart money knows it. So Jaime Dimon loudly tells the retail investor there's no future in BTC while JPMorgan Chase busily establishes a large crypto trading desk, effectively front-running Joe and Jane Sixpack for still-inexpensive crypto assets. (Kinda reminds me of Coronavirus "masks don't work" assertions back in February and March while the government scarfed up all the masks it could find.)

    The incentive today is in owning cryptocurrencies, especially BTC. Smart money - whether individual high-net-worth investors, or hedge funds, or family offices, or institutional investment houses, or retirement account managers, or corporations with excess cash - are either starting to buy or are looking closely. The limiting factor for many large firms is not the question of whether BTC is the future, it's the problem of the BTC market still being too small for them to be able to move in with the quantity of dollars they need to use to make a difference for them, without destabilizing the coin price. That is, the BTC market is not yet liquid enough; the market cap is too small. But that's changing as smaller "big money" entities take stakes. That organically grows the market cap, which entices the next tranche of investors, building momentum.

    Wide-spread adoption is already happening. We're watching another example of "case, case, cluster, cluster, boom." We're now moving into the "cluster, cluster" phase. We know what comes next.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 4:51am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 269

    2

    Crypto Mining's Energy Consumption

    @vshelford said:

    I realize it's an innovative technology, but it is very energy intensive when energy is about to become less reliably available.

    Bitcoin mining does consume a lot of energy. And without miners looking for cheaper ways to secure that energy, the cost of mining would keep going up, making mining a diminishing return on investment. In turn, that would slowly erode the network and, finally, produce failure. But that's not what's happening. Instead, miners are growing their mining activities even as the number of bitcoin they receive for their work is diminishing, and by a lot. Every 4 years, the number of coins a miner receives for maintaining the system is cut in half. Energy cost alone should be destroying their profitability, but they're expanding their operations. So what's going on? Several things.

    First, miners look for places where there is excess energy production. Certain Eastern European countries, for example, produce more energy than they use. Iceland, too. Unused energy is an economic loss for local companies, and that is a drag on the local and national economy in those countries. When Bitcoin mining moves in and consumes the excess, even at a wholesale discount, the entire economy operates more efficiently, and wealth expands. In such settings, mining does not take energy away from other productive uses, but adds revenue to the local stream.

    Second, because miners are looking for greater energy efficiency, they are among the foremost adopters of clean energy. They locate in places where they can take advantage of existing solar, geothermal, and hydro electricity generation. They also establish their own solar farms, on occasion, as a means to reduce energy costs, primarily, and environmental impact secondarily. As adopters of green energy they help drive innovation and improvement in those fields, in the same way that they have driven dramatic improvements in computer processing speeds by seeking faster, more efficient chips. (I liken this to the way innovation in race car technology leads to improved performance, power, and efficiency for road-legal automobiles.)

    Is mining everywhere and always a net positive for energy and environment? No. What is? But as energy consumes more of the revenue mining produces, and as the costs of energy climb, Bitcoin miners are among the vanguard of consumers that want, and have an incentive to pursue, more efficient and greener options. In true free market style, personal interest drives social good.

    Here's a key, brief article on the issue that has enough links to lead you down the rabbit warren as far as you care to go: https://cointelegraph.com/news/researcher-challenges-bitcoin-mining-energy-consumption-alarmists-says-debate-oversimplified

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 8:43am

    #17
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 806

    3

    Open Letter To Ray Dalio, re. BTC

    Discussion on Pomp elucidating why BTC is the perfect money.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0N9qj4gjmg

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 9:03am

    nhuvelle

    nhuvelle

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 21 2020

    Posts: 52

    2

    nhuvelle said:

    ^Robert Breedlove is one of the brightest minds in bitcoin, maybe my favorite bitcoin author/content creator. I highly recommend watching that entire Pomp interview with Breedlove that Mohammed Mast posted. Breedlove also has written a bunch of brilliant articles on Medium.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 12:05pm

    #19
    Redneck Engineer

    Redneck Engineer

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Mar 16 2020

    Posts: 112

    2

    Bretton Woods: not a gold standard

    1971 saw the end of Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods (1945-1973) was not a gold standard system. It was personally designed by Keynes and White, who were emphatic that it would not be another gold standard.

    "Although Keynes and White had many disagreements pertaining to the details of the new economic system, they both agreed what the system would not be – another Gold Standard."

    https://www.dailyhistory.org/Why_Did_the_Bretton_Woods_Economic_System_End%3F

    What led to the collapse of Bretton Woods?

