• Podcast

    Grant Williams: The End Of The Road

    The Fed is finally boxed in
    by Adam Taggart

    Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 2:39 PM

Grant Williams returns this week to set the context for this week's FOMC meeting, where the Federal Reserve is widely expected to hike interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade. To say he is very skeptical of the Fed's ability to continue to control market forces much longer is a gross understatement:

None of this has been tried before and, to me, that just demonstrates the dangers. Once you get into a situation like the central banks did in ’08 with this panicking — everyone calls it the Hotel California — you can’t get out. And, so incrementally, they have to keep doing something. Instead of stepping back and letting free markets and business cycles and forces of nature have their way and flush out all of the impurities in the system, this is what happens. And, yet, this time, for whatever reason, I think since post-Volker, Greenspan has basically started this ball rolling with this knee-jerk reaction to slash interest rates. And, you can kind of understand it, because everyone was still traumatized by the high inflation of the ‘70s. But, they started and they started down that road.

And, if you look at a chart of interest rates in the U.S., you can see. It’s just, from 1980—I’ve marked two points on all my charts for presentations. One is the end of the gold standard, August 15, ’71, when Nixon closed the gold window. And, the next is peak interest rates in 1980. And, if you look at those two charts and you see what’s happened with interest rates since, they’ve been on a course to hit zero ever since.

But, if you step back from that and you say forget the creeping nature of this and how we’ve gradually got here, try and parachute yourself in and look at the situation, and look at it through clear eyes, you'll say, “Hang on, we have negative nominal interest rates, and we have people queuing up to buy the debt of what are clearly bankrupt governments at negative interest rates.” It would take you no time at all to think, “Well, this is, this is ridiculous. Not only that, but this is the end of the road. It has to end here or near here.”

And, so I think that’s where we are. I think we’ve reached the end of the road. That’s not to say the end of the road is a brick wall. We can be trying to turn the car around for a year, who knows, trying to find another way out of this thing. But, we’re there. I mean, believe it or not, we are there. And, so how this thing plays out, none of us know. But, I suspect that the tactics that are going to be employed are going to get more and more desperate, because they have to keep going now. They’re so far in, they have to keep going, and keeping going means doing more and more extraordinary things.

It’s a relative game. There are people that have to be invested. And, so you can herd them by taking away the chance of investing into one thing, i.e., putting rates at zero so you can’t just put your money in cash or short-term Treasuries. By doing that, you know, psychologically, you’re going to herd them somewhere else, and that’s been into the stock market, it’s been into asset prices, which is fine. But, it’s not a temporary removal of that ability to put stock in cash. You have to keep that away from them, because if you give it back to them, if you give them back that option, it’s going to mean interest rates are at much higher levels, which is going to screw all the debt payments. They are going to run for the hills faster than you can imagine, because none of this stuff is what you would choose to invest in, all things being equal. You wouldn’t invest in the S&P where it is now, after the run it’s had. God knows you wouldn’t invest in government bonds where they are now. You might take a long hard look at asset prices and think, “Well, you know what, actually, I might buy some base commodities here, because they’ve been just completely slaughtered.” But, you certainly wouldn’t be investing in the two things that they need you to invest in, which are government bonds and equities.

So, that’s the real problem. And, the fact that they realize that tells me that we are getting to the end of this road, because that credibility is not something they can maintain forever, particularly when they’ve boxed themselves in with negative interest rates.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Grant Williams (59m:06s)

Transcript

Chris Martenson: Welcome to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I am your host, Chris Martenson. I’ve often said that you really should be keeping a journal, because you are living through extraordinary, momentous times. On simply the monetary front, things that have never happened before—never even been tried before—are happening almost every day. Central banks, they’ve gone crazy. They’ve taken it upon themselves to know the right prices for financial assets, for money itself, and therefore, have assumed day-to-day management of the entire economy. And yet, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s that all-too-human desire to have a free lunch. It stalks the halls of power today with the same determination as it did in Roman times. And, as always, history can provide us the essential clues we need to figure out where we’re headed. But, people don’t always heed those clues or watch them.

So, helping us with both the essential context, as well as being one of the most informative and entertaining writers and speakers in the business is Grant Williams. Really happy to have Grant back with us today. Portfolio and strategy advisor for Volpe’s Investment Management in Singapore, quite a number of years of experience—won’t say how many—but, a few in finance on the Asian, Australian, European and U.S. markets. Grant also writes the popular investment blog, “Things That Make You Go Hmm.” It’s just a piece of writing of which I am a huge and unabashed fan. So, let me get that right on the table. His writing, it’s always witty, it’s fun, it’s full of context, accurate, great quotes, easy to follow. Welcome, Grant. It’s a real pleasure to have you back today.

Grant Williams: Chris, thank you so much. That’s far too kind an introduction, and you kind of nailed everything there. Not the part about me, but the part about the state of the world today, and that’s as concise and as accurate a summing up as I’ve heard in a long time.

Chris Martenson: Well, then we’re done. It’s been nice having you.

[Laughter]

Grant Williams: Merry Christmas.

Chris Martenson: No, no, no. I’m so excited to have you on, because this is really the most bizarre of times. You know, the best of times, the worst of times, it’s also the most bizarre of times. And, this really—I don’t know how to overemphasize this. I mean, people, we go on with our lives, it’s been seven, eight years now since the central banks started all this. But, how crazy is this? So, let me just—we could start anywhere. Let me start with this: What do negative nominal interest rates—"nominal" meaning that’s the rate of interest, not real interest rates. We had a rate of interest, we subtracted some inflation, however that was measured, and came up with a negative number. But, that central banks are openly entertaining—and in the case of the European central bank, have pegged negative nominal interest rates on the board. So, A.) when has that ever happened before? And B.) what do we actually know about how that influences people?

Grant Williams: Well, I think this is the beauty and the terror of what’s happening right now. We don’t know any of this, and as you said summing up, none of this has been tried before. And, it just, to me, it just demonstrates the dangers. Once you get into a situation like the central banks did in ’08 with this panicking, "we have to save everything, we have to throw whatever money we do—" you know, the TARP kind of started this whole thing off. But, once you get in—everyone calls it the Hotel California—and, yet, but it’s true, you can’t get out. And, so incrementally, they have to keep doing something. Instead of stepping back and letting free markets and business cycles and forces of nature have their way and flush out all of the, all of the impurities in the system, which is what’s happened… as you said, history is right there. It’s all in front of you. Anyone could bother to read it. This is what happens. And, yet, this time, for whatever reason, I think since post-Volker, Greenspan has basically started this ball rolling with this knee-jerk reaction to slash interest rates. And, you can kind of understand it, because everyone was still traumatized by the high inflation of the ‘70s. But, they started and they started down that road.

And, if you look at a chart of interest rates in the U.S., you can see. It’s just, from 1980—I’ve marked two points on all my charts for presentations. One is the end of the gold standard, August 15, ’71, when Nixon closed the gold window. And, the next is peak interest rates in 1980. And, if you look at those two charts and you see what’s happened with interest rates since, they’ve been on a course to hit zero ever since. And, everyone’s, I guess, sat and thought in 2008, 2009, well, we’re at zero now, so what happens? Well, that’s what happens. We go to negative [audio breakup] back. Forget present context. Try and remove yourself from the day-to-day news that you see and the reasons given for the Reichs [PH] Bank in Sweden doing this, and Switzerland doing it. Switzerland’s government bond curve is negative out to ten years. I mean, it’s absurd.

Chris Martenson: Ten years…

Grant Williams: But, if you step back from that and you say forget the creeping nature of this and how we’ve gradually got here, try and parachute yourself in and look at the situation, and look at it through clear eyes. And, say, “Hang on, we have negative nominal interest rates, and we have people queuing up to buy the debt of what are clearly bankrupt governments at negative interest rates.” It would take you no time at all to think, “Well, this is ridiculous. Not only that, but this is the end of the road. It has to end here or near here.”

And, so I think that’s where we are. I think we’ve reached the end of the road. That’s not to say the end of the road is a brick wall. We can be trying to turn the car around for a year, who knows, trying to find another way out of this thing. But, we’re there. I mean, believe it or not, we are there. And, so how this thing plays out for me, none of us know. But, I suspect that the tactics that are going to be employed are going to get more and more desperate, because they have to keep going now. They’re so far in, they have to keep going, and keeping going means doing more and more extraordinary things.

Chris Martenson: I agree. And, you know, there’s two conversations I have out there in the world, I guess, broadly speaking. One would be with a group of people who don’t understand finance and all of that and they just sort of have their faith and their trust, and, "listen, I’m just going to keep my head, I’m going to do what I do and hope that all works out." And, then when I do talk with people who have a good degree of finance sophistication and get all this, they still talk about all this as if it’s a relative world they inhabit. So, they’re saying, “Well, yes, I understand that we’ve got negative interest rates, which is why I’m willing to buy a blue chip stock with a dividend yield of 2% or less.” Or, the whole risk structure’s been upended and so the second crowd, even though I would put them in the so-called sophisticated category, they’re still analyzing all of this as though it were just a bunch of relative financial markers that we have to understand relative to each other.

And, I want to circle back to the subtext of this, which is there’s a psychological dimension to this, right? So, people’s investment decisions change based on all this sophisticated financial stuff. So, "oh, negative interest rates, I’ll choose this." But, really, Grant, I mean, haven’t we seen like corporations have somewhat rationally and very sophisticatedly and financially decided that to borrow money and retire their shares by doing share repurchases makes financial sense. But, it has truncated the financial, and also I would think the psychological motivation to go out and actually invest in property, plant and equipment—employees—in the future.

So, the central banks, I think, are moneywise but foolish. Or, however we would put this, that they understand the intricacies of the carpet they’ve woven. They don’t understand what the carpet’s going to be used for in the sense that they’re mucking around, I think, with people’s base psychology. And, that’s something—more and more I think the evidence is starting to stack up and say, “That got really perverted here.”

Grant Williams: Yeah. Look, without question, and I think this is the one thing that they do know. I don’t think they know what they’re doing, because they are permanently playing defense. They’re reacting to things. That’s why we’re having this whole rate hike fiasco going on right now. But, the one thing they do understand is the psychological component of this. And, they know what human nature will lead people to do, which is why people are having this conversation that you just described. It’s a relative game. There are people that have to be invested. And, so you can herd them by taking away the chance of investing into one thing, i.e., putting rates at zero so you can’t just put your money in cash or short-term Treasuries. By doing that, you know, psychologically, you’re going to herd them somewhere else, and that’s been into the stock market, it’s been into asset prices, which is fine. But, it’s not a temporary removal of that ability to put stock in cash. You have to keep that away from them, because if you give it back to them, if you give them back that option, A.) it’s going to mean interest rates are at much higher levels, which is going to screw all the debt payments. But, they’re also going to sell the other assets to get back in there. So, you have to keep herding them, keep herding them, keep herding them away from things and taking stuff away from them.

And, if there’s any doubt about the fact that these guys are focused on psychology—I’m going to read you a piece that I put in a recent letter I wrote. And, I’m cheating here, because I wish could recall it quite exactly, but I just pulled it out, because it’s important I get it right. And, this was sent to me by Stephanie Pomboy of MacroMavens, who’s just a genius.

Chris Martenson: Oh, I love her.

Grant Williams: You should absolutely…

Chris Martenson: She’s great. She’s wonderful.

Grant Williams: …you should absolutely get Stephanie on, because she’s just so smart. And, she dug this out of the FOMC minutes, which were released in November, so it’s the October meeting. And, I saw this quote and when I read it, I mean, I was absolutely staggered that I hadn’t seen miles of column space about this. And, what they said in the minutes was this, it said, “A decision to defer policy firming could be interpreted as signaling lack of confidence in the strength of the U.S. economy,” and this is the important bit, “or erode the committee’s credibility.”

Now, the fact that they said that tells you, that one sentence, tells you everything you need to know. They’re in a trap and they’ve said the economy is firming. They’ve promised to raise rates, and now if we defer that rise, people are going to think that we’re lying about the strength of the economy, or worse still—and I think this is absolutely the key, this idea of the committee’s credibility being in doubt, because right now, my belief is that this faith in central banks, which is all-consuming—and that’s a very deliberate ploy on their part—but that faith is the only thing holding this thing together. It’s the last remaining thread. And, so if it goes, if "whatever it takes" from Draghi doesn’t have the same effect, then people are going to step back. And, instead of that creeping, "okay, we’re going to do this" and they’re being herded into different corners, they’re going to step back and they’re going to say, “Okay, without the central banks, let’s take a look at a snapshot of this investment landscape.” And, they are going to run for the hills faster than you can imagine, because none of this stuff is what you would choose to invest in, all things being equal, if you just stepped in. You wouldn’t invest in the S&P where it is now, after the run it’s had. God knows you wouldn’t invest in government bonds where they are now. You’d take a long hard look at asset prices and think, “Well, you know what, actually, I might buy some base commodities here, because they’ve been just completely slaughtered.” But, you certainly wouldn’t be investing in the two things that they need you to invest in, which are government bonds and equities.

So, that’s a real problem. And, the fact that they realize that tells me that we are getting to the end of this road, because that credibility is not something they can maintain forever, particularly when they’ve boxed themselves in with negative interest rates.

Chris Martenson: So, this is a fascinating area, because, of course, I would love to say I could give you a fundamental analysis of the market and we could have a great discussion. But, they don’t matter at this point. We have markets that are dependent on other things.

Grant, I came up through the academic world pretty hard. I got my PhD because I thought that I wanted to teach, and well, I do, and I think I still do it on the Internet. But, in the university setting, I discovered that teaching isn’t actually the game that they play. It’s all about getting—in my field of science—it was more about, "eh, did you get the grants?" and all of that. But, what I did learn from my time in academia was that the egos there are really, really, really hinged on: "Do I appear smart?" And, so the ego of the academic is slightly different than egos found in other professions.

So, when I look at that quote you’re saying, which is the market committee’s worried about its credibility, I can hear Janet sort of sneaking through there, the Berkeley professor, or you can hear Bernanke strain, the Princeton guy, sneaking through there. I hear, like that is, like to an academic, that is a really bad fate to have your credibility challenged. There is no worse fate. That is death to that particular ego structure.

So, I think there’s a little of that playing through, and as well, I think there’s this larger sense, which they understand, they’ve built up sort of a market cult around them, and that this is now a faith-based economy—it’s too strong a term—a faith-based market system. And, the Fed has openly admitted that they are now “market dependent” in their decisions, which means the tail is wagging the dog and they will raise rates unless the Asian markets fall apart right before they’re about to make the decision. But, given all that, I have the sense—and you can tell me I’m full of it or not—but I have the sense that the Fed is now boxed into making a rate hike decision on the 16th of December here in 2015. I think, optically, politically, I don’t know how they get away from that. I think they have to do it. A.) do you agree with that? And B.) if they do, what does that actually mean in terms of how much liquidity might have to be drained to accomplish that?

Grant Williams: This is the key question right now. And, this is why so many people are obsessing over a 25 basis point rate hike.

Chris Martenson: Right.

Grant Williams: Who knows, maybe they go 12.5 basis points. I mean, that would really throw a cat amongst the pigeons. But, no, look, I think you’re absolutely right, and I think they do have to go. And, the very fact that they have to go is the biggest illustration that they are finally boxed in that corner. Because, I’m sure that they’ve spent the last month since they basically came up and said, “Okay, we’re going to go,” looking for any credible way that they could actually not do it. Because, if you think about what happens from here, let’s say if they raise 25 basis points, which I feel they will, I feel they shouldn’t, but I think they’re going to have to.

