Blog

Shutterstock

When This All Blows Up...

Understanding the how & when of the next economic crash
Saturday, March 11, 2017, 1:01 AM

This report marks the end of a series of three big trains of thought. The first explained how we’re living through the Mother Of All Financial Bubbles. The next detailed the Great Wealth Transfer that is now underway, siphoning our wealth into the pockets of an elite few.

This concluding report predicts how these deleterious and unsustainable trends will inevitably ‘resolve’ (which is a pleasant way of saying ‘blow up’.)

The Ka-POOM Theory

In terms how this will all end, we favor the scenario put forth by Eric Janszen in 1998 called the Ka-POOM theory.

This theory rests on the belief that the Federal Reserve along with the other world central banks looked at Japan's several decades of economic stagnation and decided that deflationary recessions are to be avoided at all costs -- even if that means blowing asset bubbles and then cleaning up the destruction left behind in their aftermath.

Because the Fed, et al. have a limited playbook (which is: print, and then print some more), the Ka-POOM model calls for limited periods of disinflation, followed by massive money printing sprees that then produce high inflation.

Despite the trillions and trillions in thin-air money printed by the world's central banks over the past 8 years, a common rebuttal we hear is “But there’s been no inflation so far!”  To which I reply, “Yes, that’s what we're being told. But that's not actually true.”

Remember: inflation is simply “too much money chasing too few goods.”  We can detect today's excess of money in the rising prices in our cost of living -- but those higher prices are symptoms, not causes. Inflation is not "higher prices". Inflation is "too much money".

Next, inflation is not an evenly-distributed event. It’s not like the price of everything rises 10% at the same time. The inflation rate is an average, which contains some prices going up, while others stay flat or even go down going down. It’s always a lumpy experience.  The reason why is that money is not evenly distributed across the economy, and it doesn't always chase (or desire) the same things.

So the Fed and other central banks have printed up trillions and trillions of dollars, euros and yen, which they then essentially handed over to the financial markets and the very few people who work within them (as well as their biggest clients).  As a direct consequence, we’ve seen enormous inflation in the prices of things that relate to that tiny universe of people – stocks, bonds, trophy city apartments, Gulfstream 5 jets, fine art, and rare gems. 

These items have all gotten massively more expensive over the past decade. Just as would have happened if the Fed had printed up a trillion dollars and given them everyone living in a trailer park in the American South, with the restriction that the money could only be used to buy other trailers in the region. Do you have any doubt that the price of trailers in the South wouldn't explode upwards?

Well, that’s exactly analogous to what has happened to financial and trophy assets. The amount of money created and poured into the financial markets by that central banks has been incredibly enormous. As a first-order event, it raised the prices of nearly all financial assets. And then, as a second-order derivative, it then flowed into the properties and cherished possessions of the financial industry insiders. 

The summary is that we’ve already had lots of inflation – but it has (so far) been mostly contained to the areas where the freshly-printed money was first directed. No surprise there.

But it's certainly not only been limited to the rarified items the rich enjoy. Anyone who is currently looking to purchase a home, car or college education has a pretty good idea how prices have jumped substantially over the past decade.

Here’s the thing about the attempts by central banks to circumvent the workings of the actual economy by simply printing up money: It is doomed to fail. It always does; one cannot simply 'print up' prosperity.  Printing up money merely creates the illusion of free wealth for those with first access to it. In reality, what happens is that it secretly transfers the wealth from everyone else to those lucky few. 

The Fed and the rest of the central banking cartel are consciously and very pointedly picking winners and losers.

It’s not in their power to make everyone a winner.  So they have decided to throwing granny (and savers and pensions) under the bus while financial elites and well-connected speculators (e.g. JP Morgan and other large banks) extremely wealthy in the process.  Wealth is being transferred from Parties B-Z to Party A – from the many to the few.

What the Fed promised would happen along with all of this money printing has not materialized. There has been no return to rapid economic growth. And there won't be, because we have massive structural problems in our economy that can't be papered over forever.

This stark fact makes the Fed's entire money printing misadventure not just pointless, but dangerously destabilizing from a social and political perspective. The world's central banks, especially the Fed, have done an enormous amount of damage. These institutions, as well as the decision-makers within them, are going to have a heck of lot to answer for when the inevitable crack-up comes.

A Quick Re-Cap

And so here we find ourselves, at the final torturous, grinding part where the final bubble top is formed. The über-bubble. The Greatest Of Them All.

A bubble this spectacular requires a top worthy of its size. A long, massive top, full of increasing exuberance -- until the very last investor is sucked in. 