    (from the same article)

    "Part of the problem was due to increased American spending on the Vietnam War and President Johnson’s Great Society program, but issues outside of the Americans’ control also began to take a toll on the system.

    France was also a major player in the Bretton Woods system, but never content to be fourth or fifth in the pecking order. In 1966, France left NATO and two years later it converted $150 million of its reserve dollars into gold and then left the gold pool, essentially ending their involvement in the Bretton Woods System."

    With a sound currency, government cannot print money to fund every desire. Sounds money acts as a control on government spending. But LBJ pushed forward, simultaneously, with an expensive war and with an expensive increase in government programs (the "Great Society"). The funding sources would be debt, taxes, or devaluing the currency. Or a combination.

    De Gaulle and others realized that the additional money printing in the late 1960s was unsustainable, and the US would eventually be unwilling or unable to honor the conversion from the dollar to gold. So, he pushed to convert France's dollar holdings, which put the squeeze on Washington. They didn't have enough gold to honor the trade, so Nixon closed the gold window.

    TL;DR: Bretton Woods failed because of government spending, not a tie to gold.

    Edit to add:

    There are numerous cases in history in which nations went off a gold standard to take on debt to fund a major war. A gold standard makes it too hard to raise the funds necessary to pay for such an expensive enterprise.

    Britain went off a gold standard in WWI, took on debt to fund the war, and then attempted to return to it after. Churchill made the mistake of pricing gold at pre-war price, which caused a massive deflation that crushed the British economy, and is largely responsible for the fall of the British Empire. Had he priced gold at the current price, they likely would have avoided the economic crash. Churchill later called it his greatest mistake.

    LBJ's great expansion of the war in Vietnam, like most large wars, required huge funds, which meant using unsound money. Couple that with federal expansion and the final severing of a tie to gold was inevitable.

    Nixon pulled the trigger, but LBJ made it inevitable.

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-really-killed-the-gold-standard-12435

    Of course, the history of monetary policy post-WWI included various flavors of semi-quasi-gold-standard systems, but not true gold standards as existed prior. I would point to the price stability of the 19th century as an indicator of what a gold standard could do.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Sep 26, 2020 - 9:03pm

    #20
    centroid

    centroid

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 16 2014

    Posts: 84

    0

    centroid said:

    questions for bitcoin:

    1/ despite its energy consumption, will bitcoin actually make the economy more efficient, so that gross energy consumption goes down

    2/ is byzantine reliable broadcast protocol a threat to bitcoin?

    3/would photonic computing cause a bitcoin price drop?

    4/ how does one overcome the threat of if you send to the wrong address, your money is lost

    5/ will bitcoin obviate the need for population increase?

    6/ will bitcoin network energy consumption approach an asymptote in the future?

    7/ would tokenized gold make a new gold standard more viable?

    thanks. great video

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 10:54am

    #21
    tbp

    tbp

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 530

    0

    Gold standard, tokenized gold, questions about Bitcoin

    A return to the gold standard is an idea for an economic reset that has been floating around for a while. The problem is who has most of the gold. Absent some ET technology that would allow us to detect all gold from a distance... what other resource of known scarcity status could be distributed? Cryptocurrencies based on provable statements (such as Cardano) seem like the most solid option. Even Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies with less than 100% transaction finality would be reasonable options, certainly more than financialized QE-to-infinity fiat.

    Indeed the years 1913, 1971, and please don't forget 2009!, are the major years that "changed everything" economically.

    1/ despite its energy consumption, will bitcoin actually make the economy more efficient, so that gross energy consumption goes down

    Even if we assume it wouldn't, that shouldn't be a requirement, if it's the same as fiat.

    2/ is byzantine reliable broadcast protocol a threat to bitcoin?

    Not sure what you mean. Byzantine fault tolerance is a property of cryptocurrencies that refers to its ability to survive a coordinated attack by which many nodes/participants (or Byzantine generals) are corrupt/overtaken by malicious players and send fake data in order to compromise/destroy the reliability of the system.

    3/would photonic computing cause a bitcoin price drop?

    Not sure, but that doesn't seem important to its long-term viability.

    4/ how does one overcome the threat of if you send to the wrong address, your money is lost

    The address generation scheme has built-in safeguards: if you get one or more characters wrong, a verification checksum fails, making it an invalid address that you can't send to, just like with credit/debit cards. If you send it to the wrong valid address, then yeah, you're screwed unless the owner is willing to send it back. But that's not a design flaw, that's a human doing a dumb mistake.