If they raise that 25 basis points, they’ve then got a couple of choices. They either have to go all out in a propaganda war to try and make people 100% comfortable that this is not the start of a tightening cycle. That’s key number one, because if the market believes that it’s 25 and it’s the first 25 of 100 over the next, however, and maybe it’s a year, markets will start functioning normally again in that they will look forward and they will start to act as to what they believe is going to happen down the road. And, a market with even 1% rates, but a tightening bias, is going to make people reassess an awful lot of investments, particularly equities and credit. So, that’s a major problem for them.

So, if they go out and they’re very, very aggressive in saying that, maybe they get away with this, maybe they get away with this. But, at some point, they’re going to have to go again, they’re going to have to go another 25 basis points. And, that may take two years, that may take ten weeks, we don’t know. But, when they get around to doing it, at that point, we are in a tightening cycle, and suddenly, a lot of these investments that people have on their balance sheets don’t make an awful lot of sense. If they get this 25 basis points away and the data, which has been poor, let’s face it. Apart from the low CPI and apart from the kind of smoke and mirrors unemployment statistics, which foolishly, they’ve pegged themselves to, so that’s causing another problem. But, if the data continues to be bad—the real data, manufacturing data, import/export data, PMIs, if this stuff continues to be poor, there’s a very good chance that they’re going to have to ease again in some form, whether they cut rates to zero again, we have QE4, whatever it may be. And, either way, that’s their credibility gone, and that is when the market has to react.

And, your question ended with perhaps the most important part about liquidity, because what we’re going to see is a liquidity event, and as these markets have gone up and up and up, people have forgotten that in a rising market, there is always stock for sale, always, at a price, there is stock for sale. And, what people have kind of gotten away from and forgotten is that in falling markets, particularly quickly falling markets, sometimes there are no bids. It’s not "get me out down 3%, down 5%, hell, I’ll even take a bid down 10%." There are no bids. So when you get that environment where are no bids and we have 70% of volume on the New York Stock Exchange being conducted by computers, you are going to see all kinds of weird—you know, there are going to flash crashes going off every five minutes in stocks all around. And, that is going to unseat everything. People are going to get so nervous watching this stuff happen. It’s perfectly explicable, but it’s going to make people nervous as hell and just more desperate to get out.

And, so they really, really have done a fantastic job in backing themselves into the tightest corner you could possible imagine. And, thankfully, in my view, we are, I think, about to find out how this at least starts to end, and December 16th is going to be the first step on that road.

Chris Martenson: Thankfully for me as well, because at least it’ll be interesting again. I find these steadily rising markets can be boring, and that’s just, I’ll own up to that. But, you’ve touched on a number of extremely important things. And, the first one that jumps out at me is this whole idea of market structure where the markets are now dominated by these computers and they are dominating not just the total volume, but the quote structure. You know, 99-plus percent of the quotes are out there being generated by these computers, and these computers are both remorseless and fast. So, I think that provides both opportunities and also difficulties for the people who are trying to so-call control the markets to not freak out.

But, when I look at these markets, and I understand that we have 70% of the volume by these computers, and I’m sure you watch as carefully as I do, there are these little flash crashes happening all the time. Where a single issue, a single security, sometimes even the whole Treasury market will suddenly go bidless, or suddenly have massive bids that don’t make sense, or the gold market suddenly getting crushed for three, four, five, six, seven thousand contracts at 1:22 a.m. Weird stuff, right? That’s all fun and games until you have a true liquidity event, and then I think these computers, they go out of parameter for their algorithmic sets. They don’t know what to do, and so, like Knight Capital learned, you just pull the plug. So, I’m sure everybody has a pull-the-plug algorithm subroutine written into these things at this point.

And, so your point about this all going suddenly bidless, it’s not a question of "can I get at 3% down, 8% or 10%?"—I think there’s an opportunity for an air pocket here. And, again, I don’t know, you don’t know. Maybe that’s too much hyperbole. But it’s clearly part of the market structure at this point.

I don’t think a lot of people really appreciate that we can’t really look back even ten years and say, “We know how markets behave when we get into these weird spaces.” Because, we’ve got whole new liquidity conditions, we’ve got way too much over-confidence in the Fed, or under-confidence soon to come. Or, this entirely new market structure courtesy of algorithmic trading and computers and all that. Everything’s kind of different. So, it’s kind of like we’re being asked to take our wealth, put it on a space shuttle that’s never been tried before, but trust us, we’re going to orbit the earth and dock with the space station flawlessly.

Grant Williams: Yeah, I mean, the one thing you missed out on when describing those algorithms—and you’re right, remorseless, relentless. But, they’re also trend-following, and that’s the crucial thing. Because, the trend at the moment is up, and once the market turns and the market wants to go down, and the Fed are out of bullets or whatever it may be, or confidence goes, whatever it may be that turns the general trend of the market lower, those computers will instantly flip around. And, they don’t care, they’re not—they’ve got no intellectual or emotional attachment to the P&L they’re making. They will just become sellers, and they will become remorseless and relentless sellers the way they’ve been buying. So, that’s one problem.

The other problem, I think, you mentioned talking about the central banks, and this kind of goes back to your comment about the academic mindset. And, I think perhaps the most instructional appearance by a central bank in terms of understanding just the level of—call it hubris if we want to, I guess—was when Ben Bernanke appeared on “60 Minutes.” And, the guy asked him the question about—don't forget this was way, way back, we weren’t anywhere near as deep in as we are now—but, he said to him, “What degree of confidence do you have that you can control…”—they were talking about inflation—“…that you can control inflation?” And, Bernanke didn’t even let him finish before he said 100%. And, the guy was kind of taken aback by that. And, he questioned him, he said, “100%?” Bernanke went, “100%.”

Now, you and I both know you don’t say 100% to anything. Anybody asks you a question in markets, in finance, there are no 100% answers. And, so for, arguably the most important man in the world at that point to have the hubris to say he was 100% confident, not only to say it, but to say it twice in three seconds with even more conviction the second time, tells you that these guys actually believe that—it’s the academic mindset—that they can control this. And, that is so dangerous for guys like you and me that have money invested in markets. It’s almost impossible to fathom, but that’s where we are. And, they are going to find out, like we all know instinctively, that there is no 100%. They’re going to find that out, and when they do find out that, let’s say it’s only 99%, well, within that 1% is where all the bad things happen, and that’s what really frightens me.

Chris Martenson: Well, yes, and inflation, of course, has at least two components officially, a third unofficially. And, the unofficial component is they just fudge the numbers when they need to, right? And, I could have a whole discussion about how they fudge it. But, the first two components would be, well, inflation’s a monetary phenomenon. And, secondarily, it’s about expectations, and expectations is a psychological beast. For somebody like Bernanke to say, “I have 100% control over people’s expectations,” a little bit bizarre, right? Must be weird to go on a date with this guy. I wouldn’t even know how to really react in that situation.

But, when we look at the monetary phenomenon, I got asked this question at a conference the other day. And, somebody said, “Hey, you know, you talk about all that money and you show me exponential money. Where’s the inflation?” I said, “Well, just talk to anybody else in this room. You know, try and buy a Gulfstream 650 or ask me how many dollars per square foot it is for a top-end apartment in Manhattan right now, $3,000’s the bottom, $5,000, $6,000’s the top per square foot. Look at art, look at diamonds…” I mean, so the money got sort of concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy and guess what, they bid up everything that they care about, and those are all fantastically expensive at this point. But, so are financial assets. Greatest failing in the Fed ever—well, they’ve had a lot, but this is a big one, maybe I have to argue whether this is the top—was Greenspan deciding that inflation only existed in the CPI, it didn’t exist in asset prices. And, I think inflation is dangerous wherever it houses itself, but in asset prices you get some time, you get to sort of pretend it doesn’t exist or that it’s even virtuous for a period of time. But, inflation is inflation and we’ve got tons of it if you know where to look.

And, of course, the last part of this, what’s the third component of inflation I care about is it’s just doctored. It’s just, it’s a totally manipulated number. For instance, you wander over to the BLS, you look at the CPI construct, and they say, “Oh, here’s our inflation pie chart. 4.5% of the pie chart of things we track is healthcare.” Like, really? Because, it’s 18% of the economy. How do you weight it at 4.5% when it’s 18% of the overall spend? Right? That’s just because, why, well, you weight it low and it’s rising fast, that way the effect is diminished, all that. So, this whole idea of inflation, I think, was actually one of the larger critical mistakes of the Fed. And, now that I’m thinking about it, it wasn’t the biggest. Thinking that risk could be offloaded permanently into outer space via derivatives might be the largest. But, on inflation, I really think the Fed has it just structurally wrong, intellectually wrong.

Grant Williams: Yes, no two ways about it. And, what you said is precisely the crux of the matter. It is that there is hyperinflation. Yeah, we are living through hyperinflation, but the hyperinflation is in assets that the 1% want to own. It is those Manhattan penthouses, it is the jets, the Monet paintings, it’s the fine wines. And, that kind of works for the central banks, because there are only—to most people, it’s a headline in the newspaper, “Munch Painting Sells for $120 Million.” That’s a headline, maybe they read the story, maybe they don’t, but likely they don’t. To a guy worth billions, who’s looking to put his money into something that’s not going to get, essentially, gradually confiscated over time, that’s a real pain, because it means he’s got to pay 125 million bucks to buy that painting next time.

So, it’s happening, and it’s happening right before people’s eyes, but it’s happening very quietly in a small corner of the world that, that not only do people not really care about, but most people over the last sort of four or five years have been conditioned to dislike vehemently. And, that is, that’s where we get into the political side of this whole thing. Because, because it is, it does become a political football and it does become a means by which to, to vilify a small group of people. Because, you know that, hey, these guys have got all the money and we need all the money. So, if we’re going to get it, we’re going to have to take it from them somehow. So, if we make them out to be the bad guys, which is why you’ve seen this 1%, 99% debate going on more and more vociferously over the last few years. This is what happens. You realize that you’re going to have to get some money from somewhere, and you can only get it from the people who’ve got it. And, what it takes to be, I guess, qualified for the 1% would frighten a lot of people. There are a lot of people out there shaking their fists at the 1% without realizing they’re in it. And, they’re not in the .1% where all the money is, they’re in the .99% where they’re coming for you, and you don’t have a lot to give them, but they’re going to take what they can.

So, whichever way you look at this, there are several possible roadmaps and several possible time frames in which this whole thing happens. But, these are forces of nature, and I’ve given presentations about this. And, when you’re dealing with forces of nature, you can’t insert yourself in the process and corrupt them, not for a long period of time. You can do it temporarily, and there are thousands of lab experiments where people can show the results of this stuff. But, ultimately, these things are far too strong to overwhelm guys sitting in the Marriner Eccles Building, or the Bank of England. They keep inserting themselves, they keep tweaking, and they keep upping the amount of involvement they have until guess what, they get to negative rates and they get to the situation they’re in now, where they’re desperately trying to—they need to borrow more money to keep this thing going, but it’s starting to fall over under its own weight. And it will fall over under its weight. People kind of point at the likes of you and I that have been pointing this out for a while, but none of us know when this is going to happen. It’s clear to see what’s going to happen, and just because you’re early, it doesn’t mean you’re wrong, and that’s the thing people need to understand.

Chris Martenson: Absolutely. I would rather be a year early than a day late to this story. But, let me devil’s advocate this. Yes, I do talk with people who say, “Yes, I have been wrong. And, I’m wrong because the market says so, and I’m wrong because clearly there’s no inflation, and clearly we can just print more and more.” And, so let me take this to its absurd conclusion, which is: Why wouldn’t we just eliminate income taxes and why wouldn’t we just eliminate paychecks? Why wouldn’t the Fed just give everybody money? So, luckily, we get to find out the conclusion of that, because I guess, well, Finland just stepped up to the plate, didn’t they?

Grant Williams: Yeah, they did, and they’re talking about giving everybody what they call a living wage. So, the idea is that you sort of take away social services, but you give everybody a living wage, and they get paid that every month as a stipend to live on and cover their healthcare. It will fail. It’s failed when people have done it in history. It sounds like a great idea, and the dangerous thing is they’ll do this and there won’t be any immediate catastrophe.

Chris Martenson: Right.

Grant Williams: People will take the money and they’ll kind of—it’s not going to make things better overnight, but the whole of society is not going to collapse. And, that’s the danger, because suddenly, other people look at it, like they looked at Abenomics and said “Hey, you know, nothing bad’s happened, we should try this.” And, when the Swedes went to negative interest rates, everyone’s watching them very carefully. "Well, you know what, Sweden hasn’t evaporated in a ball of smoke. We should try that." And, it takes a while for these things to filter through and have the effect that they are bound to have, ultimately. It’s in that time where other people kind of look at it and say, “Well, you know, because nothing bad’s happened, it absolutely means nothing will happen, so we’re good to go.” This is how QE has become so pervasive.

And, so, yeah, from what I understand, the Finns are going to try this, and you better believe that everybody else is watching them like a hawk for any signs that it doesn’t instantly lead to Armageddon. And, if that’s the case, they will all have this on their radar of something to do. This will be another arrow in the quiver should things start to unravel.

Chris Martenson: Now, if that arrow ever gets fired in the U.S., that’s when I’ve advised the people who listen to me that you should run, not walk, and buy everything that’s not nailed down. Because, I don’t know when exactly, the timing is tricky, but might as well do it early, by which I mean spend it. Because, this was always something that was anticipated by myself, by yourself, by a number of other people who are observers of all this, which is once you get down to the zero bound and the Fed no longer knows—pumping QE out and giving it to the big banks doesn’t really seem to be doing it. So, what do you do? You got to get the money to Main Street. So, whether that takes the form of a direct monthly stipend like the Finns are doing, or whether my government decides to cut my tax rate in half, or give me a complete tax holiday, or even a rebate for the last three years. Or, I get a check from the Fed. I don’t care. The mechanism is the same. It’s more grotesque overt monetization by the central bank in order to support this idea that they know best what the level of aggregate demand and spending ought to be and they’ll do whatever it takes to get us there. Steve Keen, the economist out of Australia, has a proposal that maybe they give everybody $50,000. But, you have to use it to pay your debts down, and so it’s sort of a "jubilee for the people" kind of a moment.

Any way this gets put forward, Grant, I believe that that’s sort of like the apocryphal mark of the end times, for me. I just, like at that point, how, how are you any different from Venezuela currently, or any other country that’s attempted to print their way to prosperity? I can’t, to me, it’s just like the best advice I know how to give is just go and buy things quickly.

Grant Williams: Well, unfortunately, none of us are any better than Venezuela. We’re just far earlier in the process, that’s all. We’re doing exactly the things that the countries like that, banana republics have done in the past. It’s no different than Zimbabwe. It just hasn’t, we haven’t reached that critical phase where it accelerates yet. But, the funny thing is, when you talk about these kind of scenarios where it’s "run out and buy anything that isn’t nailed down," what you have to try and do is get into the psychology of people at that time, rather than now. Because, right now, you can’t look at it in the cold light of day and go, "yeah, well, if that’s what’s happening, that’s what we do." But, people tend to be thinking differently at that point.

There’s a great case in point in Japan in the ‘90s, when they were desperately trying to break this deflationary mindset. And, the Japanese were hoarding, they weren’t spending their money. They just felt that deflation was there. They felt prices were going to get lower so why buy something now, we can buy it cheaper in a year’s time. And, the government came up with this great idea. They would give coupons to everybody that, well, I forget what the number was, but let’s say it’s 500 bucks, equivalent in yen. So, everybody got a coupon. But, they had to make sure that people went out and spend them, so they put an expiration date on this thing, because they wanted to get this money into the economy, wanted to get the Japanese spending again. So, they sent them all a coupon for 500 bucks, but it had to be spent by, I don’t know, the first of July. And, that, in their mind, was a cast-iron way of getting this money into the economy. The Japanese would go and spend it, we’d break this deflationary mindset and this would turn things around. And, what do the Japanese do? Their mindset was so warped by what they’d been through and the experiences they’d had and where they’d got to in their own psyches, they hoarded the coupons. In their minds, it was a case of, well, if we don’t spend them, they’ll extend the deadline, so I’m going to hoard the—I’m not going to spend this 500 bucks.