Where I’ve noted humans’ remarkably silly behavior during bubble episodes in the past – tulip bulbs, railroads, swampland  - I still struggle to understand or even explain this one.

It’s so obvious at this point. And yet, like its brethren bubbles of the past, a lot of otherwise thoughtful and careful people are getting sucked in by its siren song.

I guess the best economic description of it might be “a credit bubble” with sub-components like sovereign and household debt, and sub-sub-components like Toronto real estate and the IPO price for SNAP shares (that’s Snapchat, which soon after its launch, had a valuation of $40 billion. This mind you, is a company that has no identifiable revenue model).

A credit bubble occurs when the issuance of credit grows faster than income supporting it. Here’s what that looks like on a national scale for the US. The bottom red line is income (GDP) and the top blue line is Total Debt. We can see that debt has been growing at twice the rate of GDP since 1970:

Debt to GDP

You have to be quite delusional to think that debt can be compound at twice the rate of income forever. Unfortunately, there are more than a few of those ungrounded optimists working in central banks and governments the world over. Their thinking is simply, The sky’s the limit! 

Those of us living in reality find this mindset puerile and insulting. And, of course, dangerously reckless. And it’s also maddening to hear the media cheerleaders for Wall Street selling us this bunk as if it were somehow sensible.  It is not.

Look, millions -- likely billions -- of people are at risk of getting badly hurt. When this bubble blows, it’s going to be enormously destructive and take out a lot of wealth along the way.  Millions of jobs will be destroyed. What people think of as wealth will evaporate as though it never existed in the first place (it didn’t). Political dynasties and major financial institutions will be ruined.

As I wrote recently, this will be widely and popularly referred to a period of wealth destruction. It will feel that way to must, but it will be actually be a period of wealth transfer:

The summary here is this: We are still printing and borrowing enormous amounts of money and credit, but the world is not growing any larger in response.  The pressure is building.  Nobody knows when all of that money and credit will have to be 'trued up' against the amount of real stuff out there. But it will. History shows us that it always does.

And that moment will be referred to by most as a period of wealth destruction. 401ks will be shredded, bonds will become worthless, defaults will spike, institutions and entire countries will fail - but the truth is that all of that paper 'wealth' was an illusion. People's faith in it had been betrayed long before, when those in power started abusing the system by creating too many tertiary claims.

After the dust settles, there will be winners and losers, and those with the proper framework will understand that what actually happened was that all of the wealth was transferred from those who thought they owned it, to those who actually did.

The biggest remaining question is whether the wealth transfer comes about in the form of an inflationary destruction, like in Venezuela today, or as a deflationary bust more in the fashion of Greece.

(Source)

The only thing that capable of preventing this coming carnage would a resumption of rapid economic growth. And I mean growth that exceeds the rate of debt creation.

But that's simply not going to happen. 

The Problem With Growth

We can dispense with the idea of “solving” our too-much-debt problem by a resumption of rapid economic growth either by deduction or observation.  Both work just as well on their own, but each tells a similar story in this case. 

The deductive route notes that economic growth stimulated by ever-higher amounts of borrowing simply requires greater and greater debt loads to accomplish.  Eventually debt levels simply become too high, and pinch off growth.

We can also deduce that because economic growth is tightly linked to energy consumption, lower amounts of usable energy flowing through an economy will cause that economy to stall out as well. Because we know that both the quantity as well as the net yield we get from our energy-producing activities are flattening, this explains why GDP growth is flattening too.

Thus, from a deductive standpoint, combining what we know about high levels of debt and flattening energy returns energy there’s really no more room for confusion about why GDP growth is, and will remain, anemic (at best).

Observationally, we now have more than a full decade of sub-par (i.e., ‘too low’) world GDP growth: 

Debt to GDP

(Source)

Notice that the last year of data, 2016, is coming in at the lowest reading since the Great Recession, while the next two years are estimated to also come in at less than 3%.  The world hasn’t averaged 3% GDP growth in a decade. Even the mighty US has gone more than ten straight years without breaking into the 3% range. 

We have to ask: How many years does it take to finally admit that there’s something seriously wrong with our hopeful story line that robust growth is going to save our debt-ridden bacon?