    5/ will bitcoin obviate the need for population increase?

    How is population increase a need in a fiat system? The globalists and central banksters are vying for a massive decrease, not increase, in population.

    6/ will bitcoin network energy consumption approach an asymptote in the future?

    Probably not, because as difficulity(/energy consumption) increases and halvings drop earning potentials, the least competitive players exit. And see VTGothic's post above regarding how the miners are optimizing using excess energy production that would otherwise be wasted. There is also not a very strong reason to believe that BTC will remain #1 forever, and other consensus mechanisms may overtake its pioneering Proof-of-Work mechanism that aren't replacing central trusted third-parties with computational power/energy consumption, such as Proof-of-Stake, Proof-of-History and gossip-of-gossip as in Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR), decentralized acyclic graphs (DAGs) and combinations with blockchain as in Fantom (FTM), the agent-centric model pioneered by Holochain (HOT)...

    7/ would tokenized gold make a new gold standard more viable?

    That's an excellent question. There are already a bunch of gold-backed and other gold-related crypto projects: https://www.goldscape.net/gold-blog/gold-backed-cryptocurrency/ There's the problem of who has the gold. And the major problem remains of how to properly do initial equitable distribution.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 12:41pm

    #22
    climber99

    climber99

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 201

    2

    US conventional oil production peaked in 1970

    Unbelievable.  Peak prosperity has lost its focus.

    I thought it explored the connection between energy, the economy and the environment yet no one thought to point out that US conventional oil production peaked in 1970.

    I am truly shocked.  Where is Chris? We need him back.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 1:24pm

    #23
    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    0

    US conventional oil production peaked in 1970

    US conventional oil production peaked in 1970

    So what? First, the price hasn't soared because of this. Second, places with zero oil (say Japan) are doing quite well and those with lots of oil not so much (Russia, SA). Third, total US production is still doing fine.

    If anything, the data we see from today argues against the idea oil has anything to do with the 1971 to 2020 downturn. We saw this in 2015 - the dollar was the key to understanding things, not oil production. This is likely why nothing was mentioned - the "energy-economy" thesis has been tested and found wanting. Much like the gold standard or communism - who cares if "in theory" it is supposed to work. In practice, it has failed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 3:55pm

    EddieLarry

    EddieLarry

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jul 04 2020

    Posts: 37

    1

    It is all psychological!

    Fine post Red.  The dollar, gold, beads, bitcoin, they are all fiat currencies.  And all are based on human emotions.  We humans, can’t escape being human.  It is the way it is.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 4:07pm

    climber99

    climber99

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 201

    1

    climber99 said:

    Not all oil is the same.  Conventional oil production (the one that peaked in the US in 1970) has very high Net energy while the tight oil and oil from tar sands production, that was developed to replace declining conventional oil production since 1970, has a very poor Net energy.  That has very profound effects on the economy and debt levels because the economy runs on Net energy.

    I can't believe that I am having to explain this to anyone on Peak Prosperity.

    PS  Net energy = energy content of the extracted oil minus the energy that has gone into the extraction process.

    PS2.  The value of gold or Bitcoin is a measure of the energy that went into their production so yes, energy is also central to that debate too.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 6:28pm

    #26
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 806

    0

    Open Letter to Ray Dalio re. BITCOIN

    Somebody (an obvious uninformed noob) just posted in this thread that BTC is fiat. It is ludicrous uninformed statements such as this which have caused me to look elsewhere for intelligent discussions about BTC and other cryptos. It is like doing the time warp again.

    That being said the interview below on POMP gives an excellent view of the BTC protocol in relation to fiat, money, gold and philosophy.

    There is a tremendous amount of information online about BTC and other cryptos. It would be not only nice, polite, and intelligent to research the issues before wasting bandwidth with inane statements, but it would have the added benefit of raising the apparent IQ of the site.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0N9qj4gjmg

    Going back on vacation where I should have stayed. I know ap will agree with the last sentence.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Sep 27, 2020 - 10:28pm

    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    0

    MKI said:

    I can't believe that I am having to explain this to anyone on Peak Prosperity.

    You don't need to explain oil to me. I repeat: There is no empirical evidence for your "expensive oil is causing economic havoc" theory.

    Facts: We are producing plenty of oil for the world (too much, in fact, for those who know the industry!). Oil is simply not expensive, nor is NG or coal. Producers are suffering from too much oil, and consumers are doing fine...which is what must see if "lack of oil" was driving the post 1971 blues.

    I look at data. Not theories of what "should have happened" due to "net energy".