So, when you get to the point where people are hoarding free money that you have a limited time to spend, you understand that the psychological component of this is overwhelming anything that these guys can do. And, that’s what you get at the extremes, and that’s the one thing that they really can’t do. Because, when you’ve reached that point, the more you squeeze and the more you push to try and get them to do a certain thing, the more their own mindset sees the negative side of that and pushes against you and tries to stop you doing it. And, we’re close. I mean, we’re a lot closer than people think to that kind of point in time, I think.

Chris Martenson: Well, so the psychology is the critical part of all this. And, Grant, the more I get out and talk with people, I’m seeing a number of bifurcations. Here’s another one. Boomers versus millennials, right? So grossly speaking, boomers, let’s say everybody 50 and older, what they want, Grant, is they just want the status quo to be preserved. And, rightly so. "Worked hard, went through my peak earning years. I’ve saved. I just want this to continue," right? And, the millennials have an entirely kind of a different sort of a psychology to them, which is like "this all looks like rubbish to me," right? "I’m supposed to go to college, spend a lot of money to get a degree, maybe go into debt for that. No corporate fealty whatsoever. The government’s required me to pay into an entitlement system which I can mathematically guarantee will not be there for me, so that’s just wasted money. And, my country’s 18-plus, almost 19 trillion dollars in debt. And, in the United States, it’s all crumbling infrastructure, like bridges that fall into the ocean and cell service that’s embarrassing relative to any European country, and yada, yada." So, the millennials look at all this like that’s not really an attractive deal.

And, so the psychology of all this is that I think that really, what I’m sensing is that there’s a system that’s run its course. It no longer makes logical sense, because you can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet anyway. And, the story’s starting to break down just even within this economic sphere, but God forbid you turn your eye to soil loss, aquifer depletion, species extinction, ocean acidification and fisheries lost, whatever. Like on the environmental side, it’s like, ugh, there’s some awkward stuff to look at there. And, so really, what I think we’re dealing with is not something as much about the numbers as it is about the fact that the larger organizing narrative of why we’re humans on this planet, and what we do to occupy ourselves, it doesn’t really comport all that well with the reality that we read about. When a culture’s prime narrative begins to break down, it’s an awkward time. And, I think I’m seeing that generationally first, if I haven’t gone too far off the reservation in this conversation. But, it’s kind of an existential moment, I think, in some ways.

Grant Williams: Yeah, and it’s, yeah, I’m the father of two millennial kids and I talk to them about this stuff. They get it to an extent. They don’t get it completely, because they’re not as wrapped up in the financial side of it. They get the socioeconomic side of it, but they don’t get the pure economic side of it. And, I think you’re absolutely right. We’ve reached that point where it feels like a change in this beautiful thing that everyone calls "the system." You know, "the system’s going to collapse." "The system’s going to do this." But, these systems get reset all the time, and this one feels like it’s, as you said, run its course.

The problem is it’s such a big concept for people to understand and have to think about. If you force someone to think about, okay, what happens if the entire framework of your everyday life changes, it goes away and we have a different thing? People don’t want to think about that, because it is, it’s an enormous concept, and it’s a frightening concept. And, the outcomes are, A.) too big to really understand, and B.) potentially too frightening to—as you said, that stability, that life that you’ve come to love and you feel like you’ve earned. And, so things like this, when they come along, tend to happen kind of suddenly without people realizing it. And, they are associated with the word "collapse," because nobody wanted to do the planning about it. Nobody wants to think about demographics, for example, which you can see the big picture of what’s going to happen in 25 years. We knew the Japanese population was going to be net declining in 2014, 25-30 years ago.

No one did anything about it, because it was such a big concept. And, if you campaign and you try to make change about something that possibly might mathematically happen in 30 years’ time, you’re going to be laughed out of town. So, anyone talking about making plans for a new system openly is going to get laughed out of town.

But, you better believe that these conversations are going on and have been going on at the very highest levels for some time now. Because, I think it’s clear now that a Plan B of sorts is needed. Personally, I think gold is going to play a part in that, because it will have to. But, I think there are going to be some big changes coming. My fear has been over the last couple of years, and it’s been growing, as to whether than comes about through conflict. If you look through history, you’ll find that generally at major turns in economic cycles, they are associated with major conflict. And, what’s happened in the last year since I gave a presentation about this called “The Consequences of the Economic Peace,” has just reinforced my concerns. And, you look at what’s happening in Syria, you look at the Russia/Turkey situation, you look at Japan and China in the South China Sea. There are all kinds of flashpoints all around the world that provide tremendous pressure release valves when things get to extremes. And, my concern about this stuff is rising by the day. I get very, very worried about this stuff.

Chris Martenson: I share that concern. I’ve been writing a lot lately about the Syrian conflict, and of course, that’s just a dot that we have rewind all the way back for many decades in the Middle East when it comes to the United States’ involvement there and other players. As I look at that, though—I was at this other conference just last week, I was asked by a European gentleman like what did I think of the refugee crisis. And, he was really looking at it from a geopolitical angle, and I said, “Well, let me reorient that for you,” and just note that right now, Europe’s choking on a million-ish refugees seeking to sneak in, escaping a variety of conditions. But, if the resource trends that we know about in the whole Middle East/North Africa region come to pass, which include water—Saudi Arabia pumped all their water out to grow wheat, and it has run out. And, they’re about to start importing. That’s fine if you got a lot of oil. When that runs out, then what? Rapidly rising population. So, I said, “Listen, if you think the million is a troublesome moment, how would you feel about 100 million?” Because, we’re about to enter into these large sort of migratory patterns which could happen for economic reasons, environmental reasons, when a region’s energy runs out, etc., and so forth.

So, I agree with you. I share with you this idea that we have to keep our eye on the conflict angle of this because, historically, almost all conflicts have been about resources. If you study the period of England from say 800 to 1400 and you had all these Viking raids and all the Frankish raids and the Welsh and the British and everybody going at it. Those were fundamentally all dictated by poor harvests and overpopulation. And, that’s just sort of been a pattern that’s been true through all of time. So, when you say you’re worried about these conflicts, is that because you think economically this is how we solve things politically, or are you worried about it as I am potentially on the resource side as well?

Grant Williams: Well, I think both, and I think you get back to what we were talking about just a moment ago, about these big concepts. If you talk about a country running out of water, for example, that’s a concept that from a practical standpoint nobody can really get their heads around that.

Chris Martenson: Right.

Grant Williams: Because, they’ve never been without water, they have no experience of what it’s like to be without water. They can’t conceive of a world where they don’t turn their tap on and there’s water. But, of course, it can happen. It’s why people who have lived through the hyperinflation in South America have a completely different look in their eyes when you talk to them about hyperinflation than anyone who’s lived in the U.S. or the U.K. I mean, you’ll find some very old people in Germany that understand, but we’ve had generations where they’ve never experienced that. So, all of these concepts which you have no experience of, unless you read history and you understand that there are cycles in these things, and you read enough history to see those cycles manifest themselves over time. Of course, it’s impossible to think about, well, I turn the tap on, there’s no water.

But, when you reach these points something has to be done. And, occasionally, if your country has run out of a resource, as you said, right away through time, you go into the country next door that has some and you take it. That’s what happens. I mean, we like to think we live in a world where you would be able to bargain, and you’d be able to have a trade deal with someone to bring in and pay for your water, pay for your wheat, whatever it is you have to do. But, of course, if the country next door is undergoing similar problems and they have their own people to feed and keep happy and maintain their own power, their own grip on the country, well, then, this stuff’s not for sale. So, what do you do? What do you do in that problem? You have to keep your people fed. Rule number one, keep your people fed.

So, just because we’re not in ancient Egypt anymore, and we’re all walking around with iPads, at the end of the day and the bottom of this whole thing, people need to be fed and they need to have water. And, again, this is another one of those concepts that’s such a big thing to think about and such a big thing to talk about that when you do, people tend to think you’re a little bit crazy. And, I’m okay with that, because I’m not saying it’s my base case, I’m saying it’s at one of the tails.

When I talk to people about this, you realize that the main difference between the people that talk about this stuff and understand this stuff, and the man in the street, all it is is the tail risk events that thinkers can conceive of are further out on the tails than the man in the street. Which is understandable, because the man in the street doesn’t spend an awful lot of time thinking about this stuff. But, when you understand that, you know what, your biggest risk doesn’t end at this particular point, it actually continues, and the risks get almost infinitesimal. But, they are very real risks, and you have to actually try and figure out what you’re going to do if some of these really extreme events happen. And, you don’t need to be right, and you hope you’re wrong, but you have to have a plan for what happens when things like a country runs out of food, or a country runs out of water, or a country goes to war.

And, things like a Russian plane getting shot down over Turkey, well, that shifts a lot of people’s possible tail risks out a little further on the curve. Because, they go, “Wow, who’d have thought that the Turks would shoot down a Russian fighter plane? I didn’t see that coming.” But, they’re not all the way along, which is conflict, as I said. I keep stressing this. I’m not saying a war’s going to happen. What I’m saying very carefully is—I’m saying a war is not not going to happen, and I think it’s a very, very fine distinction, but a very, very important one. It’s something you have to understand is a possibility no matter how remote.

Chris Martenson: I agree. And, the way I think of it is with probability, so I’m not yes or no war, it won’t, it will. That’s too binary. I’m not flipping a coin. It’s kind of like I have a ten-sided die, and we’ve got a "W" for "war" on this and otherwise we’ve got an "N" for "no war." It’s kind of like I feel like the 10-sided die now has 6 Ws on it.

Grant Williams: Yeah, that’s a great way to put it.

Chris Martenson: You know, we’re going to throw it and we’re going to hope it comes up an N, but you never quite know anymore, and that shooting down of the Russian jet clearly was an act of provocation by Turkey. I don’t know what they were smoking that day, but it was good stuff, because they clearly were ambushing that jet, and I don’t know what they were trying to achieve. But, at any rate, that just dials it, that puts one more W on my die at that point in time. Because, it’s just, the tension’s up.

So, given all this—and, final question—I’ve just been mystified. I just wrote this, another overly long piece on gold, because I’m looking at supply and demand, all that, and the obvious story of gold flowing from West to East, China’s astonishing appetite for it. And, through all of that, gold’s just been falling in price, largely driven however you want to measure that, gold falls in the paper markets. But, the physical market’s been responding and coughing up just, again, an astonishing amount from Western vaults, at least 1,000 tons, maybe 1500 is my best guess, but it could be as high as 2,000 tons per year for the last two and half, three years now. It’s just been evaporating. How do you square that with the price and do you think there’s an end to that? Or, where’s it coming from?

Grant Williams: Well, I just, I literally just got back from London giving a presentation on this exact topic. And, to me, it’s actually reasonably straightforward. The title of my presentation was “Nobody Cares.” And, I think that’s it in a nutshell. There are people that buy gold and own gold and hold gold, and I’m talking mainly about Western investors here. And, they’re looking at this thing thinking, well, you know, "why isn’t the price going up?" And, I put a timeline up in this presentation that showed all the events over the last three years that ordinarily one would’ve thought would be positive for the gold price. And, I went through them all and you just watch the price go lower and lower and lower. And, the simple truth is, outside of people that own gold and who look at gold, nobody really cares. And, so we fixate on this and we look and we go, "why doesn’t everybody get this?" Why [audio breakup] because more now than ever need to own this, this crazy yellow rock. But, people don’t care, and they’re not looking at it and they’re not thinking about it.

And, so you get this, again, we get back to this whole paper trading, derivatives, we get all this stuff being layered on top of these gold markets. Well, meanwhile, as you pointed out, the physical gold is pouring into really, really strong hands. So, what people have to understand is that for the entire period of time when just a few people care—and it is relatively speaking, just a few people. It’s a very small market. Pension funds, for example, have 0.15% of their assets in gold and gold equities. If that doubled, it’s a $100 billion, just to take them to .3%. And, over time, these guys have at periods in the past been at 5% in gold. That would be one and a half trillion dollars. Just pension funds. Forget hedge funds going into the gold space. And, that can’t happen without stupendously higher prices. But, it’s not happening now. The difference between gold and a lot of other things is that it is a physical asset, and it is something that does have great store of wealth and it’s trusted by over half the population in the world, even though we’re in the smaller half.

The guys in China and guys in India or Indonesia, in the Philippines and Turkey, all these places, for centuries, they’ve put their trust in gold, and they’ve put their wealth in gold. These people are getting wealthier, and so as they get wealthier, they’ve going to convert an increasing amount of all of that wealth into physical gold. We’re seeing that in Shanghai. We’re clearly seeing the amount of physical gold being withdrawn through that exchange is now 52 times that which is delivered on COMEX. And, yet when people talk about the gold price, we’re talking about a piece of paper that trades in the U.S., which is fine. That’s absolutely fine. If that’s what you want to call the gold price, great. But, to anyone in China, Turkey, Indonesia, Philippines, to them, the gold price is not the piece of paper in COMEX, it’s what the guy in the market will sell them an ounce of gold at. And, they’ll buy it.

So, this is another one of those things that is too big for people to see. They focus on the price, and they look at gold going down. They’re not looking at the big picture because it’s complex and it involves understanding other cultures and other countries. It’s just a little bit too much work. And, none of this is going to be obvious until you reach that point in time where confidence goes in the Federal Reserve, and confidence goes in paper assets, when people start to want to own real assets. And, the simplest real asset to own and to buy is not real estate—because most people will need leverage for that—it’s gold.

And, again, you go back to these cycles, people have always gone to gold, always, throughout time, everywhere in the world. And, at the point where everybody suddenly says, “You know, I need to own some gold,” owning paper’s not going to do it. So, the thing that there’s this endless supply of, which is derivatives on gold and future contracts, that’s not what people are going to want to own. They’re going to want to own the stuff that’s been pouring out of the vaults in Shanghai. And, guess what? The people that have been buying it are not going to want to sell it to you, because they’re going to want to own it even more just like you do.

So, just because this stuff hasn’t happened—and it is baffling. But it’s not baffling to me as to why the price hasn’t gone up or even why it’s going down. It’s baffling to me that more people don’t understand why they should absolutely own some gold. They don’t need to own 100%, but they need to own some of it, because it will be an asset that rises amidst a lot of falling assets. It will give them protection. It’s money. You’re not buying something that has a shelf life. You’re buying money, and you’re buying real money.

The day for gold to go higher is going to come. It’s taken longer than certainly I thought, and a lot longer than a lot of other people thought. But, it’s just a question of patience. It’s waiting for that balance to tip for more people to understand it, and more people to realize that, "you know, I need to own some gold." Because, once they reach that realization, the next question is, "okay, where and how do I get it?" And, that’s where the problems start.

Chris Martenson: Indeed. And, every time we see gold or silver have a little bit of a price hiccup, the retail channels just get absolutely crushed in the United States. It becomes four, six-week waiting times. That’s with just a few extra gold bugs and silver bugs saying, “You know what? Price is down, I think I’ll buy a little more.” I mean, it’s like a nominal, it’s like this little tiny little wiggle of the needle, and it creates supply disruptions. Of course, of course, if the pensioned, well-heeled, well-moneyed crowd who are lining up to buy those Golf Stream 650s, if they just turned a little bit of their fire power, I think the market would become chaotic and difficult for the average person to invest in very rapidly. The super moneyed people would always have access. But, everybody else…

Grant Williams: Well, those, I think those super money people—what’s really interesting is the amount of leverage that they could get—instead of going and buying gold bars, go buy a gold mine. Go buy a gold mine and shut it down. Keep your gold in the ground. Because, not only do you own the gold, you’ve also cut the supply. And, the leverage you get from doing that—and it sounds kind of crazy. "Oh, yeah, go and buy a gold mine." But, that’s what these people who have the kind of money to buy the Gulf Streams and the $120 million paintings, that’s not only what they can do, but that’s what they think about when they reach these points. "Okay, I need to own something. What’s the smartest way for me to own it?" Well, if you can buy an asset that not only gives you ownership of it, but takes supply off the market, obviously, you get tremendous leverage to an increase in price by doing that.