Just for the record, things are not shaping up any better here in 2017 either…

Atlanta Fed GDPNow model predicts 1.2% 1Q17 growth

And, just for kicks, we might also note that the GDP forecasting agencies of the world have consistent in over-estimating future growth.  Of course, this doesn't deter them from continuing to predicting higher future growth each year. As a case in point, here are the IMF's predictions for world growth over the past 6 years:

Debt to GDP

(Source)

Each of those colored lines is a forecast.  Each of them foresaw growth going notably higher in the near future.  Not only was every one of them utterly wrong in direction, each failed at getting even the next quarter anywhere close to right.  See how none of those lines ever dips below 3%?  See in the prior chart how global growth never breached 3% in any of these same plotted years?

For a variety of reasons, with aging demographics being a huge factor, future growth in the OECD countries must slow: 

Debt to GDP

(Source)

My ‘prediction’ is that these projections will turn out to be far too high. Mainly because I include declining net energy in my views and no mainstream economist ever does.  But the track records of these outfits shows that taking the ‘under’ side of the over/under bet offers incredibly safe odds.

At any rate, the main story here is that the only way we can begin to justify the astronomical levels of debt currently on the books, let alone slathering on new tranches just to keep the whole thing form imploding, is to have a story of endless, rapid future economic growth. Which is, we've already shown, a delusional fantasy.

Stagnating growth, ever more trillions of debt, and a finite amount of depleting net energy all adds up to an unsustainable mess.  With asset price bubbles everywhere and wealth transfer mechanisms already in place, the end-game involves a very few winners and a lot of losers.

Anything that is this unsustainable will someday end. But how? And how should we position ourselves for it? 

In Part 2: The Ka-POOM! Survival Guide, we detail in depth the most likely progression predicted by the Ka-POOM! model. First, a punishing crash in prices as natural market forces eventually overwhelm the Fed's doomed efforts to print the world to prosperity. Think of the 2008 crash, but on steroids.

Then will come the inevitable response from the central banking cartel: Set the printing machines on maximum speed! While this may seem to work for a brief while, it will soon collapse the world's currencies in a hyperinflationary deluge.

This will be a very tricky time for preserving wealth as things swing violently from disinflation to inflation. Understanding the mechanics and knowing what to expect will be critical -- not just for safeguarding your money, but for taking advantage of what will surely be some of the best bargains of our lifetime.

Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

23 Comments

pgp's picture
pgp
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2014
Posts: 194
The Example is set by Japan and Greece

Once again the message is correct. But its easy to see how the current economic farce will play out. Look at Japan and Greece. These countries have survived for years thanks to financial manipulation, the power of propaganda and "whatever it takes" deception and duplicity.

Unlike Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and possibly a dozen others besides our current Empire leverages the power of media propaganda to pacify dissent. Communications and energy have made it a lot easier to control the masses. Therefore expect the corruption to last as long as people swallow up the 6 o'clock news and the gas and oil keeps flowing.

Clearly people have started to question the media barons. And wealth disparity will inevitably break people's faith in the money system. But such cultural shifts take years and the oil may not run out (or be allowed to) for a decade or two.

Inevitably we must brace for a long slow decline of failing opportunity and growing discontent as our establishment and institutions do whatever it takes, legitimate or corrupt, to keep the train wreck moving. Expect a whole lot more grannies under the wheels for many years until the Ka-Poom finally happens.

joseph R's picture
joseph R
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 12 2017
Posts: 1
my thoughts exactly

I wish it were not so. Is there any chance that this collapse may happen anywhere between now and 2020. I mean all the factors are there, it will just take an event or sovereign nation to knock the first domino. My guess is that lack of oil will be what ruins everything. Eventually, if any OPEC member or all of OPEC announces that they will no longer trade in dollars its all over because no matter how much money the fed prints, nobody will want them. Am I right? Am I close?

George P's picture
George P
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 12 2017
Posts: 1
Deflation, Keen and Greece

Hi

First I would like to mention, that inflation also gives an exponential and stabilizing effect - as long as wages increase along with inflation (and bank interest as well). However we're going into deflation, which has dirty effects too. I am missing the description of that a bit, in the crash course.

Second:

What about Steve Keens idea of QE for the people? (an offset to the bank accounts - lowering debt, giving purchase power to those without debt)

Also, how about regulation of margin debt ?

I remember, that Mr. Keen showed some data showing high correlation between margin debt (SMP500) and total debt as a function of time.

Third: Greece (pgp):

In a currency union, there is (only) one rule, which must be kept: All partners should keep the same inflation. Target was set to 1.9 percent. One partner departed immediately and followed, what one describes as internal devaluation (keeping wages lower than all the others, thus outcompeting them more and more over time - and as you know: they can't devaluate). That one was Germany, which also happens to have the biggest economy in the currency union. Seen from this perspective, it's not surprising, what followed..