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 1:06am

    climber99

    climber99

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 201

    1

    It is not the lack of oil that is the problem.

    It is not the lack of oil but declining net energy of the oil which is the problem.  In order to grow the economy in the face of declining net energy one has to bring future oil production and future consumption forward in time.  One does this by debt and clearly explains why debt levels started to explode from about 1970.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 4:24am

    #29

    davefairtex

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2189

    2

    nixon re-election the trigger

    A while back I did a review of the macroeconomic stuff happening 1971-1972, alongside the political and socioeconomic activities of the time, and I concluded that Nixon yanked us off the gold standard to enable the Fed to drop rates (which they did), spurring an economic expansion in the months leading up to his re-election campaign in 1972.

    There's a number of recorded conversations between Nixon and the Fed Chairman that provide a lot of support for the "drop rates to increase my election chances" theme.

    https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/meltzer/jep_2006_abrams_how_richard_nixon.pdf

    Given the gold standard in place at the time, the Fed dropping rates at a time when credit growth was screaming higher (at 10% per year, in mid-1971, rising to almost 22% per year later), meant that gold would just get sucked right out of the US by all the other countries due to the very real inflation concerns.  So if the Fed was going to drop rates, the US had to leave the gold standard.  That's just all there was to it.

    Why take this dramatic step?

    Taken in context, the Democrats terrified "the establishment" people of the time.  The elites would have pulled the plug on their mothers, never mind the gold standard, to avoid electing a Democrat in 1972.  The party platform that ended up being adopted for the Dems in 1972 was very astonishing.  Apart from the Vietnam War stuff (abolition of the draft, amnesty for war resisters, immediate withdrawal from Vietnam), there was to be guaranteed jobs for all Americans, and a guaranteed family income for everyone - "well above the poverty line."  Guaranteed jobs?  A UBI?  In 1972!!

    So the Fed dutifully dropped rates in 1971, Nixon yanked the country off the gold standard (as a temporary measure, no doubt) so all the gold wouldn't vanish, he imposed wage & price controls to keep a lid on the CPI, the economy bounced back from the 1970 recession,  and Nixon was re-elected in a landslide.

    Of course, in the background, credit growth - the driver of inflation at the time - was just going nuts due to the low rates.  This credit growth eventually led to the massive inflation of the early 70s, which peaked at 12% per year!!

    So - long story short - we dropped off the gold standard so Nixon could win his election in 1972.  That's "proximate cause" anyway.

    Here's a busy chart that tries to lay this out:

    1) Recession of 1970.  No President gets re-elected during a recession.

    2) Fed funds rate cut from 5% to 2.5% roughly at the same time Nixon pulls the plug on the gold standard.  LOANS @ 12% growth per year = very inflationary.

    3) INDPRO rises by 12%/year by election day.  Everyone happy.  Nixon elected by a landslide.  Wage & price controls keep inflation under control through the election.

    4) Post-election, inflation eventually peaks out at 12% in mid-1974; credit growth at end 1973 was 22%!  Fed did raise rates (to more than 10%!!), but the inflationary impulse was already set in place by the actions in 1971.  These numbers are astonishing to us these days...

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 5:24am

    #30

    Oliveoilguy

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 826

    6

    Is this proof of ballot harvesting?

    James O’Keife has a new undercover video showing images of people bragging about getting money for ballots and in one shot having more than 3 (which is illegal) ballots in his car. The video is compelling....not sure if it offers conclusive proof.

    https://www.projectveritas.com/news/ilhan-omar-connected-cash-for-ballots-voter-fraud-scheme-corrupts-elections/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 9:09am

    #31
    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    0

    Future oil production and consumption forward in time by debt

    In order to grow the economy in the face of declining net energy one has to bring future oil production and future consumption forward in time. One does this by debt and clearly explains why debt levels started to explode from about 1970.

    The idea the world can "print" or "borrow" their way into actual, real-life energy consumption today is simply untrue. The energy must be produced in real life, today.

    Any debt does not need to be repaid at all, it can be written off. And we have seen this empirically: QE has been vigorous and immense, yet prices remain reasonable. The reason, of course, is QE is monetary (wiping out debt) and not fiscal (consumption).

    We make real roads, fuel, trucks, and food for society to run. How this is handled on paper? Who cares? One cannot "borrow" real fuel into existence "from the future". It must be drilled and produced today.

    None of this is theory. The real data shows real oil being produced today. If we "borrowed" our way into this production since 1971 it would have had to hit prices. Hell, it's been 50 years!