And, I fully expect to see that. I fully expect at some point that some of these gold mines get taken private, and just shut down. No storage costs, it’s just sitting in the ground, and you own it, and when higher prices come up, you can open it up again and take it out of the ground. It’s a really smart thing to do if you’ve got an awful lot of money.

Chris Martenson: It’s the best vault in the world, very difficult to crack into. Totally get it. That makes all perfect sense, and of course, it’s, Grant, always fascinating talking with you and I could on forever. And, we’ll do this again. But I really want to give listeners a chance to, obviously, follow up with you more and find out more about what you’re doing. So talk to us about what you’re up to and how people follow you.

Grant Williams: Well, there’s a couple of things, and people can follow me on Twitter, which is @ttmygh, which is just the acronym for "Things That Make You Go Hmm." The website for that is ttmygh.com, and its bimonthly letter that I write about whatever I think is worth talking about. Subjects do range from gold to Abenomics to the U.K. economy, all kinds of things. There’s so much going on right now, as you said, we live in extraordinary times.

Another project that I started a year ago with my partner, Raoul Pal, is called Real Vision. This is a video channel, an on-demand video channel for finance. We basically, like you do, we go around the world and we sit down with really smart people and we talk to them. We don’t talk in three-minute sound bites like they do on CNBC. We let these people talk. And we sit with them for an hour like you do, and we talk about how they think about things. We don’t ask them "where do you think the S&P’s going to go?" because none of us know. But, what we try and get into is how do you invest, how do you structure your trade, how do you think about tail risk, how do you plan for unexpected outcomes. And, it’s a fascinating project that’s gaining some great traction, so we’re very proud of it. And, the website for that is realvisiontv.com. So, take a look. I think you’ll like what you see.

Chris Martenson: We’ve been talking with Grant Williams of TTMYGH, Things That Make You Go Hmm. And, fantastic newsletter, so if you want to sign up for that, I would highly recommend it, and Real Vision as well. So, Grant, thank you so much for your time, very generous, and always entertaining, and I can’t wait to do this again.

Grant Williams: Chris, it’s a great pleasure always. Thank you so much for having me on.

Related content
» More

92 Comments

  • Tue, Dec 15, 2015 - 4:45pm

    #1

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 518

    0

    And, if you look at a chart

    And, if you look at a chart of interest rates in the U.S., you can see. It’s just, from 1980—I’ve marked two points on all my charts for presentations. One is the end of the gold standard, August 15, ’71, when Nixon closed the gold window. And, the next is peak interest rates in 1980. And, if you look at those two charts and you see what’s happened with interest rates since, they’ve been on a course to hit zero ever since.
    There was also something else that happened in 1971 -- US peak oil. Since positive real interest rates in a financial system that is growing implies that the real economy is also growing, and since real economic growth implies growth in energy use, it only stands to reason that interest rates would go down over that period. Also, prices of debt go up as interest rates drop, so those at the center of the debt universe have profited greatly over this period. Interest is a promise that the future will be larger than today. With peak oil, the future won't be larger than today which is why we have zero percent today. This also explains the rise of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency to facilitate the trade deficit to import the rest of the worlds oil instead; and the military industrial complex to enforce the dollar, the fact that the world has hit peak oil now, and you can see why everything is collapsing. 
     
    It seems there is so much discussion about what the fed should do differently or should have done differently in 2001 or 2008, as if there is an alternative course of action for this system. Well no, this monetary system is inherently flawed, and since it began in 1971 it was guaranteed to fail and and follow a similar fate to what we see unfolding. The sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we may be able to free ourselves from the grip of the bankers and build a new sustainable monetary system. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 15, 2015 - 7:47pm

    #2
    KugsCheese

    KugsCheese

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 917

    0

    The Finns

    It would be better for the Finns to leave the Euro and back currency with gold.  The Basic Income Act is full of unintended consequences that will kill Finland.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 15, 2015 - 8:01pm

    #3

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    The two forms of wealth

    There was a rule that said that anyone who owned a mining lease was obliged to work the lease. I guess that the uber-wealthy  may be able to reduce production, but not close the mine down. 

    The other point is that a gold mine is in the basket of goods that the uber-wealthy  desire and therefore should be inflating.

    We really should be discussing the future role of automation in displacing warm bodies in the economy. The wealth generated by this phenomenon needs to be redistributed to those warm bodies.   Additive manufacturing, 3d printing among others technology.  I was thinking of the Cloward-Piven strategy of enforcing wealth distribution.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

    But if those 10s of millions of warm bodies require life support they may will be seen as a liability, not an asset. Especially if those warm bodies will not or can not buy the products of the machine. They may remove themselves from the economy completely. 

    Which brings me to the conclusion of the LTG report.  We have to move capital from industry into agriculture, or starve. It seems as though most have chosen. Life on the land is no Shangri-la. But it is where human wealth is. 

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 15, 2015 - 8:59pm

    #4
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 534

    0

    Amen! - But now what can we do about it?

    I can't agree more with Mark_BC and Arthur R. This entire discussion was the perfect recap and exposition of the basic economic principle of decreasing marginal utility. It explains just about every economic downturn I can think of. Thanks to cheap energy, "The faster we go, the behind-er we get." will be the rule of thumb for the impending future. But what to do? A consistent, gradual reduction on our resource use, incremental population reduction, increased focus on transition to historic, renewable, energy systems and a psychological change in our human expectations may be a good place to start. You guys at PP can't sound this drum any louder or more frequently than what the deaf can take in. Keep preaching to the choir and start the choir preaching to the congregation. Somebody's got to hear it eventually.Great discussion.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 15, 2015 - 10:46pm

    #5
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Meh

    As some point all this shit just gets old.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 15, 2015 - 11:43pm

    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 400

    0

    Agreed

    [quote=Arthur Robey]

    Which brings me to the conclusion of the LTG report.  We have to move capital from industry into agriculture, or starve. It seems as though most have chosen. Life on the land is no Shangri-la. But it is where human wealth is. 

    [/quote]

    Yep, no arguments on that one.

    I think we need to overhaul the education system, but sadly I don't think the people in charge are of the right "mindset" to do it. For example, here in the UK our school dinners are notoriously poor in nutritional value - back in 2005 several articles were written about it (back when people were bothered). A chef named Jamie Oliver, beloved by all, even did a TV series on it. Did it not occur to anyone that kids should be outside learning to grow their own food rather than remain cooped up in classrooms being bored into submission? That perhaps they might like digging holes and planting bulbs rather than reciting the latest curriculum mantra? Hell, they might even be intellectually stimulated and learn about that magic force which keeps them alive. Even more radically they might suggest improvements to the process. But, Lukus, who will operate the machines and wipe the tables... OK, I concede.

    So instead the children fester in their urban asylums and we continue to remain dumb-founded as to why they remain so disconnected and insular. Still, all going to plan...

    Well, my mission remains simple; tell people about my garden (along with the plans I have for it) and try to show that healthiness leads to happiness. Whoever has ears, let them hear...

    All the best,

    Luke

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 6:28am

    #7

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    Finland may not be alone for long...

     

    Think tank floats 'basic income' idea for all citizens

    A think tank is calling for fundamental change to the system of tax and benefits in the UK.

    The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) is recommending a basic universal income.

    In a new report, the author calls the approach the best alternative "to help people improve their own lives".

    The RSA estimates that its proposal would cost about an extra 1% of annual national income (GDP).

    The idea is in principle fairly straightforward: a standard payment is made to every citizen. The report illustrates how it might work using data for taxes and benefits in 2012-2013.

    The basic income for people aged between 25 and 65 would in this example be £3,692. There is a pension of about double that amount for those older than 65.

    There would be a basic income for children too: for the first child it would be higher than the working age adult basic until they reach school age. Above that age, and for all children after the first, it would be below that level.

    ----

    Some cities in the Netherlands are also looking at the idea. There is also a debate in Switzerland about introducing a basic income.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 8:19am

    #8
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    "Basic Income"

    Aka "helicopter drop" for the masses? Rather than a lump sum, a monthly trickle? 

    Might help prevent sudden onset inflation this way...the slow liquidity injection.

    Paging Dr. Martenson...

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 8:46am

    #9
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    The left in the UK are still

    The left in the UK are still pissed off about the enclosures of the commons and fields. Redistribution of land to the peasantry is impossible now, but a financial equivalent of everyone having their own bit of land ? interesting.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 1:12pm

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5681

    0

    Basic Income For all

    [quote=Time2help]

    Aka "helicopter drop" for the masses? Rather than a lump sum, a monthly trickle? 

    Might help prevent sudden onset inflation this way...the slow liquidity injection.

    Paging Dr. Martenson...

    [/quote]

    Hmmm....yes the trial balloons are being floated left and right, almost daily now.  Will it be negative interest rates with cash controls?

    Or perhaps another big QE, but this time directed more honestly and openly at equities and corporate bonds by the Fed?

    Or a Keen-like debt jubilee with a big $50k/household bolus of money?

    Or will it be basic income for all?

    With "basic income" we get the Goldilocks approach...not too hot, not too cold.  That's the idea.  The reality is that as claims on 'stuff' goes up but the amount of stuff does not pressure will build.  Politically, once people have free money it will be extremely difficult to take it away. Hence, the entire scheme relies on inflation coming along and returning most of that free money right back into government coffers via the miracle of rising taxes on nominal income.

    At this stage, they might as well try it.  Why not?  Nothing else is working and they seem to lack the appreciation for the role of declining net energy per capita in reshaping the workings of the system.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 2:21pm

    DennisC

    DennisC

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2011

    Posts: 258

    0

    We have not asked...

    these experts for their opinion.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 3:13pm

    thc0655

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 2398

    0

    We should ask this expert too!

    Thanks for your suggestion DennisC!  Here's mine for untapped wisdom on this subject:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 3:37pm

    KugsCheese

    KugsCheese

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 917

    0

    cmartenson wrote:Time2help

    [quote=cmartenson]

    [quote=Time2help]

    Aka "helicopter drop" for the masses? Rather than a lump sum, a monthly trickle? 

    Might help prevent sudden onset inflation this way...the slow liquidity injection.

    Paging Dr. Martenson...

    [/quote]

    Hmmm....yes the trial balloons are being floated left and right, almost daily now.  Will it be negative interest rates with cash controls?

    Or perhaps another big QE, but this time directed more honestly and openly at equities and corporate bonds by the Fed?

    Or a Keen-like debt jubilee with a big $50k/household bolus of money?

    Or will it be basic income for all?

    With "basic income" we get the Goldilocks approach...not too hot, not too cold.  That's the idea.  The reality is that as claims on 'stuff' goes up but the amount of stuff does not pressure will build.  Politically, once people have free money it will be extremely difficult to take it away. Hence, the entire scheme relies on inflation coming along and returning most of that free money right back into government coffers via the miracle of rising taxes on nominal income.

    At this stage, they might as well try it.  Why not?  Nothing else is working and they seem to lack the appreciation for the role of declining net energy per capita in reshaping the workings of the system.

    [/quote]

    Yes, and then the basic income will become the main income and scapegoats will be pointed to and war war war.   All these ideas have been tried before and failed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 3:53pm

    #14
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 534

    0

    Time for a government run Basic Income Hedge Fund

     Politically, once people have free money it will be extremely difficult to take it away. Hence, the entire scheme relies on inflation coming along and returning most of that free money right back into government coffers via the miracle of rising taxes on nominal income.

    At this stage, they might as well try it.  Why not?  Nothing else is working and they seem to lack the appreciation for the role of declining net energy per capita in reshaping the workings of the system.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcC4i9WQctw

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 3:58pm

    #15
    Hotrod

    Hotrod

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 171

    0

    The Status quo

     

    I believe many are failing to see the point of the basic income concept.  It is not meant to address underlying failures within conventional economic circumstances.  It is an attempt to maintain the status quo for just a bit longer.  Kick the can a little further down the road.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 4:02pm

    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Concur

    [quote=Hotrod]

    I believe many are failing to see the point of the basic income concept.  It is not meant to address underlying failures within conventional economic circumstances.  It is an attempt to maintain the status quo for just a bit longer.  Kick the can a little further down the road.

    [/quote]

    One....last....gasp....

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 4:05pm

    #17
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    Not meant by who ?

    Not meant by who ?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 4:16pm

    #18

    davefairtex

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2346

    0

    funding basic income

    So is "basic income" revenue neutral, or will it cost more money?  If its revenue neutral, sounds like a fine plan.  If it costs more money, that can either come from borrowing, or raising taxes.

    Certainly its directly stimulative, and its probably also more efficient than the government providing services directly such as housing and whatnot.

    It would theoretically get rid of a bunch of bureaucrats running dozens of different programs.

    If its a cash payment into a bank account, that's one thing.  If its an EBT card, that allows government direct access to tracking spending - and presumably yanking your income if you get out of line.  Its a more centralized direct axis of control.

    Is it supposed to replace national health care?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 5:03pm

    Snydeman

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 627

    0

    davefairtex wrote:So is

    [quote=davefairtex]

    So is "basic income" revenue neutral, or will it cost more money?  If its revenue neutral, sounds like a fine plan.  If it costs more money, that can either come from borrowing, or raising taxes.

    [/quote]

    You make it sound so simple! We would initiate a quantitative easing program designed to insure future prosperity, or increase mandatory financial support structures to assist government expenditures going towards the Prosperity for the People Program, silly! I mean, if we don't CALL it borrowing or taxing, it isn't right? Right?

    It reminds me of how the last Republican governor of my state promised he would not raise taxes, which he didn't...he just raised all fees, tolls, and other "payments" to the state. And people fell for it.

    A pig in a tutu is still a pig, after all, not a ballet dancer. 

     

    [quote=davefairtex]

    Certainly its directly stimulative, and its probably also more efficient than the government providing services directly such as housing and whatnot.

    [/quote]

    This at least seems more Keynsian to me than the last three rounds of QE. At least it goes to Main Street, in theory.

     

    [quote=davefairtex]

    It would theoretically get rid of a bunch of bureaucrats running dozens of different programs.

    [/quote]

    In my experience with history, dismantling bureaucracy has never happened peacefully nor easily. That would be a lot of lost jobs. At least they'd have a basic income to fall back on!

     

    [quote=davefairtex]

    If its a cash payment into a bank account, that's one thing.  If its an EBT card, that allows government direct access to tracking spending - and presumably yanking your income if you get out of line.  Its a more centralized direct axis of control.

    [/quote]

    That would employ all those unemployed bureaucrats, too! You'd need a lot of humans to track that, or a very adaptive computer software.

     

    [quote=davefairtex]

    Is it supposed to replace national health care?

    [/quote]

    You say "replace" as if we have a system of national healthcare. We have a myriad of private healthcare companies and a hodge-podge attempt at a national healthcare "backstop," not a truly national healthcare system ala Canada or Germany.

     

    So, would this work? As in, how far down the road do you think this kick could get us? I'd welcome the chance to have the government finance our family's prepping efforts, but I'd rather not be on its "radar" for such activities either.

     

    PS- Half of this post is made with tongue firmly entrenched in cheek, fyi.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 5:09pm

    Snydeman

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 627

    0

    cmartenson wrote:Hmmm....yes

    [quote=cmartenson]

    Hmmm....yes the trial balloons are being floated left and right, almost daily now.  Will it be negative interest rates with cash controls?