Eannao's picture
Eannao
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 28 2015
Posts: 120
Winners = Borrowers. Losers = Savers.

Chris, 

you frequently make the point that the Fed are picking winners and losers through financial repression; the winners being 'the elites' and the losers being 'granny' (i.e. savings and pensions).

While I agree with your point, I think your description of the winners as 'the elites' is not entirely accurate. Surely the winners are not just 'the elites', but everyone with debt? Anyone who has debt, has been 'bailed out' by the CBs, not just the elites. Anyone with a mortgage or significant loans has benefited, and this includes much of the middle class.

So for the past 10 years or more, it has made sense to be a borrower; money has never been so cheap. The key question is; how long will the status quo continue? how long will the CBs continue to be able to suppress interest rates? will the day come when savers (i.e. those holding cash) will be rewarded with higher rates and lower asset prices? or are we in for decades of grinding financial repression?

E

aggrivated's picture
aggrivated
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2010
Posts: 513
Winners/loosers

It's one thing for someone to have his money not in a bank but real estate with a nice rental income flow and then borrow at 4% to get more. It's another for the single mom who just got a new $10/hr job and has to buy a car at 9% or higher interest so she can drive to work. Many under the bus grannies are like the single mom. Renting out real estate or owning shares in a new start up is not in their play book. Trusting the bank to give back what they put in to their account is their mode of surviving. Call them the non elites or whatever, but they are suffering under the CB's current low interest scenario. Risk should have its rewards, so should thrift. Right now the risk for borrowing is negligible, for thrift the cost is high.

From what I've learned about net energy and EROEI, this secular low interest money market is a backhanded way of raising the EROEI by robbing energy vested in savings from grannies. Its a form of kicking the can down the road to keep the facade of BAU for a while longer. Case in point is all the "capex" in shale plays. Try making that work in a normal 4+% return on bonds.

pat the rat's picture
pat the rat
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2011
Posts: 96
debt=money?

Debt=money in 2004 we took out a 30 year mortgage for $84,500.00 max value of house.Today the house is worth $250,000.00 and we still owe $67,500.00. The only way I can understand this is that it is only a number computer screen.Any thing else makes no sense?  

Peter Smith's picture
Peter Smith
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2009
Posts: 41
KA-BOOM

"everyone living in a trailer park in the American South"   I think I detect a trace of New England bigotry here?

"After the dust settles, there will be winners and losers, and those with the proper framework will understand that what actually happened was that all of the wealth was transferred from those who thought they owned it, to those who actually did"   This is often stated in your writings.  Please give a couple of detailed and specific examples of how this happens to effect everyday people. 

 

MillenialFalcon's picture
MillenialFalcon
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 29 2016
Posts: 3
Examples

The biggest example would be the FED. They create money with the push of a button and loan it to people who take out mortgages. Then if those people default on the Note the FED/Bank who own the Mortgage get a real tangible asset --- your house. They did nothing to create that mortgage but have a claim on a real asset.

The best way to think about Wealth is in terms of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Wealth.

Primary Wealth is the raw material required to live -- things from nature really (Oil, Crops, Water, Minerals, Timber, Stone, Metal Ores, Gold, Vineyards, Orchards, Fish/Seafood, Land, Seeds, etc.).

Secondary Wealth is the means of production. Factories, Farms, Oil refineries, Lumber Yards, Stone Quarries, Mines, Breweries, Fishing Boats, Mills etc. that turn the raw materials into useful products.

Tertiary Wealth is paper assets (Stocks, Bonds, Saving Accounts, Cash, Land Deeds, Life Insurance, Derivatives Contracts, etc.). These are claims on primary, secondary, or worse other tertiary wealth.

Tertiary Wealth is the easiest to acquire. Its also the easiest for elites to transfer to themselves. The people holding tertiary wealth can be wiped out (Stock market crashes, Inflation, Hyperinflation, Bank failures, Real Estate Foreclosures, Bond defaults, Removing Gold or Silver from coins, Cancelling/Replacing current cash notes in circulation,etc.).

Another key is there are many other sectors of the economy like banks, transportation, government etc. that exist but aren't forms of real wealth.  Without primary and secondary types of wealth these DO NOT exists at all ---- I call them skimmers.  Basically they don't create anything but exist as a way to skim from the first the two types of wealth.  They may be completely necessary and facilitate certain aspects in the creation of real wealth BUT DO NOT create any real wealth.