    These are the facts. Everything else is just a theory not yet borne out by the data. Examine nations like Japan which have no oil or even any energy at all in practical terms. How can they last 50 years of extreme wealth by "borrowing from the future"? My mind is open to any change in empirical evidence. Is yours?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 11:00am

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5369

    5

    Net Energy Is Everything

    It is not the lack of oil but declining net energy of the oil which is the problem.  In order to grow the economy in the face of declining net energy one has to bring future oil production and future consumption forward in time.  One does this by debt and clearly explains why debt levels started to explode from about 1970.

    Thanks climber99.  The idea is simple enough; everything we see around us is a function of surplus, or net, energy.

    Everything.

    The grass grows because of the net energy it receives from running a redox reaction on carbon dioxide using the sun's surplus energy.  Take away the sun's light, or even just the necessary wavelengths, and - poof! - no more grass growth.

    Similarly the entire economy functions on the basis of surplus energy.  Once that came from the gap between a farmer's inputs and outputs.  The positive calorie gap explained the entirety of the abundance of the culture in proximity to the fields.

    Rich areas had tall church steeples and rocky, barren areas were dotted with threadbare shacks.

    In 1970 it is my estimation that net oil energy per capita peaked.  We had the most conventional oil coming out of the ground with 1/2 the people.

    Since then two trends have been clear; (1) more people and (2) less net energy.

    Offsetting #2 has been increased efficiency (e.g. in transport and HVAC) and cheaper and cheaper debt/money.   But that latter point is merely a diversion - a delaying tactic.

    Eventually all the 'expensive' oil (really just lower net energy oil) replaces the cheap oil and suddenly all sorts of things that were possible are no longer possible.

    To me this explains perfectly the increasing difficulty of households to afford their lifestyles.  Of course there are other aspects adding to this erosion, such as ruinous tax and trade policies as well as fraudulent inflation reporting, but the prediction that falling net energy would lead to a "bottom up squeeze" is the main working hypothesis upon which the rest sits.

    There's no doubt in my mind that we all face a very difficult future based on declining net energy, and that without an accurate diagnosis there can be no effective response.

    So people are mainly divided and distracted in their appointment of blame, always mysteriously away from the truth and away from the elites.  (Not so mysteriously once you watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix).

    Net energy.

    It's everything.  And it's been waning for a while...and that seems to be a permanent condition.

    In other words, the next twenty years are going to be completely unlike the last twenty years.  Got a garden?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 3:32pm

    climber99

    climber99

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 201

    1

    We are on the same page, I think.

    Thank you for your reply.  I think you misunderstand what I meant with the phrase bringing future production and consumption forward in time.  Maybe the best way to clarify this is to use an example.

    Lets start with consumption, probably the easiest of the two to explain.  Imagine someone wants a car but can't afford to buy it.  They could save and then buy the car or they can borrow the money (created by the bank out of thin air).  They forego some of their wage in the future to enjoy the car now.  Debt has allowed future consumption to be brought forward in time.

    OK, now production.  A company finds oil under the ground but they can't afford to drill for it because it is really expensive.   It either stays in the ground or they borrow the money (again from banks who create it out of thin air) now to repay it in the future.  Again debt has allowed oil that would have remained in the ground for future extraction to be extracted now. In others words, debt has brought the production forward in time.

    The trouble with declining net energy is that the economy ought to be declining too.  But we don't want to let that happen, or most people don't and certainly governments and central banks don't.   So .... how do we do this trick of self levitation?  We do this by borrowing money (from banks who create it out of thin air) to bring future production and consumption forward in time and exponencially.  Production, consumption and energy, that we were reserving for the future, into the now.  Short term gain for long term pain.

    This is the biggy, are you ready?    And you were totally correct in what you said,  money can't create extra energy production because we live in a finite world so eventually the present catches up with the future.  Debts (money creation) eventually gets so large on the exponential curve that the future defaults on the present.

    Hopefully, you can see now that we are both in broad agreement with one another but may be I didn't explain myself well enough, first time.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 7:57pm

    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 255

    0

    Getting to the same page

    Climber99, I probably don't sound like it, but I really do seek agreement with people :-). And I think you express yourself quite well, which is why I'm fairly sure we disagree. It's likely any confusion comes from me not not explaining myself clearly; so I'll try again:

    1) All people agree on the concept of "net energy". It's a reality of physics and a very simple concept. I've never met anyone who disagrees with it.

    2) I do not think "net energy" changes are the leading factor for US wealth generation, set in 1971. Not even one of many leading causes.