    Or perhaps another big QE, but this time directed more honestly and openly at equities and corporate bonds by the Fed?

    Or a Keen-like debt jubilee with a big $50k/household bolus of money?

    Or will it be basic income for all?

    With "basic income" we get the Goldilocks approach...not too hot, not too cold.  That's the idea.  The reality is that as claims on 'stuff' goes up but the amount of stuff does not pressure will build.  Politically, once people have free money it will be extremely difficult to take it away. Hence, the entire scheme relies on inflation coming along and returning most of that free money right back into government coffers via the miracle of rising taxes on nominal income.

    At this stage, they might as well try it.  Why not?  Nothing else is working and they seem to lack the appreciation for the role of declining net energy per capita in reshaping the workings of the system.

    [/quote]

     

    Let's keep our eye on the details, though. This is being floated in countries with strong socialist backgrounds and a history of more direct state-run economic systems. We are socialist, granted, at least to a small degree, but the move towards this kind of overt, direct government intervention in the economy represents a fundamental shift for the United States, and I can't see it being even attempted here without a seriously catastrophic event that would catalyze support behind it; a Great Depression, for instance, or similarly gargantuan-sized thing. I just don't see it passing the political obstacles.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 5:59pm

    davefairtex

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2346

    0

    talking about Finland

    Snydeman-

    I was actually talking about Finland.  I should have mentioned that, I suppose.  🙂

    Finland cannot print money, so they cannot fund this with anything other than new government debt, or new taxes.  And - if they have national healthcare, would this replace that?

    Just curious what's left, and what gets replaced, and if it ends up being more money or less.

    I just don't have enough facts to say whether or not I like the concept.  But just on general principles, I'm suspicious!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 6:46pm

    Snydeman

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 627

    0

    Yep

    Dave,

    I kinda figured, but you left a lot of room for me to let my snarky-ness out of the box, so I ran with it since I've had the kind of day that makes me want to quit my profession. From your posts I knew you didn't mean America, per se, but were philosophically chewing on the notion, so to speak.

     

    I will admit that I am having lots of mental fun imagining Rand Paul's face if such a thing were actually proposed in Congress.

     

    -S

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 6:48pm

    Jim H

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1273

    0

    Snydeman...

    You don't ever have to worry about Dave thinking you are too snarky as long as I am here  : )

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 7:33pm

    #24

    Snydeman

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 627

    0

    Breaking news

    Well, they rose the rate a full quarter point. All in, I suppose! Let's see how long it lasts...

     

    Now to head over to Zerohedge and watch the fireworks. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 16, 2015 - 7:59pm

    #25

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    I'd vote for it.  

     

    If we insist on living on this planet we have to reduce consumption. We have to reduce carbon use. 

    By ensuring a basic wage for everyone motivation is removed from the economy. Why work when you can drink beer? Why drive to work? Consumption of goods will collapse.  I'm sure beer making can be automated. 

    How is a poor girl supposed to fall in love when all the boys earn the same and have the same drunken maunderings ? She may have to settle  for an artist. At least she won't have any stupid "I've got to find meaning in my life" power junkie starting  a war. 

    She may even start breeding with pretty boys if money ceases to mating choice.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 12:36am

    #26

    charleshughsmith

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Aug 15 2010

    Posts: 709

    0

    The Flaws in Basic Income for Everyone

    I wrote a short essay outlining the three fundamental problems with basic guaranteed income:

    1. It will cost trillions more, and nobody has any realistic proposal on how to pay for it

    2. It institutionalizes a modern-day serfdom

    3. Humans need purpose, a source of meaning, a community that values their contribution. Paying people to do nothing is not positive. When people feel useless, they get hooked on drugs, get depressed and start dying.

    The Flaws in Basic Income for Everyone 

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogdec15/basic-income12-15.html

    What we need is guaranteed paid work for all, and my book outlines a way to do this.  Even if you disagree with the specifics, it's clear we need solutions outside the usual boxes of central-bank debt, central-state borrowing and free-markets. each has a role but none deal with the wholesale destruction of work from automation. 

    What few observers grasp is that automation is in essence commoditization--robotics and software can be shipped anywhere and work anywhere. If Company A buys robots and software, next month they're both cheaper and their competitor Company B can buy the exact same robots and software for less. In other words, the tools of automation have near-zero scarcity value and hence near-zero profitability. It's important to understand that labor has little scarcity value (except in a few high-value fields), and now capital has no scarcity value--that's why the yield on capital is effectively zero.

    Profits are going to crash as everything that can be automated is also commoditized. As profits and payrolls both decline, so will tax revenues.

    We need a new model.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:23am

    blackeagle

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 16 2013

    Posts: 256

    0

    Arthur

    or we could simply take the same path as First Nations (and many other around the world) have been pushed to: alcohol, aimlessness, social problems, downgrading level of instruction, etc... 

    People need to do something with their lives. Receiving free money will, IMO, bring more problems than it is supposed to solve.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:27am

    #28

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    Fade to black.

    I have a slightly different take on the issue of free money Charles.

    Money in a well behaved economy is a means  keeping score. In an hunter - gather  society there is no money but as society got more complex we resorted to tokens. 

    As automation replaces the worker the need to keep score disappears again.  Not in the way you turn a light off, but as a light dims and goes out. We are watching the light dim and it is very confusing. 

    Ultimately I believe that the tokens will be used to control consumption of carbon. How you react to that is a matter of choice. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:42am

    #29

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    Blackeagle

    I agree. But you must have faith in Mr Darwin.  Eventually humanity will change to fit whatever environment he finds himself in. 

    I  do not in way minimize the suffering of the first peoples.  But just wait. The wheel has not stopped  turning. 

    The Aborigines of Australia are amazingly adaptive. I put it down to the unforgiving nature of their environment. Which They created. Eventually they learned to fit in with the catastrophe  their world had become, and were much more careful with their resources. 

    And then Capitalism came and they are in the process of adapting again. And then we left the planet and 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:52am

    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Ahaaaaaaaaa....

    [quote=charleshughsmith]

    When people feel useless, they get hooked on drugs, get depressed and start dying.

    [/quote]

    Aha...I get it now. Sneaky TPTB.

    I envision Mr. Burns chuckling right about now...

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 4:44am

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 362

    0

    Basic income in a negative interest world

    I've lost my job every time you see one of those grey shaded area's on economic charts (ie recessions) and then some. I always get told it's not my performance or anything personal and that they like me but ....

    It was a long slog after 2008 trying to cobble together contract work and then run down the IOU's. But, last September I finally got hired (liberated) by a 3D printing manufacturer in Bklyn. A little over a year later, however, that bubble has burst and I'm out again. Older, smarter, a little richer (if you can call it that).

    Today I received a letter from the NY State Department of Labor, having reinitiated my unemployment insurance claims, Self-Employment Assistance Program Unit offering an orientation and potentially acceptance into a training and assistance program (SEAP), if I have an idea for a business and already possess the appropriate skill sets. No financial assistance aside from the UI but lots of advice. It isn't lost on me that to make "de busy ness" one must have a good idea, incorporate, go into debt and risk it all. Not to mention disqualify myself from ever getting UI, should my bizness not work out. 

    That makes me really depressed, anxious and after reading the warnings about an eminent collapse confused. If labor is worth little and soon money even less how is it that a basic income (reshuffling of the play money) a threat to western civilization? 

    I can't wait to find a job so I can relax, work less hard, collect a check and continue to be confused and depressed.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 4:44am

    #32

    LesPhelps

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 678

    0

    I must have fallen down the rabbit hole

    Who is writing this lunatic story?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 6:20am

    #33

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    You can't make this stuff up...

     

    Asia's investors cheer the Fed's move to raise rates

    Shares in Asia were all in positive territory on Thursday on news the US Federal Reserve had raised its rates for the first time since June 2006.

    The move takes the range of rates banks offer to lend to each other overnight to between 0.25% and 0.5%.

    Australia's stock exchange was the first major benchmark index in the region to open to the news - and investors cheered.

    Sydney's S&P/ASX 200 was up as much as 1.6% in early trade.

    Japan's Nikkei 225 was up 2.15% at 19,460.20 after marking one of its biggest daily gains in more than two months on Wednesday.

    The dollar strengthened against the yen and was buying 122.38 yen in Asian trade. A weaker yen is good for Japan's big exporters.

    In South Korea, the Kospi index was up 0.25% at 1,974.1.

    The Fed's decision to raise rates was widely expected and analysts said it indicated a degree of optimism for the world's biggest economy.

    "The move signals confidence in the ongoing recovery in the US economy after the great financial crisis," said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy and chief economist at AMP Capital in Sydney.

    ----

    China's markets were also in positive territory on Thursday, with Hong Kong's Hang Seng index up 0.83% at 21,881.97 and the Shanghai Composite up 0.95% at 3,549.66.

    ---

    "The question for many investors now is whether this momentum in equity markets is likely to develop into a full blown "Santa Rally" through to the end of the year," said IG Markets' Angus Nicholls.

    "With little further market-moving releases expected over the coming weeks and a still dovish trajectory for future Fed policy there does seem to be a good chance of this happening," he added.

    "It is worth noting that historically 16 December has been the seasonal beginning of a "Santa Rally", so its timing with the Fed meeting does seem particularly auspicious to bring some Christmas cheer to those with equity portfolio holdings."

    In related news, up was down, left was right and good was bad today...

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:01am

    #34
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    No.3 sounds like an

    No.3 sounds like an employer's version of human meaning. Meaning doesn't come from work alone. There were no jobs for hundreds of thousands of years, and people living out in the bush aren't lacking in meaning. Serfs probably have more sense of community than workers in cubicles. Most drug users are employed.

    Contrary to the notion of the craven drug fiend who will do literally anything for one more hit, Hart found that half of cocaine and meth users opted for the money over the drugs. And when he increased the payments to 20 dollars, closer to 80 percent of meth users chose the money. The lesson? "Attractive alternatives dramatically decrease drug use," he said in his talk.

    This speaks to another point Hart made, which is worth quoting at length:

    80 to 90 percent of people who use illegal drugs are not addicts. They don't have a drug problem. Most are responsible members of our society. They are employed. They pay their taxes. They take care of their families. And in some cases they even become president of the United States.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/20/this-video-by-a-columbia-university-neuroscientist%E2%80%8B-might-be-the-best-case-against-the-drug-war-ever-made/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:10am

    #35
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Focus!

    Seoul Raw & Healthy

    Naturally Probiotic Kimchi

    Spicy

    Non-GMO / All Natural / Gluten Free / MSG Free

    Made with the finest ingredients

    14 oz

    *Still bubbling*

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:19am

    #36
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    Have any of you actually

    Have any of you actually worked in a factory, as something other than management that is ?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 8:31am

    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Meh

    [quote=Carbon Blob]

    Have any of you actually worked in a factory, as something other than management that is ?

    [/quote]

    Ever scrape barnacles and mussels off the bottom of a boat? In the water? Deep water? With a bull sea lion swimming up next to you, thinking that you are "mighty purty" in that tight fitting wetsuit you are wearing?

    No?

    Meh.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 8:31am

    #38
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Done

    Goodnight.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 10:39am

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 881

    0

    When money has reversed its purpose,

    ... then should you be chasing money any more?
    ... or maybe it's time to work your labor, in a way that completely abandons money?

    Maybe it isn't possible, but maybe you could start changing over.

    Or let me ask it a different way: is it labor that is worthless? Is it worthless to plant peas and harvest them? Or is it rather that our way of rewarding people for their labor is worthless?

    If your inputs and outputs have not changed, and your system inside has flipped around backwards, then the system needs to be abandoned as fast as it possibly can be abandoned.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 11:24am

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    Time2help wrote:Carbon Blob

    [quote=Time2help]

    [quote=Carbon Blob]

    Have any of you actually worked in a factory, as something other than management that is ?

    [/quote]

    Ever scrape barnacles and mussels off the bottom of a boat? In the water? Deep water? With a bull sea lion swimming up next to you, thinking that you are "mighty purty" in that tight fitting wetsuit you are wearing?

    No?

    Meh.

    [/quote]

     

    Well I wouldn't say you should, but if you did... I wouldn't grief you about it, its a big world.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 1:18pm

    #41
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    ..but tender moments with sea

    ..but tender moments with sea creatures aside, what's wrong with basic income ? How would it lead to a new serfdom ?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 1:32pm

    #42

    Waterdog14

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 143

    0

    Meaningful work

    Most humans want and need meaningful work.  Do a quick Google search for "meaningful work" and you'll see that CEOs try to frame their company's work ethic around meaningful it, millennials are seeking it, a plethora of books and blogs have been written about it, life coaches will help you identify it...

    Will robotics and automation end our ability to find meaningful work?  Yes, if we let it happen. 

    Did tribes and "people out in the bush" have meaningful work?  Absolutely!  If your "work" for the day was to hunt a deer, harvest tubers, weave a basket, make leggings, care for children, or any other activity that kept the family and clan alive, it served the highest purpose (survival) and was therefore meaningful. 

    The guaranteed income sounds like a horrible idea, coming down from TPTB to keep the people dependent (on handouts, drugs, etc.), to quell food riots or talk of revolution, and to keep the current system afloat for a little while longer.  Guaranteed income is as BAD as gardening is GOOD. 

    Let's change our definition of work.  Work doesn't have to be factory work for the "borg".  I'm only halfway through Charles' book, but am already thinking about how to implement it in my community.  We can change the system - we have to change it - and we must begin now. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:03pm

    Brunel

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jul 26 2015

    Posts: 32

    0

    cello55 wrote:I've lost my

    [quote=cello55]

    I've lost my job every time you see one of those grey shaded area's on economic charts (ie recessions) and then some. 

     

    [/quote]

    Mate - I'm self employed and I've come within a week of bankruptcy in each of the following years: 1989, 1996, 2003 and 2010.  Each time I extended every line of credit available and each time saved myself at the last minute - stressful maybe, but I'd rather that than work for anyone else.

    It was only this year that I noticed the uncanny 7 year pattern!  There's something cyclical going on here and that's why I reckon the iceberg is going to capsize in 2017....  It's as good an estimate as anyone else's but this time I'll be a lot more prepared, thanks to websites like this one!

    Good luck in landing your next contract - use the time constructively and don't lose sleep about the "what ifs".  It might never happen!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:04pm

    #44
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 1138

    0

    Waterdog14

    your mare, fully employed, is settled. To work a draft team and sense their satisfaction from genetic fulfillment is a true joy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:11pm

    #45

    Waterdog14

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 143

    0

    Automation and meaningful work

    I used Elance to hire a graphics designer to create a logo for a new B-Corp (a community capital group) about 2 years ago.  I was astonished at the low bids to do the work, and the number of countries/people competing for the tiny project.  I hired an online graphic designer from Romania and got a great logo for US$10. 

    I thought that was a good deal, so did the same thing a year later.  This time, a graphic artist in Ukraine worked on the logo for our farm/market as Russian soldiers were invading/annexing Crimea.   The logo was great, the price was excellent ($60 for two logos, with all supporting files), but the experience was surreal.  And it felt weird to use "theoretical money" to compel someone to work from thousands of miles away.  Perhaps that's what we do when we buy sweatshop clothing, but we're removed from the feeling.   

    In the end, I did not feel connected to these remote workers.  I felt bad that computer-savvy workers were scrambling to desperately make a buck.  The transaction was "part of the problem" not part of the solution.  Did the graphic artists feel like they did meaningful work?  Maybe, or maybe not.  It probably helped put food on the table.

    Conversely, when I needed a banner to display our logo at the local farmers' market, I went to a local sign company (one of two in town).  They made a great banner for an excellent price, and put their sticker on back corner of my banner.  Anyone who passes our booth from the back can see that we bought the sign locally, and I'm really proud of that.  The money we spent stayed local, and I was able to joke with the sign shop proprietor when I picked up the banner.  And the shop employees can see the banner off Main Street every Saturday morning in the summer.  Meaningful work?  Yes.