Hatemail's picture
Hatemail
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 13 2017
Posts: 1
Money vs Credit

Equating credit expansion with money printing as if they are one in the same leads to inaccurate and misguided thinking. The Fed does not print money, everyone reading this site understands that, so why do you make statements to such? The money supply has increased but no where near to the extent of credit creation.

We are in the midst of a huge credit bubble. Credit is the inverse of money. When the bubble implodes it will suck in all the cash and cash based assets attached to this financial mess. That makes it very deflationary, and that is when we all go broke.

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 701
Chart: Growth in World Gross Product

I seem to be compelled to occasionally make the following point.  If you don't believe the reported inflation numbers, then the growth in GDP numbers are also wrong by default, since they are calculated using the reported inflation numbers.

Fro example, if the reported inflation is 2% and the reported growth in GDP is 2%, but the correct inflation is 6%, then the honest "growth" in GDP is closer to -4%.

If you drink this particular Koolaid, then you believe that we haven't really had any growth in US GDP for a very long time, perhaps since 2001.

Years back, the definition of recession was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP "growth." (Now, they have a more sophisticated definition of recession?! Yeah, right.)

If honestly calculated GDP "growth" has been negative almost continually since 2001, would it be fair to say that, in truth we have been in an almost continuous recession, in the US, since around 2001?

Oh what tangled webs they weave.

wcfeader's picture
wcfeader
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 13 2017
Posts: 1
There was a suggestion in

There was a suggestion in another comment (somewhere) that gold is 'seriously overpriced', and that everyone holding it would see it's value plummet/decrease over the next few years. The core of the argument was centered around the US dollar, and how inviolable and supreme it is (at least in that posters head), but let me tell you what is really going on with 'paper dollars'.

The US dollar has depreciated by 98.5 cents in the last 100 years. That means that now it takes more than 50 times more 'dollars' to buy the same goods and services you used to buy for a buck. Similarly, if the US dollar is worth nearly fifty times less, then gold must necessarily be worth 50 times more or about 2,000 US an ounce, which is pretty much where I figure it should be. Why it isn't is a story for another time.

Now here is the real kicker. You put your dollars in the bank or bonds and the best you can get is 3%. But you aren't getting 3% on a whole dollar, you are getting 3% on 0.015 cents, which amounts to .00045 cents per year. Obviously, what it takes to survive under the present fiat regime is lots and lots and lots of dollars, so the puny real interest rate returns something you can actually live on, or even live to excess on. And low and behold, the central banks of the world have provided the elite, through their corporations, 80 Trillion US in additional currency over the last 8 years, so, hey, guess what, they are all right jack. You and I, who try to earn extra income from interest investing are screwed. This is the wealth transfer. It is happening now. And no, the US dollar is not inviolable or sacrosanct. The more debt/money that gets created, the lower and lower and lower your personal wealth will drift and yes, gold and silver are a proper bulwark against that kind of theft. Problem is that the people who control the interest rates also control the precious metals markets. For now, anyhow.

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 125
LesPhelps wrote: I seem to be
LesPhelps wrote:

I seem to be compelled to occasionally make the following point.  If you don't believe the reported inflation numbers, then the growth in GDP numbers are also wrong by default, since they are calculated using the reported inflation numbers.

Note: I'm from a different country so your kilometres might vary.

There are other ways to measure inflation and GDP. There is a tight correlation between energy consumed and GDP, so you could measure it using the growth of energy consumption. You can also measure inflation differently, take the m3 broad money and compare the change year over year.

I took the time and effort about four years ago to do it for my country and I concluded our inflation rate was running at 5.7% which was 2.9% higher than the official figure when I did it.

You could run your own numbers and get your own actual GDP vs Inflation figures that are independent of the main stream assuming the source data is accurate.

(As an incredibly interesting side note, measuring GDP using energy also yields a carbon value)

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 701
nigel wrote:You could run
nigel wrote:

You could run your own numbers and get your own actual GDP vs Inflation figures that are independent of the main stream assuming the source data is accurate.

What you say is true, but other people are already calculating alternatives and perhaps better than I could.

John Williams' ShadowStats website is where I usually look.

The thing is, people who know what is going on, rarely quote government unemployment or inflation numbers as if they have any information value whatsoever.

The vast majority of "in the know" people understand that GDP growth calculations are based on inflation calculations, so if you intentionally under report inflation, you over report GDP growth at the same time.  