    So: I'm fairly sure we disagree. Assuming so, the real Q is: what is the truth? Since any theory based in logic/science must be testable (otherwise, it's not science/logic at all, merely speculation) I always use empirical data to craft a model that fits said data. If my model is reasonable, and I don't confuse cause-and-effect, it should have at least some predictive power.

    Unfortunately, the "net energy" hypothesis of economics simply has not done a good job predicting the real world (plus it doesn't make a lot of sense for other logical reasons). But this lack of predictive power is the primary reason why I (and very, very few educated people) subscribe to it as the leading cause of the US economic malaise since 1971. Let me be clear: I'm no ideologue on this issue and am not wedded to any particular position. In fact, I've modified my opinion much over the last 30 years based on data. It's been a wild ride.

    As I linked above, two gents (of many) who have made very good predictions regarding capital flows and commodities (that do not focus on net energy and gotten quite wealthy in doing so) are hedge fund managers Hendry & Gromen. I find their assessments having both predictive power and making a lot of sense. YMMV.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 28, 2020 - 8:43pm

    #35

    Quercus bicolor

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 432

    7

    Ways to hide declining net energy for a while

    1. Let your infrastructure degrade by deferring maintenance.  Much of it will continue to work nearly as well as if it was maintained properly - until it fails.
    2. Send both adults in the household to work.  This is basically deferring investment in social cohesion, raising children well, etc.  Once again, everything will work fairly well until it fails.
    3. Drive the consumption mill so hard with marketing, PR, etc. that it damages social and cultural capital even as it provides short term economic boosts.
    4. Farm in a way that causes your top soil to wash away and lose organic matter/nutrients.  Cover it up with NPK fertilizers.
    5. Take shortcuts in manufacturing/mining, etc. that result in greater short term efficiency but long term losses due to pollution, loss of ecosystems, etc.
    6. Treat the oceans as a fish mine rather than a source of fish far into the future.
    7. Use the well developed tools of empire (military, covert operations, diplomacy) to move wealth from the periphery towards the center.

    There is plenty of capital in the account that has been built up over centuries of civilization building.  1-7 are techniques for mining the capital in ways that keep the game going for a while.  The basic strategy is to raid the parts that won't cause immediate damage but will inevitably result in mid to long term collapse.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Sep 29, 2020 - 2:01am

    climber99

    climber99

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 201

    2

    climber99 said:

    Yep, all the things that you mentioned are consistent with an empire in decline and in its latter stages.  You may be interested in pieces from Greer who wrote about the rise and fall of civilizations (amongst other things) in his archdruid report; sadly no longer available free.  However, this paper from him is free, although it is heavy reading relative to his usual standards.

    https://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Sep 30, 2020 - 7:51pm

    #37
    Barbara

    Barbara

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 15 2009

    Posts: 181

    0

    Energy inflection in 73 too

    I remember from the mid-80's seeing some of these disconnects centered not quite around 71, but rather around the 73 oil embargo.  The long-term average value of the stock market took a big drop - slope didn't change so much, as US just wasn't worth as much when oil is hard to get.

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Sep 30, 2020 - 8:44pm

    Quercus bicolor

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 432

    1

    Greer

    Thanks for that.  I read the archdruid report weekly for many years.  John Michael Greer has definitely influenced my thinking on these issues.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 16, 2020 - 3:11am

    #39
    RandomMike

    RandomMike

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2020

    Posts: 71

    0

    Steve Martin on 1971

     

     

    "But Steve, that reminds me, think about your beginnings.

    Before you became a stand-up,

    you were a comedy writer for the Smothers Brothers

    who's show canceled because of its anti-Vietnam stance.
    And during a time when a lot of the comedy was angry
    and political, George Carlin, Richard Pryor,
    you were the cheerful, clean-cut guy.
    It was absurd and funny in a serious time.
    Every comedian did politics, politics, politics.
    1971, I thought things are gonna change.
    I cut my hair.
    I shaved my beard, and I put on a suit
    rather than my hippy clothes.
    I took out every, not every, but every sort of curse word.
    And I became like an accountant.
    That suit, that the suit would work the way it did,
    just everything, it was like a pure invention of yourself.
    I dunno, I think the nation was waiting,
    was just kinda ready for something a little goofy.
    An unbelievable piece of self-design.
    -------------------------From New Yorker interview:

     

     

    https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/the-new-yorker-festival-steve-martin-and-jerry-seinfeld-on-why-irritability-makes-a-good-comedian

    Login or Register to post comments