    Not to generalize, but I've seen people on disability, SSID, food commodities, WIC, native American funding, etc.  Many would be much happier with meaningful work, at a living wage.   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:24pm

    Waterdog14

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 143

    0

    @Robie - animals & work

    [quote=robie robinson]

    your mare, fully employed, is settled. To work a draft team and sense their satisfaction from genetic fulfillment is a true joy.

    [/quote]

    You are so right!  Even my golden retriever (the water dog) is happiest when he is carrying something in his mouth (bird, stick, mitten, anything!).  The dog is wired to work. 

    Years ago, my dad used to take us to the National Western Stock Show for the draft horse competition and other events.  I'll never forget the year Mike and Chief won the team pulling contest.  When they completed the pull, passed the line, and the buzzer sounded, Chief stopped and Mike kept pulling - quite possibly for the joy and challenge of pulling.  I realized then that I'm wired like Mike, and I'm not alone. 

    It's fun being "wired to work".  I get great joy in hard work.  And I get great joy in play.  So does my dog. 

    I wish everyone could find meaningful work and the joy (or at least satisfaction) that comes with it.        

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 2:41pm

    Snydeman

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 627

    0

    Carbon Blob wrote:Have any

    [quote=Carbon Blob]

    Have any of you actually worked in a factory, as something other than management that is ?

    [/quote]

    Not in a factory, but I've worked as a bank teller, in a major company's maintenance department, on an eviction crew, etc. I've been blessed to come from distinctly lower-middle-class roots, but I've come close enough to non-middle class work and workers to get a glimpse into the fact that we middle class have no freaking idea how hard the lower class works. It makes the middle class "value" of hard work seem laughably out of touch. Then again, we in the middle class like to think the lower classes are lazy precisely because it validates our own feeling of superiority.

     

    Same story as always: lower others so that we ourselves (in whatever grouping we are talking about) can feel higher.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 3:32pm

    montani79

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jul 26 2012

    Posts: 18

    0

    I also came from a working

    I also came from a working class background.  Although I'm part of the professional class now, my clients are largely working class and lower class.  My experience is that they are no more virtuous than any other part of the socio-economic strata. For every guy working three part time jobs to make ends meet, there is one in and out of jail and gaming the welfare system.  They generally appear to me to be habitual poor decision makers, though I am aware of the role poverty, ignorance, and broken families play in that dynamic.  

    I attribute my rise from a child of a divorced, working class family to a father/husband in a married upper middle class household to my wife.  She is the daughter of Indian immigrants who instilled in her the values that are shared by all of the most successful sub-cultures in America (Jews, Chinese, Indians, etc.).  Those values being a devotion to Family, Education, and Thrift.  Now a days, an entrepreneurial spirit helps as well.

    The foregoing not withstanding, the long emergency will probably upend most efforts at economic survival.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 3:34pm

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    Waterdog14 wrote:Most humans

    [quote=Waterdog14]

    Most humans want and need meaningful work.  Do a quick Google search for "meaningful work" and you'll see that CEOs try to frame their company's work ethic around meaningful it, millennials are seeking it, a plethora of books and blogs have been written about it, life coaches will help you identify it...

    Will robotics and automation end our ability to find meaningful work?  Yes, if we let it happen. 

    Did tribes and "people out in the bush" have meaningful work?  Absolutely!  If your "work" for the day was to hunt a deer, harvest tubers, weave a basket, make leggings, care for children, or any other activity that kept the family and clan alive, it served the highest purpose (survival) and was therefore meaningful. 

    The guaranteed income sounds like a horrible idea, coming down from TPTB to keep the people dependent (on handouts, drugs, etc.), to quell food riots or talk of revolution, and to keep the current system afloat for a little while longer.  Guaranteed income is as BAD as gardening is GOOD. 

    [/quote]

    There's that drugs thing again. Most drug users are employed, including boozers and smokers. I can think of a few people who I know would come into work half cut every day, or drop acid, or smoke weed in the toilets to help a day on a production line go by. I think if you have a decent basic income some of the stress and boredom that drives drug addiction will go away. Not all menial work is boring anyway, often it's the easier things that are mind numbing, sometimes it feels good to have something you can put your back into. I guess we will see how the Finns do on this.

    Going anthropological for a moment, people living in the wilds are notable for putting a fair bit of work into ceremony, drugs and getting entranced. Clean living is something of an moral anomaly. Can you imagine a world with no John Lennon's, no Jimi Hendrixes, no Byrons and Shelleys or Mozarts - solely populated by clean living middle managers ? Eww, no.

    I don't know enough about the roots of the basic income idea to know if it's a con. I can't see how.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 3:40pm

    Hotrod

    Hotrod

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 171

    0

    The politics of shifting blame downward

    Snydeman,

    +1000

    Several years ago, while assisting a Habitat for Humanity build, an irate neighboring homeowner sauntered over to us and began screaming about another G-d damn loser in the neighborhood.  The owner was a single mom with 2 daughters who was regularly beaten by her ex.  When I mentioned my astonishment at the outburst, the retired minister next to me said it was perfectly understandable.  His quote was: "There's always somebody lower than you to pin the BLAME on-and that's the easy way." I've never forgotten that moment and never will.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 6:33pm

    #51
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    http://www.independent.co.uk/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/replace-the-benefits-system-with-a-universal-basic-income-paid-to-all-citizens-think-tank-recommends-a6777101.html

     

    A proposed model for the scheme would see each adult paid £3,692 a year or £71 a week, with children also receiving a payment corresponding roughly to child benefit. Pensioners would be paid a citizen’s pension of £7,420 a year. Housing costs would be dealt with separately.

    So, seventy quid a week is pretty much what unemployment benefit is. It's not something you can really do much on above surviving. People will argue that it's money for doing nothing, but we live in a competitive system in which success is often denying someone else work, so it's either let the losers starve or have some social safety. Some are OK with the Malthusian option, some aren't.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:03pm

    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 400

    0

    When Money Dies (if it hasn't already)

    It would be interesting to know what the new ratio of recipients would be in relation to the old. Say for example 1/2 of the adult population currently receive the payment and now everyone gets it - well you immediately double the amount of currency chasing common goods. What does that mean? Well, crudely speaking, prices double to soak up the excess currency. Suddenly £71 a week isn't enough. As everyday items are now twice as expensive then £142 a week per adult is required. Now what happens? Prices double again. This is what happened in the Weimar Republic, with the subtlety that the government was printing money to keep its citizens employed - presumably to stop them from getting bored and rioting. Honestly, When Money Dies should be required reading for every economist.

    [quote]

    Nor was German honour inflation-proof. The corruption among officials in 1924, Lord D'Abernon reported, was 'appalling', whereas before the war bribery had been almost unknown, and a high degree of uncorruptibility evident in public and private, if not always in commercial, life. There were few in any class of society who were not infected by, or prey to, the pervasive, soul-destroying influence of the constant erosion of capital or earnings and uncertainty about the future. From tax-evasion, food-hoarding, currency speculation, or illegal exchange transactions — all crimes against the State, each of which to a greater or less degree became for individuals a matter of survival — it was a short step to breaching one or other of the Ten Commandments. Whereas the lower classes with the further goad of unemployment might turn to theft and similar crimes (the figures up by almost 50 per cent in 1923 over 1913 and 1925) or to prostitution, the middle and upper classes under a different kind of strain would resort to graft and fraud, bribing, bribable. Once bribery was the norm, by definition normal people resorted to it, the more so in the months of abject scarcity. No people could be expected to remain unconcerned while huge profits and riotous luxury were ostentatiously being enjoyed by the few. Corruption bred corruption, and the Civil Service caught the infection even in the war years. Counterfeiting was widespread.

    As the old virtues of thrift, honesty and hard work lost their appeal, everybody was out to get rich quickly, especially as speculation in currency or shares could palpably yield far greater rewards than labour. While the anonymous, mindless Republic in the shape of the Reichsbank was prepared to be the dupe of borrowers, no industrialist, businessman or merchant would have wished to let the opportunities for enrichment slip by while others were making hay. For the less astute, it was incentive enough, and arguably morally defensible, to play the markets and take every advantage of the unworkable fiscal system merely to maintain one's financial and social position.

    As that position slid away, patriotism, social obligations and morals slid away with it. The ethic cracked. Willingness to break the rules reflected the common attitude. Not to be able to hold on to what one had, or what one had saved, little as it worried those who had nothing, was a very real basis of the human despair from which jealousy, fear and outrage were not far removed.

    In hyperinflation, a kilo of potatoes was worth, to some, more than the family silver; a side of pork more than the grand piano. A prostitute in the family was better than an infant corpse; theft was preferable to starvation; warmth was finer than honour, clothing more essential than democracy, food more needed than freedom.

    [/quote]

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:16pm

    #53
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    Yeah what happens to all that

    Yeah what happens to all that extra currency ? Debt is humungus for one thing. Student loans, credit cards, the annual Santa bill, 5000% payday loans?

    When the banks were bailed out did Cartier watches and Porsches suddenly inflate ?

    Wanna build an orphanage in Gabon ? Fancy donating to Cancer Care ? Fuck that, get yourself Cartier watch and let the gold diggers know your sperm is the bestest sperm.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:38pm

    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 400

    0

    Carbon Blob wrote:When the

    [quote=Carbon Blob]

    When the banks were bailed out did Cartier watches and Porsches suddenly inflate ?

    [/quote]

    Christ, CB, will you do your homework before spamming the boards with your bullshit

    [quote]

    The Historic Automobile Group International (HAGI) tracks the collector's car market with a number of indexes. Its broadest is the HAGI Top Index, which tracks vintage collectible cars from Porsche, Ferrari, Bugatti, Alfa Romeo and other brands. The Top Index was up 13.78% year-to-date through August and more than 500% over the preceding 10 years thanks to increasing global wealth chasing a limited number of super-collectible cars. The S&P 500 was up only 60% in the same period. Another classic car index is run by the insurance company Hagerty.

    source

    [/quote]

    source

     

    with quote;

    [quote]

    In fact, data shows that classic cars overall have outperformed gold and the FTSE 100 since 2009, while some of the cars in the top ten list are up a whopping 218 per cent - the kind of enviable returns most fund managers would be very proud of.

    [/quote]

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 7:45pm

    KugsCheese

    KugsCheese

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 917

    0

    Luke Moffat wrote:Carbon

    [quote=Luke Moffat]

    [quote=Carbon Blob]

    When the banks were bailed out did Cartier watches and Porsches suddenly inflate ?

    [/quote]

    Christ, CB, will you do your homework before spamming the boards with your bullshit

    [quote]

    The Historic Automobile Group International (HAGI) tracks the collector's car market with a number of indexes. Its broadest is the HAGI Top Index, which tracks vintage collectible cars from Porsche, Ferrari, Bugatti, Alfa Romeo and other brands. The Top Index was up 13.78% year-to-date through August and more than 500% over the preceding 10 years thanks to increasing global wealth chasing a limited number of super-collectible cars. The S&P 500 was up only 60% in the same period. Another classic car index is run by the insurance company Hagerty.

    source

    [/quote]

    source

     

    with quote;

    [quote]

    In fact, data shows that classic cars overall have outperformed gold and the FTSE 100 since 2009, while some of the cars in the top ten list are up a whopping 218 per cent - the kind of enviable returns most fund managers would be very proud of.

    [/quote]

     

    [/quote]

    Can't wait for that market to crash big-time.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 8:16pm

    #56
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    There's no need to cuss I was

    There's no need to cuss I was only asking, chill out.

    Porsche website -

    From 1997 to present, the first number in the units column shows combined sales for North America (U.S. and Canada). The second number represents the U.S. only.

    Year
    Units

    1997
    13,731 (U.S. 12,986)

    1998
    18,207 (U.S. 17,239)

    1999
    21,915 (U.S. 20,889)

    2000
    23,698 (U.S. 22,412)

    2001
    24,143 (U.S. 23,047)

    2002
    22,511 (U.S. 21,320)

    2003
    30,028 (U.S. 28.417)

    2004
    33,289 (U.S. 31,473)

    2005
    33,859 (U.S. 31,933)

    2006
    36,095 (U.S. 34,227)

    2007
    36,680 (U.S. 34,693)

    2008
    27,717 (U.S. 26,035)

    2009
    U.S. 19,696

    2010
    U.S. 25,320

    2011
    U.S. 29,023

    2012
    U.S. 35,043

    2013
    U.S. 42,323

    2014 *
    U.S. 47,007

    Booming.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 8:34pm

    #57

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    Relativity

    I suspect that, on average, one's receptivity to the idea of 'basic income', as being implemented by Finland, correlates to the financial insecurity that is being experienced. It is easy to be against it while you can securely support your family, not so easy when your home is being repossessed and your kids are hungry. Right now we are raining helicopter money on the super wealthy, augmenting their income in a similar manner, and their baubles (collectable cars) are suffering massive inflation/appreciation. I suppose if the rest of us got in on the game then we'd see similar price changes for whatever we collect. Food's not generally a collectable, except for preppers, so it would have to be something else that saw the price inflation. I suspect that if the day comes when our 'humanitarian' government gives us all a basic income that it will not be for us to better subsist but for us to better consume. If automation continues to remove our employment and all of the profits fall up to the 0.1% then there will be no one left to buy the automaton-produced crap. The game will be to keep everyone at a high enough income level to prevent rioting/revolution while the wealthy continue to cannibalize each other. We used to talk of the 1%, now it is the 0.1%, soon it will be the 0.01% as wealth continues to concentrate. Who will be the last trillionaire standing? Owner of the world.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 9:33pm

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 881

    0

    Don't worry about your pay rate.

    $60 is about 1400 Hrynia. In terms of liters of milk, that's 300 litres; in terms of potatoes, that's 350 kg=772 lb of potatoes.
    That 772 lb of potatoes is about $350 here in the US. Don't worry, you paid a fair wage for a day or two of work.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 9:46pm

    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 400

    0

    Distorted Marxism

    [quote=Mark Cochrane]

    I suspect that if the day comes when our 'humanitarian' government gives us all a basic income that it will not be for us to better subsist but for us to better consume. If automation continues to remove our employment and all of the profits fall up to the 0.1% then there will be no one left to buy the automaton-produced crap.

    [/quote]

    Hi Mark,

    Yep, it's kind of looking like a distorted Marxism (for want of a better term) - the idea that industrial societies can retire their workers who then share in the profits due to the increase in productivity through common ownership will actually see workers retired to become beggars of the state. My question is, where does that lead? In short, dark places (I think). What happens to dissent? What happens if the local governor likes the look of your wife? We're now talking neo-feudal serfdom (at least in my opinion).

    For what it's worth I get a real sense of pride and enjoyment from growing my own food. Granted, I don't produce much at the minute but the fact that I can hand over any excess to my relatives makes me feel like I'm doing something that matters, I also like the fact that I can do something which keeps them alive. A community that could do the same would feel empowered. By making people dependent on handouts you make them servile.

    An alternative would be to divide up land and transfer ownership of agricultural technology to smaller communities (think of it as technologically aided decentralisation within LTG parameters). This would allow them to live in relative freedom and in a position to challenge the abuses of power. I think massive reforms are needed, and it'll be tough - much tougher than embracing this distorted Marxism - but what future do you want to pass on? Perhaps we'll all be remembered as the generation which gave up. Where Jefferson and Washington rallied, we surrendered, because we didn't believe we were entitled to our own greatness.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 9:47pm

    #60

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    I worked in mines and heavy

    I worked in mines and heavy industries all my life.  On my last job I loaded ships with iron ore for China. Chinese fellow asked me how old I was.  (60 something.) He was incredulous.  They retire at 50 supported by the state.