Even though we all know this stuff, occasionally people post a GDP growth chart with the official numbers, in order to make a point.  It works because, even though the official GDP growth numbers are overstated, they are still bad enough that they can be used to show an economy that is in deep trouble.

My point is, yes the official numbers look bad on a chart, but don't forget that the real numbers are even worse.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2618
When all this blows up...

...you'll know exactly who to thank.

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 701
One Oversite

The video failed to point out that the Fed reimburses the US Government for any interest it receives on US debt.  I' m just guessing, but I expect this was the carrot that got the legislation that created the Fed passed.  In addition to giving bankers the Fed, congress created a money machine for free interest US debt/spending.

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 391
Ka-Boom or gurgle, gurgle?

Pgp sums it up correctly:

Communications and energy have made it a lot easier to control the masses. Therefore expect the corruption to last as long as people swallow up the 6 o'clock news and the gas and oil keeps flowing.” 

Our attitude towards control and who does that controlling says more about the direction we are headed than just the pure numbers and graphs:

“In previous discussions, I have shown that, beyond a certain level of per capita GNP, the cost of social control must rise faster than total output and become the major institutional activity within an economy.  Therapy administered by educators, psychiatrists, and social workers must converge with the designs of planners, managers, and salesmen, and complement the services of security agencies, the military, and the police. I now want to indicate one reason why increased affluence requires increased control over people. I argue that beyond a certain median per capita energy level, the political system and cultural context of any society must decay. Once the critical quantum of per capita energy is surpassed, education for the abstract goals of a bureaucracy must supplant the legal guarantees of personal and concrete initiative. This quantum is the limit of social order.” Energy and Equity – Ivan Illich

http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/EnergyEquity/Energy%20and%20Equity.htm

A philosophical gem from the 70's. Well worth the time and effort!

richcabot's picture
richcabot
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2011
Posts: 80
Going off the dollar

Libya announced that it would shift to a gold backed currency and only accept gold in exchange for its oil.  Gaddafi was overthrown by the west within a year. It's unlikely any OPEC member will follow suit anytime soon.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1536
President Pence

Mostly I just can’t stand to watch political crap.  I understand that most of what most people are saying is untrue and everything said and done is for reasons other than the stated reasons.

 

Never-the-less, three specific data points have come across my plate in the last 24 hours suggesting a push to remove Trump and replace him with President Pence.  The neocons favor Pence as he loves “larger military budgets,” killing lots of people for various noble causes, and is profoundly socially conservative making him attractive to the hard Republican right.  (BLUE Meme)

 

1.  David Brin, astrophysicist and author of many excellent hard SciFi stories, predicted well before the election in a Quora post:

…  Mike Pence was Trump’s olive branch to both the GOP establishment and the very far-right culture warriors. In theory, it could keep them calm and loyal enough to get the ticket elected. But in picking someone that is acceptable to the establishment, he made a huge mistake. Because Pence is a hack and trivially controllable by the Bush-Murdoch-Koch masters of the GOP. And he is beloved by the fundies.

This means he is impeachment bait. The very instant that DT commits some over-the-top public relations calamity - - …McConnell and Ryan will provide JUST enough Republican votes to carry a Bill of Impeachment … —leaving Mike Pence in the White House, puppeted by Murdoch and the Bushites… and all the angry Trump supporters frothing hate and blame for Trump’s ouster on Democrats!

2.   Thierry Meyssan, a French author who came out early on 9/11 being a false flag, posts his conclusion that a very organized and effective agitation and propaganda (agit-prop) campaingn was commissioned to be run by David Brock.

 

David Brock is considered to be one of the masters of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda) in the 21st century. A personality devoid of scruples, he is able to defend a cause as well as destroy it, according to the needs of his employer. He is at the head of an empire of mass manipulation.

At the time when he was working for the Republicans, Brock launched a campaign against President Bill Clinton which would eventually become Troopergate, the Whitewater affair, and the Lewinsky affair. Having changed his colors, he is today in the service of Hillary Clinton, for whom he has already organized not only the demolition of Mitt Romney’s candidacy but also her riposte in the affair of the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi. During the first round of primaries, it was Brock who directed the attacks against Bernie Sanders. The National Review qualified Brock as «a right-wing assassin who has become a left-wing assassin».

The campaign against Trump is sponsored by the same group that sponsored Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the destruction [cauldronization] of the Middle East.  (Who might that be?)