    Do I enjoy having the sky above my head and the ground below?  You  betcha . The best part. I sleep when the sun goes down and wake when it rises.

    Do I miss " meaningfull work"? No. Let the machines do it.

    The worst part? Making light conversation  with young barmaid about using a fan to flirt with and being snubbed. Dirty old man. Heartbreaking how completely unaware she is of her good fortune and the human sacrifice it takes to make her comfortable.

    People don't know how to vote in their best interest. Good little robotniki. That is why  the government takes children away from their mothers.  They have to be trained to harness. Or be viscous dogs of war. 

    I'll spell it out for you. Your interests lie in free beer and all the other delights of civilization. We have to be clever enough to make them free. Not grizzle about it.

    Anyone else here love Carlin? (RIP Brother).

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 10:11pm

    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 531

    0

    Arthur Robey wrote:I worked

    [quote=Arthur Robey]

    I worked in mines and heavy industries all my life.  On my last job I loaded ships with iron ore for China. Chinese fellow asked me how old I was.  (60 something.) He was incredulous.  They retire at 50 supported by the state.

    Do I enjoy having the sky above my head and the ground below?  You  betcha . The best part. I sleep when the sun goes down and wake when it rises.

    Do I miss " meaningfull work"? No. Let the machines do it.

    The worst part? Making light conversation  with young barmaid about using a fan to flirt with and being snubbed. Dirty old man. Heartbreaking how completely unaware she is of her good fortune and the human sacrifice it takes to make her comfortable.

    People don't know how to vote in their best interest. Good little robotniki. That is why  the government takes children away from their mothers.  They have to be trained to harness. Or be viscous dogs of war. 

    I'll spell it out for you. Your interests lie in free beer and all the other delights of civilization. We have to be clever enough to make them free. Not grizzle about it.

    Anyone else here love Carlin? (RIP Brother).

     

     

    [/quote]

    Carlin just got better and better with age.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 17, 2015 - 11:47pm

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    Distorted Marxism.

    Michael Rudman might have something  to say about Marx. I am sure my own views are distorted. 

    As far as I can tell he was on about how Capitalism was doomed to fail. Capitalism has responded by ensuring that there is no cohesive body politic and what politics exist is tightly controlled.

    Sounds like the Soviet to me. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 12:26am

    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 400

    0

    Capital

    At it's core, Capitalism relies on growth, as in - I will only put my Capital at risk (invest) if I think that there is a return on my investment. That works find until you hit Limits to Growth, which seems to be where we find ourselves. My guess is that the people with Capital figured out what was going on and decided it was more prudent to lock in those profits rather than put them at risk. In doing so they expended a little of it to buy governments and institutions (regulatory bodies and such) to protect the rest of their wealth. Of course this is only me second guessing the Narrative but it helps me follow what is happening.

    Did Marx foresee Limits to Growth? I doubt it, I think he was more concerned on the disparity between classes and the tension it breeds. Marx believed in the Hegelian dialectic - that the only way forward was the removal of contradiction which happens as society learns from its previous mistakes - in short, a linear progression, not a cycle which I believe is what we actually experience.

    Just my 2 pence.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 1:50am

    westcoastjan

    westcoastjan

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 587

    0

    resistence is futile!

    Waterdog14 wrote:

    Let's change our definition of work.  Work doesn't have to be factory work for the "borg".  I'm only halfway through Charles' book, but am already thinking about how to implement it in my community.  We can change the system - we have to change it - and we must begin now. 

    The borg word triggered a thought - the phrase from the Borg on Star Trek: "resistence is futile".

    I see guaranteed income as being the next rung in the mollify the masses ladder. It might be slo' mo' helicopter money, if we want to call it that. Either way, it is meant to keep people further pacified, to quell any possible uprisings from those who smell something stinky.

    Reality tv, sports overkill, food stamps, cheap booze, soon to be widespread legal marijuana, and a basic income to give people some jingle in their pockets = lazy contentment & acceptance with a who gives a damn about what is going on out there anyway! Just the way TPTB want us. Hello modern day serfdom! Resistence is futile - why bother when life can be easy?

    Sigh.

    Jan

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 1:50am

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 518

    0

    Waterdog14 wrote:It's fun

    [quote=Waterdog14]

    It's fun being "wired to work".  I get great joy in hard work.  And I get great joy in play.  So does my dog. 

    I wish everyone could find meaningful work and the joy (or at least satisfaction) that comes with it.        

    [/quote]

    I agree. My thing is that I disagree that all meaningful work necessarily has to be profitable in the private sector. Instead of giving free money away to people for nothing, couldn't the government instead pay people to clean up polluted rivers and restore endangered habitats and populations? Nobody can make a profit off of doing this in the private sector, yet I think anyone with a basic understanding of ecology appreciates how important those things are -- these "externalities", as economists like to compartmentalize them into their models as. I find that word highly ironic because I argue that far from being "external", those things are actually at the heart of how the economy works and it is actually our economies piled on top of those ecological foundations that should really be viewed as being "external".

    That's one of the reasons why I argue that government spending isn't necessarily bad or "unproductive" (sure it's productive, in the truest sense of the word, if it helps ecosystems be more productive), even if it causes the government to go into debt, because that is simply how the monetary system is set up -- it's all debt based. Base money comes from government deficits. I remember reading something from a right wing think tank a few years ago, lambasting Alaska for all the programs the government "wastes" money on. In that list was a few million dollars on a program to understand the reproductive dynamics of crabs. Well, considering the size of the Alaskan crab fishery and all of the economic benefits in brings to the state, I'd think a few million dollars of government money to study that fishery and hopefully help manage it sustainably would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Is the private sector going to fund that sort of research? Based on what I've learned about resource industries, nope.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 1:53am

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    Where does it lead?

    Luke,

    Yeah, there are a few different versions of this as I see it but they all amount to human engineering.

    1. Utopia version - Automation saves us all from 'work', profits handed out to all more or less evenly so our standard of living rises and we all spend our plethora of free time on creative tasks and arts yielding the golden age of humankind...cough, cough.

    2. Serfdom - more or less what we were saying where people are kept in a debt peonage. Given enough to get by reasonably well but never enough to escape the system. The few hold power and the rest go along with it or pay the price. Dissent isn't well tolerated. Getting ahead means being favorites of the new feudal lords and receiving patronage. Some thrive, many survive while others try to escape via any means possible. The unlucky become slaves in the prison for profit system doing things that are too low for automation to be profitable.

    3. The Matrix (aka Rise of the Machines) - Watch the movie. People kept passive by the perfect bread and circuses approach while all vestiges of real life are taken from them.

    There are undoubtedly any number of variants but what I am curious about is how people respond in reality. There is the 'ideal' control but then there is the real response where people do any number of things to escape being faceless parts of the machine. You mentioned a great one, gardening. We put up a bunch of tomato sauce for canning again this year ourselves with our minimal efforts. Even in a world where we were all homogenized under a single 'basic income' there would still be ways to get ahead. If you couldn't 'make more' then your main alternative would be to 'spend less'. Grow your own food, make your own clothing, fix your own car or get rid of it completely. The Black Market thrives. Instead of being controlled by having to depend completely on your government hand out you would instead withdraw more and more from that system and use those funds for discretionary expenses, perhaps helping other escape servility...

    Ultimately I think any such arrangement that tries to force servility through a system of handouts would face the maxim of live by the sword, die by the sword. Whether they realize it or not the powers that be would be bound just as strongly by the handout contract as those who receive them. People's subservience would last just as long as the payments kept coming. Come the day that those arrangements get broken, for whatever reason, there would be hell to pay for the overlords. Picture the French Revolution. More than 1 of every 7 people in the U.S. are now on Food Stamps, what happens if their EBT card balances aren't topped up one of these months?

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 1:54am

    #67
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 534

    0

    Two of these things aren't like the other. . .Car values?

    Diminishing Marginal Utility . . .I wonder?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 2:31am

    #68

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 518

    0

    I say, don't give people free

    I say, don't give people free money, just forgive their mortgages and allow the average person to have a house free and clear, a positive net worth. But alas, the banksters will fight that to our deaths because mortgages are one of the main ropes around our necks they use to gain ownership of pretty much all "productive" assets in the economy; it is the way the banksters enslave us. The mortgage is the biggest purchase a person makes in their life and it generally takes their whole life to pay it off. So while the average person is fighting all the other average people in the housing market for an opportunity to go into debt for the rest of their lives, the bankers are busy manipulating insider trading of the greater markets using derivatives to get dollars out of the system. They then use these dollars to buy up assets other than houses (land, factories). This is what impoverishes everyone and ultimately is why the net worth of the average person is probably near zero. "Let them fight over their mortgages, FOOLS", they laugh at us.

    Now, some will object to my proposal of letting people just get a house for free (never mind how unfair it would be to people who already worked 30 years to pay off their mortgages, but I'm sure that unfairness could be addressed somehow), but in principle, some people just object to people being given ownership of something for nothing. They question why anyone deserves to get anything for free, and that we should have incentives in the labour market to go out and be "productive" to earn that money to buy a house. Then society as a whole benefits.

    I largely disagree. Firstly, as I said above, the bankers are stealing our wealth via insider trading and they are getting "something for free". In essence, this devalues the dollar worth of everyone else's labour because everyone else's labour is what brings wealth to the economy, and if the bankers are stealing most of it, then it means the average person should be getting more monetary purchasing power for our work than we currently do. In other words, just divide up all the bankers' ill gotten profits and add that to the wage of every worker.

    Secondly, ponder this: I am guessing that the same people who object to people being given a house for free would also defend receiving unhindered inheritances from their parents (i.e. you get your parents' stuff, tax free). But isn't that getting something for free as well? Why is it that Little Richy Rich should have the right to inherit his parents' mansion when they die, yet Average Joe shouldn't be allowed to "inherit" the forgiveness of his mortgage? What's the difference? Is Richy Rich somehow being more "productive" to the economy than Average Joe? Does he "deserve" it more? Is it because inheritances are passed down privately whereas mortgage forgiveness and giving everyone a house would have to go through the government coffers? I don't buy that argument, a house is a house and a person is a person. Fundamentally there is no reason why Richie Rich deserves to get a free mansion and Average Joe doesn't.

    We all know there's an oversupply of houses out there and its really not expensive to build a house these days with modern technology. There is no reason why every westerner could not live in a decent house, mortgage free, right now. Then we start over with a new monetary system. We as humans have inherited the earth, just like Richy Rich inherited his mansion. Let the average person own free and clear a house so they can maintain their dignity as a human and not have to go into debt for their whole life just to survive. This fits perfectly with the job losses from automation and stagnation of economic growth -- people can sit around in their house and do nothing if they want, big deal. Then, above and beyond this, if people need / want more from life (oh, for things like food? Vacations, cars, children?) then let them go work for that.

    Anyways, I'm not seriously proposing this because I think there are better ways of addressing wealth inequality and of course the banskers would never allow it to happen while they are still in control because they would then lose their main theft vehicle, but an interesting thought exercise to think about certain issues of what wealth is, where it comes from, and how much wealth the average person is "owed" simply from being a citizen of the world and an inheritor of one 7,000,000,000th of that wealth.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 4:34am

    blackeagle

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 16 2013

    Posts: 256

    0

    Arthur

    Right!

    Unfortunately, I won't live enough to see the result. I am really curious.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 5:35am

    #70

    kaimu

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 20 2013

    Posts: 163

    0

    SUDDENLY STUPID!

    Aloha! We all act as if our government got "suddenly stupid"! If you watch even minimal TV and switch from CNN to FOX or whatever, you hear two words a lot. One is "fear" and the other is "hate". The one word media rarely ever uses, as if it has been  stricken by censors, is the word "trust". It is not that we "fear" terrorists or "hate" the 1% it's instead that we now do not "trust" our form of morphed Republic to ever resolve any of our social ills. It is a global lack of "trust" in government. To ask government and to "trust" government to guarantee us a carefree happy life with no financial worries is absurd. Almost like asking Obama and Merkel to control the Earth's temperature forever! I was born in the late 1950s and I do not recall being issued a USDA stamp saying I am 100% Grade A first class anything ... Yet how did we get here?

    Look where you may but over the past decades there has been a huge lack of "accountability". The Big "A"! It seems the last major public figure to have suffered the wrath of  real "accountability" was Richard Nixon, but then he got pardoned by Ford so ... hmmm ... Nixon still got a Presidential Library out of the deal. He was never really held accountable the way an average US citizen would have been for stealing and fraud. But he got a library!

    If there is nobody accountable in government or banking then what incentive is there to reform? NONE! Imagine if George Washington were running for President today. He would be shouted down for having no "career politics" experience like Hillary does. Yet his Presidency did not have the luxury of failure! None of our Founding Fathers would ever be elected today. Not only did they lack career political credentials but they lacked "lawyer credentials". They were mostly farmers and merchants back then. They were slave owners too, but who's to say slaves are extinct. What is the American Dream, but being a slave to debt? The last US President farmer grew peanuts in Georgia! Look how that went ...

    Perhaps that is why there is no "accountability" today in politics because it has been overrun by the "lawyer class"! If you have a law degree and you open a practice you assume the mentality of  "payment for failure". You get paid whether you win your case or not. What better place for that mentality to thrive than modern politics? When there is no incentive to "win" then you get a class of corrupt politicians who only strive to stay in power as a demented career path. They only want to ride the gravy train. Add in all the other perks of high office that domino to your family and even once you leave office you get rewarded with $325,000 one night stands. As I have said many times ... nobody lobbies Washington DC out of altruism!

    Here we sit with a wealth of experienced politicians and bankers who have never been accountable and probably never will be in my lifetime and we have the audacity to be surprised that the world is "suddenly stupid"! Stupid has been on a long low simmering boil since the other Hillary first said, "It's the economy STUPID!" This wealth of "experienced lawyers" has pretty much ruined the "global planet" into one mass of consumable arrogance that was once in earlier days called "Empire"! But that's not very PC of me. It flatters few 99%ers. Lets just pretend we aren't Empire!

    Livable wage? We had more of that in 1968, before "Stupid" was all the rave! As Shark Tank shows we would have been better off with SubSBA than SubPrime! An empty McMansion employs nobody!

    Basic Income? That's a slap in the face to all those Fourth World children who labor to provide our basic iPhone needs! The unmitigated hubris of European and North American citizens to call themselves the 99% when the rest of the world, the Third and Fourth and Fifth ones, call our beloved 99% the 1/2 of 10% of Planet Earth!!!! The 10% of the planet who consume 99% and then complain they aren't the 1%!!! Feel the Bern indeed! Still we must haggle over what resources are left, but let us at least be honest with ourselves and say that our "Empire" has had it the best of any Empire since Rome. We have squandered the riches of Earth at an unprecedented pace yet have this unprecedented global entitlement to be paid to fail. Not JUST LIKE A BOSS ... JUST LIKE A LAWYER!!!

    In the end "stupid is as stupid does"! Oh ... and one more ... all our best thinking got us here!!!

    As the latest Star Wars movie comes to a TV near you all I can say is, "IT'S THE EMPIRE STUPID!"

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 6:44am

    #71

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    An Appeal.

    It sucks even more if you can't eat.

    Catherine Austin Fitts ( if that's not an appeal to authority, nothing is ),  says that the economy is being milked.  And that there is enough for everyone to live la dolce vita. But how  would I know? Rock Apes aren't known For their mental horsepower.

    All I ask for is the price of one cruise missile. But they probably want to use it to sink an aircraft carrier. I'm guessing that an aircraft carrier would be a big ticket item? Just one teeny tiny cruise missile? No? How about the cost of one good burst of 20mm ammo? Please? It's probably going to go to the bottom with the aircraft carrier anyway, so how about it?

    Us Rock apes may be thick but we shine in comparison to our leaders. Truly we are led by the least among us. ( Terrance McKenna ) 

    Edit I just ate some Tasmanian smoked salmon.  I think that I have just blown out the pleasure centers of my brain. Civilization is Good.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 2:21pm

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 881

    0

    Expect it to get older for another two years at least.

    Hop over to Mish:
    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/yield-curve-and-spreads-feds-real.html

    He shows some nice charts of the recession signals caused by inverted yield curves and the tightening of the spreads.

    If you look at the 2008 bubble, you'll see that by the time the recession even began, before Lehman even died, the yield had already risen, tightened, and crashed. Look over to today, and it seems that the yield curve has only begun to tighten: we're still two years out or more.

    Now, if you look at the third graph he presents, the yield curve distribution, you'll see something else interesting: before the tightening has significantly begun, it has started to spread back out. So that implies to me that the Fed may be working for a soft landin,, a longer, drawn out, less sudden crash. So we may be looking at even longer, maybe four years, before we see that 2008 crash.

    So is Chris Martenson right in calling the crash on the last premium article? Well, technically, I guess you could say yes... and I even basically believe it. But this is one of those cases where the clash may be more slo-mo than you can stand, hold out, or prepare for.

    It's kindof like the saying that a bear market crash wants to hurt everyone for maximum damage: the bear traps for the bears, the bull traps for the bulls... something for everyone.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 2:27pm

    #73

    Waterdog14

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 143

    0

    Resistance is Fertile!

    "Resistance is Fertile!"  There's a book by that name (which I haven't read) and an amorphous movement (which I consider myself part of).  I never envisioned myself as a revolutionary...

    Peaceful revolution might mean giving up a lucrative dollar-based income to grow food and barter.  That's my plan.  I'm tired of paying 6-digit sums in Federal income tax just because I grew up poor, hustled, built a career and a small company, work hard, and have zero tax shelters.  I don't want my tax dollars going toward tanks, drones, and artillery.  I do believe in paying taxes for schools and streetlights.  But the sooner I can reduce my participation in "the system", the better. 

     "We live like kings of old."  I don't want what the 1% or 0.1% have.  But I sure like hot showers on a cold winter morning.  How long will these luxuries last? 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 2:50pm

    Waterdog14

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 143

    0

    Pace and timing of the unraveling

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]...the Fed may be working for a soft landing, a longer, drawn out, less sudden crash. So we may be looking at even longer, maybe four years, before we see that 2008 crash. [/quote]

    I could be wrong, but:

    If the issues were "only" monetary policy, the Fed might be able to engineer a 4-year soft landing (to an unpleasant and inevitable hard bottom).  But the current energy glut is expected to last only 18 months.  After that, oil price and availability might accelerate the crash.  Or sooner, might the junk bond crisis be larger than what the Fed can control?

    Do we have 18 months of "business as usual" to continue our preparations?  I don't think we have 4 years...  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 3:05pm

    #75
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    0

    I don't know if there is a

    I don't know if there is a real comparison between European and American attitudes to state welfare. The American working classes have been the beneficiaries of land grabs, whereas in Europe, or particularly Britain, land grabs are remembered as abuses by the upper classes and the capitalists - clearances and enclosures.

    The simple answer to complaints about free money is "well, we had free, common land before you took it away from my ancestors, and made us dependent on your factories."

    Dependent on the state, or dependent on the owners of assets like land or factories - a lot of people don't really see much difference, even though one dependence might yield more money nowadays.

     

    The Enclosures of the 18th Century

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b1m9b

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 4:14pm

    Afridev

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 11 2013

    Posts: 156

    0

    Star wars dude

    Well, at least he still has a funky outfit cheeky

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 5:22pm

    #77

    sand_puppy

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2721

    0

    What to do with Useless Eaters

    The big hole I am hearing in this discussion is the assumptions that those who hold political power CARE about the well-being of others outside of their in-group.  I am sorry to say that this does NOT look accurate.

    It looks to me that TPTB come from an intensely ethnocentric world view and a pre-moral developmental level.  And they are committed to power through deception (Machiavellian) approach.

    If that understanding is correct, then they will permit / arrange / induce / trigger / allow / cause the masses to die off.

    Bah-humbug!! 

    And Merry Christmas.  smiley

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 5:26pm

    #78

    sand_puppy

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2721

    0

    Duplicate post

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 7:38pm

    #79

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    Timing is everything

    Sand_puppy,

    I agree with you in the sense that TPTB don't 'care' about the rest of us in any sense of the word that we would use - as in the sense of being caring of others. However, they do care that we remain tranquil and productive generating more income for their coffers.

    The problem that I see with the triggered mass die off meme is that it also would mean the end of the entire system that currently exists. Money, debt, power are now built on endless exponential growth. If we lose population then all of that unravels since population growth is the keystone to all consumption/debt growth. A significant die off would be a major deflationary event for existing assets (like housing and 'debt') though maybe inflationary for consumables if the entire just-in-time delivery (food!) system collapsed.

    Perhaps a kill-em-all strategy exists as a nuclear option for when/if the TBTB do lose control of their stranglehold on the economy just to protect themselves from us but wouldn't they have to have a follow up plan?

    They'd have to:

    1. Somehow protect assets in a form that wouldn't evaporate.

    2. Have a plan to quickly re-establish something like the current money-making/control the masses scam, post die off.

    3. Have a plan within the plan to sort out the real from the perceived winners. If they kill off the great unwashed masses then a lot of the people on their rich and powerful life boat are going to have to take over lower rungs on the power ladder... Without the lower groups there is no support for the elite. Put another way, if they kill the host (us) then the parasites (TPTB) die too. Less of us means less of them can exist. Going to be fun watching them fight it out to see who sucks the blood out of whom.

    Given the displayed inability of the TPTB to plan out much further out than their toes, I'd be surprised if they have a significant long-term plan beyond 'do whatever it takes to keep the current system alive'. Several may have bunkers but that is an individual fear-based strategy because they don't think there is a viable plan B.

    The human race likely has some unhappy days ahead. A pandemic or global economic crash will send us down the road of population crashes with or without intent by the TPTB. Depending on how bad the collapse is, there may no longer be the capability to re-establish 'globalism' again.

    Merry Christmas....

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 8:05pm

    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2427

    0

    Seriously

    [quote=Mark Cochrane]

    Merry Christmas....

    [/quote]

    wink

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 18, 2015 - 11:03pm

    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 400

    0

    Nice Summary

    [quote=Mark Cochrane]

    Luke,

    Yeah, there are a few different versions of this as I see it but they all amount to human engineering.

    1. Utopia version - Automation saves us all from 'work', profits handed out to all more or less evenly so our standard of living rises and we all spend our plethora of free time on creative tasks and arts yielding the golden age of humankind...cough, cough.

    2. Serfdom - more or less what we were saying where people are kept in a debt peonage. Given enough to get by reasonably well but never enough to escape the system. The few hold power and the rest go along with it or pay the price. Dissent isn't well tolerated. Getting ahead means being favorites of the new feudal lords and receiving patronage. Some thrive, many survive while others try to escape via any means possible. The unlucky become slaves in the prison for profit system doing things that are too low for automation to be profitable.

    3. The Matrix (aka Rise of the Machines) - Watch the movie. People kept passive by the perfect bread and circuses approach while all vestiges of real life are taken from them.

    [/quote]

    I think it was Chris who said, 'all we are left with now are bad options'. My own take on number three goes a little darker. People aren't imprisoned within the Matrix against their wishes, rather they willfully accept it as the only viable choice to remain happy consumers. As the operational costs grow exponentially human babies are swapped with programs to reduce the energy costs and Homo Sapiens become no more.

    But coming back from the deep end for a second I look upon the outcomes from the theory/implementation lens. That it, lets establish the theory, then lets see how we implement it. As you go on to say;

    [quote=Mark Cochrane]

    There are undoubtedly any number of variants but what I am curious about is how people respond in reality. There is the 'ideal' control but then there is the real response where people do any number of things to escape being faceless parts of the machine.

    ...

    The Black Market thrives. Instead of being controlled by having to depend completely on your government hand out you would instead withdraw more and more from that system and use those funds for discretionary expenses, perhaps helping other escape servility...

    [/quote]

    I think that is what you will see, system withdrawal by some. Another question to ask is whether you see the future system being highly centralised or highly localised? Or perhaps somewhere in between the two? I think LTG will severely hamper the central authority's ability to exercise power at the fringes of its borders. Gail Tverberg mentions something along similar lines. Rome had the same problem - it couldn't summon the energy requirements to tame the Germanic tribes and so grew a counter culture. A constant menace much like those pesky terrorists which we can't seem to destroy. Somewhere in the middle of all the madness I believe pockets of resilient people will spring up - at least I'm hoping so, almost creating a micro-civilisation (OK, perhaps I'm romanticising).

    I think of it this way - people desire health, food and shelter. In the UK the health service is currently nationalised but I think as the costs grow we'll see a transition to privatisation. Food is currently in the hands of the giant supermarkets and shelter will slowly slide into corporate hands with government subsidies to enable a generation of squatters. Why do corporations crave control of these necessities? Simple, to remain masters of their cattle. To avoid becoming dependent on the twisted machinations of our masters I believe control of these 3 necessities; health, food and shelter, must remain universal. I'm hoping automation reduces the costs and increases the practicality of this but I think only those who develop the technology will have access to it and the know-how to repair it (or can trade their skill-set for access to it). As for the rest, well, it's kind of choose your poison and deal with the consequences I guess. I've heard the quote that democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Well I'll go on record as saying that modern democracy is like asking the slave which master he wants to be kicked in the ribs by.

    Given all that we've witnessed I still don't understand the hope of a benevolent overlord arising from the Deep State to defend our liberties and grant us the freedom to indulge in the pleasures of civilisation. That isn't how a sociopath functions.

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 19, 2015 - 12:00am

    Arthur Robey

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    0

    Response to Mark

    The problem that I see with the triggered mass die off meme is that it also would mean the end of the entire system that currently exists. Money, debt, 

    How does one square that off with the fact that the Great Plague caused an increase in per capita wealth and a power shift to labour resulting in a collapse of the feudal system?

    The difference now is the diminished relevance of labour as it is replaced by automation.

    But to what end purpose is all this enhanced productivity if not to mollify the population?
    War.
    It is for this reason that this expanded productivity must be deflected towards colonising the la Grange points. Otherwise it will turn destructive.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 19, 2015 - 12:18am

    #83

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    Elementary

    How does one square that off with the fact that the Great Plague caused an increase in per capita wealth and a power shift to labour resulting in a collapse of the feudal system?

    Less people for the same wealth (tangible in those days, land, gold etc) means greater per capita wealth. Fewer people to spread it around to.

    Less labour meant the need to attract extra hands at a rate faster than they could be grown from scratch. That meant competition, wages and the beginning of the death knell for feudalism. When the Industrial Revolution came along in the coming centuries that sealed it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 19, 2015 - 2:14am

    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 1138

    0

    Settle your mare

    Draft mare that is. We dropped out long ago. still in somewhat, but voluntarily. still fear the land taxes. producers will all be milked.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 20, 2015 - 6:47pm

    #85

    sand_puppy

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2721

    0

    The Novel "Wool" Explores Winning Through Population Die Off

    I understand the logic that TPTB needs humanity to be the work-horses of the global wealth generating empire that they skim from. 

    And the impression that "they" are not able to make long term coherent plans.

    And it is possible that history will show that this was the correct view.

    But, I would not feel certain about that.

    The awesome novel Wool, explores a possible future path that TPTB take when they believe that the world will eventually be destroyed in conflict, then decide to take the reins and destroy it themselves, in their own way, and with their own timing.  The goal is to have their own descendants emerge from the silos (multigenerational underground bunkers) 500 years in the future to rule the now empty world.

    The key to the ethnocentric thought process is that we identify with "our social or racial group" and view other groups as "junk races" (to quote from a recent article).   Where is the division between "us" and "them?"   The ethnocentric in-group can be a nationality, religion, or race or any other powerfully held group identity.  We empathize with our group, but not with "others," which are seen as objects.

    An ethnocentric thinker may have greater loyalty to unborn generation of their own group than to currently living out-groups.  "Cleansing" resource rich ares of out-groups can make sense from this viewpoint.

    From an discussion on Race and Racism by Ken Wilber and Mark Palmer

    [H]aving found an ethnocentric identity (and having given it all due respect and honor), how does one move beyond that ultimately limited identity in order to find a deeper, wider, higher identity, a worldcentric identity, that includes all human beings?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 20, 2015 - 11:15pm

    #86

    Mark Cochrane

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    0

    Actually on my shelf already!

    Sand_puppy,

    I've got Wool on my impossible to conquer shelf of reading material already. Just awaiting the proper moment to read a book for pure enjoyment!

    As a 'save the genes' strategy the silos (aka lifeboats) make sense but I don't think that wealth, power and position would translate very well across the 500 years. I'll have to read the book to see how they handled it though.

    You've whetted my appetite.

    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 21, 2015 - 2:05am

    pinecarr

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1290

    0

    Thanks for the book tip, Sand_Puppy!

    The reviews for "Wool" are very positive on Amazon; looking forward to checking it out!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 21, 2015 - 3:49am

    #88

    sand_puppy

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2721

    0

    Hope I didn't spoil Wool too badly....

    The understanding of the big picture emerges very gradually in the day to day experiences of people living in a Silo.  And I told you about what they discover well into the story.   Sorry.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 22, 2015 - 1:15am

    pinecarr

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1290

    0

    No worries, SP; no spoiled "Wool"

    Heck, I wouldn't have even known the book existed if you hadn't suggested it!  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 22, 2015 - 1:35am

    pinecarr

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1290

    0

    No worries, SP; no spoiled "Wool"

    Oops!  Duplicate post.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 22, 2015 - 4:44pm

    #91
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 562

    0

    Apples and oranges, then suddenly aliens!

    An amazing conversation.  Wow!  The process of integration of new paradigms is making all our heads spin. I do appreciate Chris ever so briefly at the 38 min mark referencing the underlying "ecological system" that is after all the foundation of economic system.  The central reference point is in the process of being transformed, which is so difficult. It was addressed in the conversation broadly as the discussion talked about the end of the road being near for the current financial constructs and those committed to the "system" (boomers) and those not (millennials). Which then brings us to the central question - fear.  As an aside; the "ecological system" is of course just one of the many doors into a broader "reality" which is generally more culturally acceptable to discuss.

    It is fascinating how cultural macro perceptual realities transform, and it always does through crisis, like the one that we are in.  Being from a different planet allows me to observe as a somewhat disinterested party, objectivity and compassion.  Central to the transformative process is the transmutation of fear. Sitting on the edge, peering into the emptiness is always a bit unnerving, but we always have the option of being in "contact" with "reality", the problem seems to be that we get sleepy and drift completely into the "rational" mind.

    Its was fascinating how this come to light in the conversation about Ben Bernanke and the discussion about certainty, 100% certainty. The subtext of course is that Bernanke is not 100% certain about the point of fact about which the discussion was about, but what he does feel 100% certain about the need to control perception.  This points to a deeper delusion, or disassociation from "reality", but in a strange way this is progress. The state where we believe that human perception alone creates reality. It is true that perception does create reality, but we error if our understanding is that human beings are the sole creators.  We are co-creators.

    But in the end we come back to the need to the wisdom of "owning" "precious" metals, something again tied to limited and time relative human perceptual consciousness. How did we do that?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2016 - 2:22am

    #92
    Dlumb77

    Dlumb77

    Status: Member

    Joined: May 25 2014

    Posts: 40

    0

    Grant Williams' presentation in full: "Nobody Cares"

    This video was excellent. 30 minutes well invested to hear Grant's whole story.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-04/gold-unsurance-policy-love-it-or-loathe-it

    Login or Register to post comments