The talking points:

  • Trump is authoritarian and a thief.
  • Trump holds all women in contempt.
  • Trump is under the influence of Vladimir Putin.
  • Trump is a weak and quick-tempered personality, he’s a manic-depressive.
  • Trump was not elected by the majority of US citizens, and is therefore illegitimate.
  • His Vice-President, Mike Pence, is a fascist.
  • Trump is a billionaire who will constantly be faced with conflicts of interest between his personal affairs and those of state.
  • Trump is a puppet of the Koch brothers, who are famous for sponsoring the extreme right.
  • Trump is a white supremacist and a threat to minorities.
  • Anti-Trump opposition just keeps growing outside Washington.
  • To save democracy, let’s support the democratic parliamentarians who are attacking Trump, and let’s demolish those who are co-operating with him.
  • Overthrowing Trump will take time, so don’t weaken in resolve.

 

Relationship with Russia:  a man who says that he hopes for peace with his enemies, and wants to collaborate with them in economic prosperity is either insane or a puppet.

The whole of this [agit-prop] system – which was set up during the transitional period, that is to say before Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House – already employed more than 300 specialists to which should be added numerous volunteer workers. Its annual budget, initially calculated at 35 million dollars, was increased to the level of about 100 million dollars.

Destroying the image – and thus the authority – of the President of the United States, before he has had the time to do anything at all, can have serious consequences. By eliminating Saddam Hussein and Mouamar Kadhafi, the CIA plunged their two countries into a long period of chaos, and the «land of Liberty» itself may suffer severe damage from such an operation. This type of mass manipulation technique has never before been leveled at a head of state in the Western world.

For the moment, the plan is working – no political leader in the world has dared to celebrate the election of Donald Trump, with the exception of Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

3.  This morning ZH summarizes Julian Assange’s statements that Hillary and the Intel Community are pushing for a Pence takeover.  Several tweets:

 

Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable.

 

Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees.

 

By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence pays

 

No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public.

Trump ceded control of the drone assassination program to the CIANow the elected civilian leadership doesn’t even have a say in who is murdered in our name.

Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.  The first path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops, who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

-----------------

And on last item:  We must never lose sight of 2 basic values:

1.  That war is killing and is never an act of high morality.

2.  That drone assassination is murder, without judicial review, without due process, without publicly reviewed evidence, without international legal mechanism, across international borders without any declaration of war.   The killing of political enemies is deeply immoral and violates the basic premise of a society based on the rule of law.  I am certain that this practice will come home to roost in very very unpleasant ways.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1536
More on David Brock

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisonous-politics-of-david-brock/

In the run-up to his weekend donor confab, Brock promised to build a complex that would “weaponize” information to savage all things Trump. Media Matters would strafe the press, ShareBlue would be turned into a “Breitbart of the left,” American Bridge would churn out oppo research, and his legal center would bury Trump and appointees in legal suits.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-17/hillary-attack-dog-david-brock-...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/david-brock-fundraising-trump-233974

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-14/investigation-suicide-arrowgras...

http://observer.com/2016/11/clinton-henchman-david-brock-revamps-establi...

http://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-memo-attack-trump/

 

Mark_BC's picture
Mark_BC
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Posts: 395
Hindsight is always 20/20 but

Hindsight is always 20/20 but I sure wish I had gotten sucked into this bubble five years ago, I would have made hundreds of thousands in real estate appreciation and the stock market. Instead I played it safe and betted on fundamentals, and I'm paying for it now. But I also understand that when the end finally does come, all of those financial gains will be wiped out. But if you could time it even remotely right you can make a lot of money -- ride the bubble up, get out at some point before the crash and buy hard assets like gold. Of course we were all expecting an imminent crash 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and it never happened, just keeps on going up, all the while I'm slaving away at work watching my savings go nowhere or down year after year. Will it last another 5 years?

I am of the opinion that the Fed / ECB / whatever you want to call it, is in full electronic control of the stock market and and can inflate and hold it wherever they want, for as along as they want, and could do this indefinitely as long as the rest of the world remains standing. If there is a dis-inflationary crash, it will be done intentionally, just like it was in 2008 as revealed by the statistically impossible occurrence of 7's in the markets at that time (the elites worship the number 7 because either they are Satanists, or they haven't grown beyond Sesame Street -- seems crazy but the evidence is overwhelming and Christine Lagarde openly talks about it).

There is only one trigger that will force a collapse -- when the gold runs out. Analysts have been documenting the gold supply / demand imbalance for years now and wonder where it keeps coming from -- it's a mystery. But when the elites have finished their pilfering and the gold is all where they want it to be, then that's when we'll see it burst.

I also don't think that after this crash there will be a massive lucid moment of public awakening to the truth and blame paced where it belongs squarely in the laps of the financial and political elites. Instead, just like with 9/11 and all of the more recent false flag "terror attacks", blame will be placed elsewhere. In times of crisis, people will be even more likely to believe it as they grasp for guidance, answers and certainty from our "leaders". Clearly the western elites have decided to destroy and falsely slander the Muslim world, as a continuation of the thousand-year war between religions, and with the side benefit of Muslims being a lightning rod to deflect away public scrutiny and criticism of the western elites' own failing policies and criminal activities.

I envision another 9/11-type false flag "Muslim terrorist attack", but of much larger magnitude. The story we will be fed is that it was so much bigger than 9/11 that it managed to take down the global financial system!!! Those poor poor green shoots that we've been nurturing for the last decade got snipped off too early!! All by those barbarous Muslims, and the evil "Russian hackers" too as the computer-techno collaborators of the Muslims!!!!!

After this event, we will be told that clearly all of the previous security measures since 9/11 weren't enough to deter terrorism, so full martial law will be instituted "for our own protection". That will be the final end of democracy, what little of it we still retain. This will be used as justification for heavy internet controls to further stifle dissent and truth-spreading. Dissenters will be locked up as being sympathetic to and tied with the "terrorists".

It will be good to own gold during that crash but I also envision strict restrictions on using it which may make it not a very good store of wealth. They will also try to institute digital currency which will give them complete control over your ability to spend your gold on anything beyond eggs from the farmer down the road. Whether that digital currency will be able to stick in a world that's falling apart, I am not so sure.

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 391
Let me paraphrase my earlier post

Follow the oil:

gettyimages-123220112.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=780&strip=all

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5238
Not true...
Hatemail wrote:

Equating credit expansion with money printing as if they are one in the same leads to inaccurate and misguided thinking. The Fed does not print money, everyone reading this site understands that, so why do you make statements to such? The money supply has increased but no where near to the extent of credit creation.

We are in the midst of a huge credit bubble. Credit is the inverse of money. When the bubble implodes it will suck in all the cash and cash based assets attached to this financial mess. That makes it very deflationary, and that is when we all go broke.

This is untrue.

Please watch the chapter in the crash course on how the Fed operates.

In brief, where an MBS security existed somewhere in the private sector (say at Blackstone) and the Fed wants to buy it, it simply creates (i.e. "Prints") that money as a ledger entry and exchanges it with Blackstone for the MBS.  Blackstone now has currency (money) where it use to own a debt asset.  

That is money creation out of thin air, pure and simple.  Not hard to understand at all.

I do agree that bank credit is an even-matching money/debt creation mechanism.  If/when that goes in reverse money is destroyed.  But not so when the central bank does it.  Who cares if the central bank has impaired assets on its balance sheet?  Nobody, it turns out.  

Nobody cares.  That's who.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4522
QE vs credit expansion

So on the level of numbers, QE and credit expansion look the same.

However (you gotta love the "however"), they can have different effects on the economy.

Practically speaking, credit expansion always causes inflation in whatever market the credit was expanded in.  That's (typically) because people don't borrow money to park it in the bank; they had a reason to borrow the money, and after they get it, they typically spend it on something.

Note: its only "net new borrowing" that's inflationary.  Rolling over existing debt: not inflationary.

  • home loan [inflation in home prices + some bleed-through to consumer inflation]
  • car loan [consumer inflation]
  • float a bond for a stock buyback [inflation in equity prices]
  • make a credit card purchase [consumer inflation]
  • float a bond to buy durable goods [consumer inflation]
  • sell a bond to fund government (deficit) spending [consumer inflation]

QE may or may not cause inflation.  If the Fed buys bank-held assets with new money, and the banks are content to park the new money at the Fed in excess reserves, then it causes no inflation.  If the banks want to buy something with the new money, then of course that causes inflation in whatever it is they want to buy.  [In today's case, banks buy "stuff with a yield" - which covers a whole lot of areas.]

Of course if QE is used to buy new government debt (either directly, or indirectly) that is promptly spent into the economy by the government, well then that causes inflation.  However its the act of government spending that actually causes the inflation, not the QE.

Rule of thumb: if the new money is spent into the economy, regardless of where it comes from, that causes inflation.

If the new money sits on a balance sheet and does nothing, then there's no inflationary impact.

This assumes velocity remains constant.  Rising velocity alone can cause inflation without any new money arriving on the scene.  Likewise, falling velocity can cause deflation even if no money is destroyed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments