PDA

View Full Version : The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen



EJ
06-21-11, 03:13 PM
http://www.itulip.com/images2/flagtearing1947.png
Enlisted men tear up a flag they took from Socialist protesters in Boston, 1947


The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood

Shrinking pie politics supplants 30-year-old credit-financed fantasy of plenty

The Right Questions*

• Can the US economy recover?
- On the unrecoverable error of a credit-financed economic boom

• Can the US escape its output gap trap?
- On perpetual output gaps, structural unemployment, and a history of violence

• How do we allocate our portfolio during the era of uncertainty?
- On the Uncertainty Era Asset Allocation Rulebook

* Because you can't find the right answers unless ask the right questions.

Can the US economy recover?

On the unrecoverable error of a credit-financed economic boom
More Americans Think Economy Will Never Recover

Americans are growing increasingly doubtful about direction of the US economy, according to the latest survey from business-advisory firm AlixPartners.

In fact, an increasing number, some 61 percent, say they don't expect to return to their respective pre-recession lifestyles until the spring of 2014, if ever.

- Christina Cheddar Berk, CNBC, June 3, 2011


Credit Expansion, 1920 to 1929, and its Lessons

"We have undoubtedly expanded the credit structure, spending today and postponing the accounting until tomorrow. We have been guilty of the sin of inflation. And there will be no condoning the sin nor reduction of the penalty because the inflation is of credit rather than a monetary one.”

"…the area covered by credit sales enlarges and the volume of credit expansion increases. As in monetary inflation the immediate results seem favorable. Credit expansion results in business activity, in full employment, in optimistic outlook and in a flood of gratulatory literature proclaiming us wiser than our predecessors. But the evidence is consistent and cumulative. The past decade has witnessed a great volume of credit inflation. Our period of prosperity in part was based on nothing more substantial than debt expansion.”

"The essential point here is that during the period of introduction of these new financial devices and while the newly opened reservoirs of credit are filling, we have a temporary increase in the nation’s purchasing power. A combination of circumstances has rendered this expansion of large dimensions in the decade just closed…”

"The check to expansion is sharp and is intensified by the excesses inevitably associated with periods of over-rapid expansion. Such a course of events is clearly proven by the evidence as to credit expansion in the period 1920 to 1929. The depression into which the nation fell in the latter year was undoubtedly due in part at least to these developments in our complicated economic structure.”

"When the accounts are footed we shall have learned new lessons respecting the evils of credit inflation. This dear bought wisdom we may place beside our knowledge of the evils of monetary inflation purchased at an equally dear price. And we may venture a pious hope that the joint lessons will induce growth of the wisdom to foresee, caution to move less rapidly and more surely in the path of progress…”

- Charles E. Persons, excerpt from “Credit Expansion, 1920 to 1929, and its Lessons”
The Quarterly Journal of Economics - November 1930 (http://www.itulip.com/nonewera.htm)
Of course the US economy will never recover from the collapse of a three decade long credit bubble. Throw ever-rising energy costs into the bargain and you have the ingredients for a perpetual decline in real per capita GDP, the ubiquitous historical antecedent of political conflict and social unrest.

Current course and speed, we will see no recovery even to a hypothetical "new normal" that echoes 2007 or 1999 or 1994 for that matter.

Not by 2014.

Not ever.

The lesson for us in the observations by the hopeful albeit naive economist Charles Persons in 1930, first posted here on iTulip 11 years ago, is that the lessons of history go unheeded by politicians when the lesson interferes with the business of placating voters and making a quick buck.

Credit-financed economic booms, by turns in private then public credit as one ratchets up the other over a series of booms and busts, are as irresistible to politicians as hookers and maids.

The error of allowing another credit bubble to develop was repeated.

Policy makers are now attempting to reflate the credit bubble that started to collapse in 2008. They are squandering time and public credit that we desperately need to take policy steps that stand a chance of producing lasting economic growth by re-building the foundation of a productive America.

Our economic crisis is a credit and energy crisis rooted in the inability of our national economy to produce enough primary surplus to grow, create jobs, and also pay debts left over from a previous splurge in private and public borrowing, and also afford an energy intensive transportation infrastructure as oil import costs rise.

America is not alone with its political struggle between creditors and debtors. The political consequences of the failure to keep promises made with borrowed money are being felt in Spain, Greece, and China. The failures of American FIRE Economy policies are behind the movements in Libya, Yemen, and Syria, as reflation measures, from quantitative easing to currency depreciation, steal purchasing power from low income families world wide, acting as the most regressive tax imaginable. Simmering hatreds are exacerbated by the developing global crisis over oil supplies and costs.

Something has to give. Something will give, in my estimation within the next ten years.

I argue that the inability for the United States, the world's reserve currency issuer, cannot repay internal and external debts and absorb rising energy costs. The promise of endless growth and opportunity glued our society together for decades. We are running out of the ingredients of that glue: cheap credit and cheap oil. We are seeing a wide range of social domestic conflicts develop as budgets are cut and at the same time the basis for real economic recovery diminishes.

A dozen desirable trends of the past decade will reverse over the coming years, trends that we take for granted as perpetual. They are becoming luxuries that we can no longer afford. By following the chain of causation, starting from the original sin of the credit bubble, I am led to the inescapable conclusion that this ends in global military conflict.

National downward mobility

We will not be able to afford the cost of 2.5 million incarcerated Americans. Prison populations will decline and crime rates will rise.

We will not be able to bail out retirees for trillions in unfunded corporate pension liabilities, (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/11597-Corporate-Pension-Fund-shortfalls-weigh-on-recovery-Eric-Janszen?p=119321) an even bigger scandal than the unfunded public pension liabilities that are making headlines today.

We will not be able to afford 1.5 million men at arms, but we will grow this force anyway at the expense of other priorities.

Not when we have 44 million Americans living below the poverty line, up from 29 million in 1980, 14% of the population versus the previous peak of 15% in 1982.

Not when a fifth of the US population is on food stamps.

Each time a group of retirees, or veterans, or other part of American society is sacrificed to bubble era debt repayment, society gains another few hundred thousand disgruntled, cynical, and angry citizens.

Not since the draft and the Vietnam War has public policy so divided the nation.

All macro economic trends are going in the wrong direction to reverse negative social trends.

Sliding Down the Doomer Scale



http://www.itulip.com/images/doomerscale.jpg



Long time readers know that since 1998 I have prided myself in making neither optimistic nor pessimistic but realistic assessments of our economic future and how to best invest for ourselves and those we love.

A survey of our members in June 2007 in the widely read article Are You a Doomer? (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/1476-Are-You-a-Doomer?p=11355#post11355) revealed that the typical iTuliper is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. On our 1 to 10 iTulip Doomer Scale, the average of several hundred survey participants came in at 5.

At the time, I was forecasting a massive financial crisis and recession as fallout from the collapse of the housing bubble. That no doubt struck our more optimistic members as excessively doomerish.

After completing this analysis, I warn the more optimistic among you that I am moving closer to a 3 on the scale.

This time it is my unfortunate duty to inform the iTulip community of my bleak assessment of prospects for investing over the next ten years. I draw this conclusion after three years of investigation.

This analysis took far longer than I expected. Once you read it, I think you will understand why.

The project began in 2008, after the results of the so-called financial crisis became apparent, as I was writing my book The Postcatastrophe Economy: Rebuilding America and Avoiding the Next Bubble (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842638?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwitulipcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1591842638)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwitulipcom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1591842638.

Today, looking out over the next ten years as I did in 2000 when I took positions in gold and Treasury bonds, I see the dissolution of the US FIRE Economy and the social structures that developed around it. As the US is the largest economy in the world, the implications for the rest of the world are profound.

As investors, the next decade will be nothing like the previous one. The second failure of globalization will produce a volatile and unpredictable environment for capital markets.

As grim as the past decade was for US stock market investors, prospects for stocks in the coming decade are even worse.

The last decade was good for investors in commodities, gold and Treasury bonds, but unlike the relatively steady rise in gold prices that we experienced since 2001, capital will surge among countries and asset classes in response to events, searching for safety, not yield.

The US will continue to be viewed as the safest country for investment, even if real growth is negligible, non-existent, or negative. The dollar may benefit for extended periods before the transformation to a new multilateral currency system solidifies, based on Asian, European, and American currency blocks.

It will not be possible remain in one position immobile as we were able to between 2001 and 2011. We cannot bite off the decade in one piece. We have to break it down into episodes and devise a means for making investment decisions based on rules that apply. Next we set the stage.

How did we get here?

In 2009 we escaped a repeat of a deflation spiral we experienced in the 1930s, but a repeat was never a possibility as I explained here since 2006: without the constraint of the gold standard on the Fed's balance sheet, the Fed is free to expand its balance sheet infinitely to stop deflation in its tracks -- and did.

Unlike the 1930s credit bubble collapse episode, the Fed plugged the hole in the cracked credit structure with creative accounting, using policy measures that were unimaginable except to those of us who bothered to read Bernanke's published plans to prevent a repeat of The Great Recession, to make sure "it" -- referring to a 1930s deflation spiral -- doesn't happen here. But he also meant deflation as occurred in Japan due to a persistent output gap produced by a post credit bubble recession and debt deflation. Bernanke wanted to make sure that our post crash output gap was manageably small. To achieve that took extraordinary measures that the Japanese central bank failed to take in the early 1990s. The Japanese have battled the output gap that resulted from those first years of fumbling ever since. As it turns out, even the relatively small 4% of GDP output gap that the so-called Great Recession produced was too much.

In the short run, Bernanke succeeded. In the long run he will fail.

Instead of writing papers since 1984 about how to manage a post credit bubble credit crisis, Bernanke should have been writing papers about the evils of credit bubbles and how to avoid them.

Proposed emergency policies included buying long dated government bonds to “shape the yield curve,” known as government bond price fixing in less polite circles. Another scheme offered was to disappear worthless commercial paper held by banks via the accounting gimmick of listing the worthless securities on its balance sheet simultaneously as both assets and liabilities.

Presto! They're gone! It's a miracle!

No one has to take a loss.

And so it is as Bernanke did when the crash came. I think of his Princeton papers on The Great Depression as a job application for head of the Fed, post-Greenspan.

But some day, perhaps in January 2013, a new US political administration will come clean, as the new Greek administration of Georgios Papandreou did in early 2010 when it announced: Gosh! Look at all of the accounting tricks previous administrations have used and lies they've told about our fiscal position! We're shocked! Shocked by the fiscal malfeasance! And even though we are ostensibly socialists, we're going to take on the odious task of making sure the banks are paid at the expense of the people who elected us.

At which point the Greek debt crisis and concomitant social crisis formally began.

Until that hour of debt epiphany arrives for the US, politicians can celebrate the fact that the Fed and the White House did not let the economy shrink for three years and dig itself into a 25% of GDP output gap hole as the Hoover administration and the Federal Reserve under Eugene Meyer did between 1930 and 1933. As they dawdled and blundered, Hoover and Meyer compounded the error of the 1920 to 1929 credit bubble with the banker-friendly decision to keep the gold standard going after the bubble collapsed.

The gold standard is, in a phrase, a system of gold price fixing by the government. It favored creditors who benefit when the unit of debt repayment gets stronger. This was replaced by a system of government bond price fixing, which favors creditors if the central bank succeeds at keeping the unit of debt repayment strong and adds the special favor of interest income on reserves. History will teach us again which system works better for the American people.

Stimulus measures applied by Ben Bernanke's Fed and the Obama administration were immediate and radical. They affected a quick end to the short-lived liquidity crisis.

For dramatic flourish Ben looked pale and frightened, his voice quavering, as he sat before Congress in 2008 to explain how he needed to lend billions to his future employers at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs. Perhaps we should open an unofficial betting pool here on iTulip. Which of these two fine institutions of finance capitalism will Ben depart to after leaving the Fed to spend more time with his family, after he completes his tour duty as lead central banker of the global finance oligarchy?

Compared to the 25% output gap that grew for three years after 1930 and launched The Great Depression, the last recession left us with a modest 4% of GDP output gap. Despite its relatively small size, that gap was deep enough to trap us dangerously in a wallow of long-term unemployment and diminishing ability to finance existing liabilities, as I argue below. At the rate the economy is growing we won’t escape the current output gap, now now 2% of GDP, before the next recession opens the gap even wider.

At that point we will be firmly on a trajectory to economic and social crisis and past the point of no return. We are not yet there, but unless drastic measures are taken quickly to get growth back to 4% plus growth, as I explain in my original Output Gap Trap (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/17145-The-American-Output-Gap-Trap-%C2%96-Part-I-We-have-three-years-to-escape-or-we%C2%92re-dead-meat-Eric-Janszen?p=176721) analysis from October last year, we will find ourselves looking back sentimentally at this period as the good old days.

Below we do a deep dive into three quarters of fresh economic data to evaluate the economy's progress since my output gap analysis last fall. Policies taken to date are not working. A fresh approach is needed, and godspeed.

Spared but Still Impaired

Radical policy intervention prevented our modern credit bubble collapse from morphing into a 1930s deflation spiral, but economic growth remains thwarted by a combination of grinding debt deflation and high energy costs for the duration.

Debt deflation happens when households and businesses pay off old debt faster than they take on new debt. Under our credit-based money system, all new money is borrowed into existence, so debt deflation implies a contraction in the money supply and monetary deflation unless the public sector steps in to borrow money into existence to compensate for the shortfall in private sector borrowing.

Below we see the government buying consumer loans to slow consumer debt deflation. Recently this policy stopped and reversed debt deflation in the consumer credit market, but at the cost of expanding government liabilities. This what we mean by "moving private debt to public account."


http://www.itulip.com/images2/householddebtdeflation2008-May2011NOTESwtmk.png
The Federal Government attempts to slow debt deflation with direct purchases of consumer loans.
These are slowing debt deflation but not quickly enough to stimulate consumption to
motivate producers to grow payrolls and generate organic consumer credit growth.


The green line in the chart above shows the result of organic consumer credit growth plus inorganic consumer credit growth financed by government purchases of consumer loans measured on the left hand scale. The red line shows federal government purchases of consumer loans rising from $100 billion to $300 billion since 2009 on the right hand scale. The blue line shows organic consumer credit growth with inorganic government-financed consumer credit growth backed out. Bottom line, consumer debt deflation will continue if the government steps out of the consumer loan market.

The result of government intervention in the mortgage credit market has been less effective. Mortgage debt deflation continues unabated. The poor condition of the engine of the housing bubble, the asset-backed securities market, is indicative.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/ASBlosses2001-2011wtmk.png

The Fed took these securities onto its balance sheet and temporarily disappeared $835 billion in paper losses. If we compare these as-yet unrealized losses in the US asset-backed securities market to the GDP of the world's largest 100 economies we find that US ASB losses come in at #19 -- between the GDP of Taiwan and the GDP of Iran.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/ASBlossesvsGDPwtmk.png

Asset markets are resisting such heroic efforts by the government to reflate asset prices. During the hay day of the 1995 to 2006 bubble cycle sub-era (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/360-The-Bubble-Cycle-is-Replacing-the-Business-Cycle-Janszen) of the FIRE Economy era that started in 1980 (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908), first tax revenues from capital gains on asset price inflation filled government coffers as NASDAQ speculators traded in technology stocks then happy housing speculators bought and sold condos and single family homes. No more.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/AssetInflationTaxRevenuewtmk.png

Personal income receipts on assets eked out a modest recovery, but nowhere close levels seen two years into the stock market and housing bubbles "recoveries" of the past decade.

Two rounds of quantitative easing and multiple government stimulus programs prolonged the rebound, such as it is, but unemployment remains over 9%, far higher than two years into previous recoveries. By the official count, 14 million Americans are still unemployed, up by seven million and only 11% fewer than at the peak of 15.6 million. But these employment statistics are rosy compared to the picture of long-term unemployment, the hallmark of a persistent output gap.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/unemploymentratenumberwtmk.png

The old BLS charts that we have been using on iTulip since 1999 had to be modified because the BLS old upper limit on mean duration of unemployment was 26 weeks -- half a year. The worst previous record was 21 weeks in 1983. Mean duration of unemployment reached 40 weeks in May.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/mediandurationunemployment1948-May2011wtmk.png

The US poverty rate is approaching it's FIRE Economy era high of 15%.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/USpoverty1980-2009wtmk.png

That previous 15% poverty rate resulted from an output gap that the Fed produced on purpose to kill off an inflation spiral. This time, the gap is unintended.

High unemployment is having a predictable impact on the housing market. I warned in 2002 (http://www.itulip.com/qc082002.htm) that when the housing bubble finally collapses in a few years that housing prices will revert to the mean with a vengeance as prices correlate to regional incomes. Two years into the recovery, and five years into the housing bubble collapse, housing reveals itself to the consumer for what it is – not an asset class but a cost. Housing is only an asset class of you are a landlord or a lender.

We are at Step E of my at the time heretical January 2005 description of the housing bust process (http://www.itulip.com/housingbubblecorrection.htm).

Step E: Five years into the downturn, rising unemployment will begin to more seriously affect the market, as indicated in Chart 1. As unemployment rises, homeowners will leave housing bust regions to move to areas where there are more jobs. Many houses will be sold at a loss, or even abandoned, as the market price falls below the loan value. Given the choice between paying cash out of pocket to sell their home or leaving the keys with the bank, many home owners will make the latter choice.

Owning is a luxury. When you rent you may pay someone else’s mortgage, but it's cheaper on a monthly basis. With jobs scarce and food, fuel and durable goods prices rising, the reality of declining home affordability is slowly sinking into the American psyche. As it does, the rental market grows and the home buyer market shrinks.

Too many houses, not enough high paying jobs

Consider this measure of new housing demand relative to employment: the number of civilian employed needed to generate enough demand to motivate home builders to build one new house.

During the worst period of the 1990 recession, 150 employed civilian workers generated demand for one new home. At the peak of the last recession in 2009, 290 employed civilian workers generated demand for one new home.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/housingandjobs1958-June2009wtmk.png

Two years into every recovery since 1960, the number of employed civilian workers needed to generate demand for one new home recovered to pre-recession levels. But two years into this recovery, the number stands at 270, only 7% below the peak of 290 and more than five times as many as in 1962.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/housingandjobs1958-June2011wtmk.png

This dreadful statistic depends on the government continuing to subsidize the monthly cost of a mortgage. Low mortgage rates are made possible by two nationalized banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If these banks are privatized mortgage rates will climb into the double digits to reflect actual default risk, the monthly cost of owning a home will rise, and home prices will fall even further. If they are not privatized, they remain yet another drag on America's balance sheet, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will eventually drive up interest rates anyway as foreign lenders demand to be compensated for default and inflation risk on US Treasury debt. Either way, mortgage rates are going up, driving home prices down.

Debt deflation results from a collapsing credit bubble. The process is not to be confused with monetary deflation, although one can be excused for conflating the two under our current system of credit-based money.

Debt Deflation without Monetary Deflation

Credit and money were intertwined at the start of the FIRE Economy era in the early 1980s by the expedient of payment of interest on checking accounts. In such a credit-based money system, the money supply ceases to act independently of credit as can be seen in the chart below that shows a continuously declining velocity of money at zero maturity (MZM) since 1980 compared to interest bearing money aggregates M1 and M2.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/VelocityofMZM1957-2011wtmk.png
Nominal GDP divided by non-interest bearing “money” versus interest bearing money

Central bankers worldwide appear to have agree to push the meme that inflation is transitory and will decline in the coming months. They also claim that labor markets will improve, but slowly. Tighter labor markets and falling inflation is not usually how this movie goes, and OECD economists know it. They are imploring the Fed to raise interest rates. But until the US output gap closes, and housing prices stop plummeting, the Fed will grin and bear it as inflation rises to redline levels above 5%.

Consumer Price inflation Arrives on Schedule

Reflation policy measures targeted at asset prices may have missed the mark with respect to housing prices and employment but they are having the predicted impact on the prices of food, fuel, and now finished goods. In 2009, when inflation versus deflation was a serious topic of debate, I promised you consumer price inflation by the second quarter of 2011. My theory was that due to reflation policy, in particular currency depreciation via fiscal policy and sustained negative real interest rates, would increase exports as intended but also increase the prices of imports. In 2008, during the fire sale part of the crisis, I told readers (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/6993-Fed-cuts-dollar-Fire-sales-vs-FIRE-sales-Duh-flation-and-Bezzle-shrinks-again-Eric-Janszen?p=66592#post66592) to go out and buy all of the imported durable goods they're going to need for the duration because import prices are going up. Two and a half years later, the news makes the front page of the Wall Street Journal:
Change in China Hits U.S. Purse
June 21, 2011 - Wall Street Journal

For more than a decade starting in the early 1990s, U.S. inflation declined as low-wage workers in China and other developing nations joined the global economy and produced a tide of cheap goods that washed onto U.S. shores.

The trend made American consumers feel better off and, by restraining the upward crawl of consumer prices, helped enable the Federal Reserve to fuel the U.S. economy with low interest rates.

That epoch appears to be over. Prices of imported goods are climbing, becoming a source of inflationary pressure. A wide variety of common products made abroad, from shoes to auto parts...
Further, I speculated that producers that had enough cash to live through the wave of bankruptcies in 2008 and 2009 to remain as the survivors in their respective industries were set to gain pricing power even if aggregate demand had fallen below pre-recession levels. For example, instead of 20 high end restaurants vying for 1000 customers in a 10 mile radius, now 10 high end restaurants vie for 750 customers, as 250 of their old customers are now eating a lower-priced eateries.

Welcome to the new inflationary era of the Postcatastrophe Economy.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/AutoSales1975-May2011wtmk.png

After falling to the 1983 recession level, sales of passenger cars and small trucks have recovered to the 1994 level, when the economy was 2/3 the size of today's, also a level first seen in 1974 when the economy was 1/2 the size of today's. Despite this tepid demand, auto prices are rising. In fact, inflation has been more rapid over the past two years than over any previous two year period in history.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/autoinflationJan2002-May2011wtmk.png


Apartment rents, a historical harbinger of broad-based consumer price inflation, have also climbed steeply, happily in line with the theory of our investment in Eastham Capital's multi-family housing fund last year (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/17658-Eastham-Capital-Webinars?p=181947#post181947). With interest expenses low and rents rising, the environment for improved cap rates couldn't be better.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/rentsvsrateswtmk.png

Deflating asset prices and inflating goods and services prices is the price of policies pursued by the current administration to avoid the inevitable occurring on their watch.

Promises have been made and promises will be broken. Not only the promises to government workers who paid into their pensions for a lifetime, but to savers generally.

The Road to Perdition

The majority of Americans may believe that the economic crisis knocked them off their destined course to wealth and prosperity, but the truth is that we were never as rich as we thought we were when cheap credit and cheap oil expanded our purchasing power unnaturally beyond the limitations of our productivity, of minds and machines, to generate an economic surplus.

If we were honest we’d admit, like a lottery winner who has spent all his winnings on cars and drugs, that the era of free-wheeling fun has come to an end.

We had a blast, but it’s over.

At least some of us had fun. The dot com speculators who sold at the top. The housing bubble speculators who got out in time. The Wall Street investment bankers who played it both ways, selling junk on the way up and shorting it on the way down.

Too bad for everyone else, for those who missed out, for the paycheck workers and the stock mutual fund buy-and-hold investors. The losers along with the winners will have to shoulder the burden of coping with cheap oil and credit era debris. The inherent unfairness of this outcome of the credit bubble era will pose yet another threat to the long standing presumption of American political stability and security that underpins the relative safety of US capital markets.

Debt Debris

The collapsed credit bubble has left us with a debt overhang that diverts the cash flow of households and business toward payments of principle and interest, preventing our economy from reaching its full output potential. Failure to write down the bubble era debt consigns us to corrosive debt deflation that demands more government stimulus spending to keep the top line of the economy growing while eroding the bottom line -- the purchasing power of income and savings -- with cost-push inflation, an artifact of a persistently weak dollar.

Richard Koo refers to his condition euphemistically as a “balance sheet recession.” That’s banker-speak for using public funds to try to close an output gap created by the collapse of a credit bubble that enriched creditors without holding them to account. As we see later in this analysis, Japan's experiment with applying Keynesian stimulus for decades rather than for a brief period to close an output gap as Keynes intended, will be among the great economic failures that befall the world in the coming decade.

Left-leaning economists deploy semi-scientific language to argue that we need to use public funds to prop up the economy until it becomes self-sustaining. They ignore the fact that the policy only works if the private sector can be primed to borrow more money into existence than it is retiring via debt repayment, else the dependence on deficit spending becomes structural and the spending perpetual, at least until the nation runs out of credit in a decade or two.

Right-leaning economists argue for cutting government spending and taxation to free up producers to hire and consumers to spend, ignoring the fact that when an over-indebted economy is in an output gap a reduction in government spending reduces the economy's primary surplus, shrinking the economy further, either in real or nominal terms, and worsening its fiscal position. It's like a mortgage lender demanding that a borrower sell the car he needs to use to get to work, so that income that he is spending on car loan payments can instead be used to pay off the mortgage. It's self-defeating.

Once an over-indebted country in an output gap begins to have difficulty repaying foreign debt, because debt payments exceed available tax revenue net of outlays, that nation will only dig itself deeper into a hole if policy makers attempt to reduce budget deficits by means of spending cuts. According to economist Sebastian Edwards, “Perverse fiscal dynamics – where the country fails to generate a primary surplus large enough as to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio – usually generates a vicious circle, where failure to stabilize the debt ratio results in higher cost of funds, lower growth, and in an even larger required primary surplus.”

The so-called debate about debt ceilings, spending cuts, and entitlements reductions is a red herring. The public debt crisis arose from the 2007 - 2008 private credit market crisis, not the government liabilities that have been building for decades.

The mistake of both the left and the right is thinking that we can escape an output gap without facing up to the politically unpopular task of demanding that creditors take a loss on loans taken out during the credit bubble era.

We need a private sector debt cut, not a tax cut.

Trillions in mortgage debt against fictitious housing value remains on the balance sheets of households after home prices deflated 25%.

These debts should not exist. They resulted from an over-abundance of credit and deficiency in lending discipline.

But Main Street’s credit bubble era debt is Wall Street’s political cash flow entitlement.

The banking lobby will make sure that the next president and Congress keep the bogus debt service payments flowing, no matter that principle and interest payments on mortgage debt now consume 30% of the average household budget, followed by transportation costs at 19% and rising, food costs at 14% and rising, insurance costs at 12% and rising, and health care costs at 6% and rising. Throw in a value-added tax proposed by Paul Volcker and others to balance the budget and we can kiss what’s left of our Postcatastrophe Economy goodbye.

Debt deflation is not the only holdover from the cheap credit era that is keeping us stuck in an output gap. At the same time the bill is coming due for building a transportation infrastructure that is dependent on cheap imported oil.

In the short-term, high oil costs push the US economy ever closer to negative real growth territory.

In Q1 2011, consumer price inflation averaged 3% according to the MIT Billions of Prices project, while the Bureau of Labored Statistics' revised Q1 GDP number confirmed a 1.8% real annual growth rate. In the same quarter the BLS reported a 3.7% nominal GDP growth rate and an average 2.2% inflation rate. When we subtract 2.2% from 3.7% we get a real GDP of 1.5% not 1.8%, but enough quibbling. If the nominal GDP growth rate was 3.7% and we use the MIT versus the BLS numbers, we get 0.7% real GDP growth, and I estimate that in Q2 2011 the economy contracted in real terms. This is the beginning of the first Peak Cheap Oil Cycle recession, a recession in real but not nominal terms. As we see later in this analysis, real GDP recessions are far more painful and political destabilizing than the nominal recessions.

In the short run, bad energy policy is heightening stagflation. In the long run it drives destructive public policy.

Forgotten Lessons and the Repetition of Fatal Errors

The private credit crisis that gave rise to our current economic crisis is a product of the second large scale credit bubble in 100 years. Were he alive today, Charles E. Persons, quoted above, will be disappointed to find that no lessons were learned respecting the evils of credit inflation, and that the dear bought wisdom of the 1930s was not placed beside our knowledge of the evils of monetary inflation, that in fact the wrong lesson was learned. The lesson, to avoid credit bubbles, was lost of the Greenspan Fed. Instead he believed that the flow of payments from the debtors to creditors is sacrosanct. His successor, Ben Bernanke, believes that credit bubbles can, once collapsed, be reflated with taxpayer money, to keep the payments flowing. In fact, that's why he got the job, because he'd been advertising himself for it in papers he was writing at Princeton as early as 1984.

The final lesson we shall re-learn is that there is no escape from the consequences of a credit bubble.

Sooner or later, accounts are settled. Someone has to take a loss.

The way we're headed that someone will be, as usual, the most politically vulnerable, those with the weakest political and intellectual defenses, and the loss will be taken in the form of lost purchasing power, as has been my position here since starting iTulip in 1998.

The evils of credit inflation were forgotten. Debt deflation follows the repeat of the credit bubble error. Consequent crises are following in train. We are about to re-experience a period of history that failed to teach us even more important lessons, about monetary inflation, about the social contract between the state and the citizen, about the sanctity of the principle of fair access to opportunity, and about the essential need of citizens to be treated respectfully, and what happens if these are lost.

The WWI opened on horseback and closed with steel clad tanks propelled across battlefields by internal combustion engines running on gasoline, and airplanes bombarding troops from on high, their internal combustion engines whining overhead. Oil, more than any other factor, extended WWI and exploded the scale of human losses by pitting the energy density of oil against the soft tissues of men organized for battle as they had been for millennia. As the war dragged on, the mad internal logic of technical innovation in war expanded the slaughter beyond imagination. The mad innovation continued through WWII, culminating the most insane weapon of all, the atomic bomb that blasted a city of human beings to bits.

WWII ran on oil, and was lost by nations who lost access to oil, and generations of prosperity was won by those who secured access to it, at the expense of the citizens of the countries where the oil resides by geological happenstance. While WWII was not about oil per se, the most lasting and valuable spoil of WWII was access to oil by America and its allies that guaranteed economic growth unimpeded by interruptions in oil supplies. As we see in the second part of this analysis, oil price volatility is sand in the global economic apparatus. At times over the next ten years, that apparatus will grind to a halt. WWIII will most certainly be fought over oil, but for economic survival not for economic advantage.

To the hopeful, anti-government movements in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are the leading edge of a new enlightenment, and era of openness and freedom. Without question, such a era is deserved by the Arab world. But my reading of history and events brings me to a very different conclusion.

If I have learned anything from doing economic analysis here on iTulip for the past 13 years it is that governments learn nothing. One mistake leads to another. Mistakes become institutionalized.

From where I sit, I see the machine of global political economy churning its way inexorably toward a third world war, its institutions of diplomacy mired in cold war era thinking. Our global elite is as unsuited for the form and scale of the task at hand, for bringing nations together in a period of social stresses induced by self-inflicted economic crisis, as it was in the 1930s. Peak Cheap Oil only complicates an already impossible diplomatic task.

The mass protests in Spain, Greece, and China, the battles between rebels and repressive states in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and rising gang violence in the US are the leading edge of a new incivility. Political security, the foundation of efficient capital markets, will decline over the next ten years.

The task of forecasting the next ten years, with all of its uncertainty, is insurmountable using the methods I employed between 1998 and 2001 to determine to buy and hold gold and Treasury bonds for ten years. That allocation worked out like this (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/17050-iTulip-Portfolio-Strategy-%C2%96-Section-1-Part-II-The-Devil%C2%92s-in-the-Details-Eric-Janszen?p=175801#post175801), as my friends Paul and Wes Karger at Twin Focus Capital Partners (http://www.twinfocuscapital.com/) determined by plugging the allocation into a standard benchmark portfolio allocation.

The fundamentally changed dynamics of the next decade required me to develop an entirely new way of thinking about and analyzing the political economy. Whereas the cycle of asset price inflations, deflations, and reflations drove my forecast in 2000 for the decade that just closed, the primary factor of asset allocation for the next ten years is uncertainty itself. It demands a rules based analytical method that breaks the problem down into manageable parts. Next we get started on developing our 2011 to 2020 Uncertainty Era Asset Allocation Rulebook starting with a detailed analysis of the US Output Gap Trap and its implications.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/vietnamprotest1967-2.png
Always Watching


The Next Ten Years – Part II: Fight or flight

Investing in a period of political instability and social trauma

The Right Questions:

• Can the US escape its output gap trap?
- On structural unemployment and a history of violence

• How do we allocate our portfolio during the era of uncertainty?
- On the Uncertainty Era Asset Allocation Rulebook

Can the US escape its output gap trap?

On structural unemployment and a history of violence

To stimulate or not to stimulate? That is the question as framed by the mainstream business media. But it is the wrong question because either way the US economy sinks.

Stimulating the economy with increased government spending or via tax cuts that increase the budget deficit, or a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts that is budget neutral, will slow the US economy because it is stuck in an output gap. The output gap was created by the 2008 to 2009 recession. The dual drags of debt deflation and Peak Cheap Oil are together acting as a brake on growth.

We are in a race to close of the Postcatastrophe Economy output gap before the next recession widens it further. Current course and speed, because of the dual drags, we aren't going to make it.

The only solution is a debt cut, but that's not going to happen. So what is going to happen? more... ($ubscription) (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/19598-The-Next-Ten-Years-%C2%96-Part-II-Fight-or-Flight-Eric-Janszen?p=200281#post200281)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________

For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts read Eric Janszen's 2010 book The Postcatastrophe Economy: Rebuilding America and Avoiding the Next Bubble (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591842638?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwitulipcom-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=1591842638)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwitulipcom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1591842638.

To receive the iTulip Newsletter/Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List (http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?m=1101238839116&p=oi)

To join iTulip forum community FREE, click here (http://www.itulip.com/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_usage#faq_vb3_register) to register (http://www.itulip.com/register.php).

Copyright © iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2011 All Rights Reserved

All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer (http://www.itulip.com/GeneralDisclaimer.htm)

Sutter Cane
06-23-11, 06:37 PM
Glad, as always, to see a new Janszen commentary. But this was certainly a sobering read.


After completing this analysis, I warn the more optimistic among you that I am moving closer to a 3 on the scale.
From where I sit, I see the machine of global political economy churning its way inexorably toward a third world warI guess I don't even want to know what rates a "1" on the Mad Max scale, then.;-00

necron99
06-23-11, 07:03 PM
Yes, pretty amazing to see this straight-forward analysis from someone whose prognostications I generally trust. But the evidence is all around us. A small, but rapidly growing minority of my friends have come to the conclusion that America's, and most of the world's, political and economic systems, are shams, hollow, rigged against all but a tiny few. That situation is completely unsustainable, piled on top of all the other unsustainable habits we've picked up over the centuries. Actually most of my friends know this at some level, but a small yet growing minority of the smartest of them are edging towards fight-or-flight responses. That in itself is further de-stabilizing. And the habits, strategies and assumptions that profited many people so well during an age of ascendant prosperity and growth, those things all quickly become liabilities on the down-slope of a "shrinking pie" economy. The fundamental nature of the world completely changes when that growth arrow reverses.

I haven't read Part II, but the question of how to guard your investments quickly becomes a side issue, compared to "investing" in your survival, self-sufficiency, and independence. All of which starts with conservation, and getting a grip on your own unnecessary excess. The Archdruid (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) may well be your best financial advisor in the coming years.

(Actually, BDAdmin, I meant the Archdruid's "Hair Shirts" post (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/05/hair-shirts-hypocrisy-and-wilkins.html)specifically as a good starting point for newbies to think about conservation, independence, and defining success as less consumption not more... Those unfamiliar with the Archdruid can check the Archdruid's sidebars for more general navigation.)

(P.S. to Sutter Cane: Welcome to iTulip! I'm dying to see what image you choose as your avatar! Written any books since "The Mouth of Madness"?? The whole world is starting to feel like that final scene where the asylum inmates have all turned into monsters and broken out of their cells...)

sishya
06-23-11, 07:06 PM
I would like to know who are the real creditors and debtors in USA.
In my understanding
creditors - pension funds, money market in 401K, foreign govts via Treasury bonds, US companies with lots of cash, people who hold company and Govt bonds.
debtors - commerical real estate owners, home owners, car owners, credit card holders.

For middle class, I think their debt cancels their wealth mostly. For others, who are mostly debtors, Iprefer dollar devaluation, so that their loans are paid back in devalued dollar.

brent217
06-23-11, 09:29 PM
"That previous 15% poverty rate resulted from an output gap that the Fed produced on purpose to kill of an inflation spiral. This time, the gap is unintended."

should read "Kill OFF an inflation spiral."

brent217
06-23-11, 09:45 PM
"If I have learned anything from doing economic analysis here on iTulip for the past 13 years it is that governments learn nothing. One mistake leads to another. Mistakes become institutionalized."

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
-- Aldous Huxley

brent217
06-23-11, 09:51 PM
So EJ thinks WWIII within 10 years. Would be interesting to know his thoughts on Charles Smith's article here:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/great-game10-10.html

Also, in the back of my mind, from several years ago was EJ saying he was working on his take on Turning Theory (which also predicts the usual 80 year WW(X) cycle) which has us starting a war late in this decade.

Or, have these comments been addressed in the subscriber section? (Don't have the money to resub atm, hoping too by Jan of next year)

touchring
06-23-11, 10:20 PM
I would like to know who are the real creditors and debtors in USA.
In my understanding
creditors - pension funds, money market in 401K, foreign govts via Treasury bonds, US companies with lots of cash, people who hold company and Govt bonds.
debtors - commerical real estate owners, home owners, car owners, credit card holders.

For middle class, I think their debt cancels their wealth mostly. For others, who are mostly debtors, Iprefer dollar devaluation, so that their loans are paid back in devalued dollar.


Why not just cancel the debt instead? No inflation + debt canceled. Problem solved! :(

necron99
06-23-11, 11:17 PM
Would be interesting to know his thoughts on Charles Smith's article here:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/great-game10-10.html
Or, have these comments been addressed in the subscriber section? (Don't have the money to resub atm, hoping too by Jan of next year)

A quick, brutal, dirty, inaccurate summary of Smith's article says -- when the world economy hits its next trainwreck, within a year or two, oil demand will plummet; the oil despots will pump for all they're worth in order to prop up their income and maintain their grip on power, causing oil prices to plummet; those countries' despotic governments will collapse; and then the US, with its keenly strategic web of bases and military power ready to take over the Middle East, returns to its position as the global hegemon and consumer of cheap oil. The dollar's status as reserve currency may be a casualty of that conflict, but the US will still remain the strongest economy and move forward from there. That's what I get out of Smith's article, YMMV.

I don't know if these things have been addressed here on iTulip, nor have I read Charles Smith before your link, but it seems to me that Smith's analysis -- while very interesting -- has its flaws:

* Considering how much money, effort, pain, protest and expense that it has cost the US to project its force, with questionable success, in relatively primitive countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not confident in the US ability to simply control the rest of the shattered Middle East after the world trainwreck. Many people believe the US is a paper tiger. Oh sure we can kill a huge number of people and blow up a lot of infrastructure, but that is not the same as control and influence, as Charles Smith himself points out at the beginning of the article when talking about other countries besides the US. Our "soft power" is in the toilet at this point, and _we_, not China, may be the ones wishing we could buy it back. Smith's vision seems to rely tacitly on a re-instatement of the US draft, a three-million-man US Army moving into every street corner in not only Baghdad and Tehran, but also Riyadh and Turkmenistan... and I just don't think that dog's going to hunt anymore. Certainly not in the next three years; I could imagine a 3-million-man Imperial US Army only after five or eight years of bread lines here at home.
Instead of a clean re-assertion of US Hegemony, we get a confused chaotic WWIII including major losses for the US, and the whole board is in play once again. It's not clear who will win or prosper from the chaos. Ultimately the US may lose control of major portions of the oil supply... and the highly petroleum-dependent US economy (including, inseparable from, its war machine) could fall apart like the car at the end of that first (only) "Blues Brothers" movie... ending all prospects of renewed US hegemony.

* It's far from clear that the oil-producing nations can ramp up their production on demand anymore. That's what "Peak Cheap Oil" means. Nobody (probably not even the oil producers in question) knows whether world oil production has plateau'ed in recent years because the producers want to prop up prices, or because they have simply reached physical extraction limits. All the huge new oil field discoveries you hear about these days seem to require massive investment and new technology to achieve limited flows, while the old reliable oil fields appear to be petering out. When TSHTF, the massive international finance and technological co-operation needed to harvest this 'tough oil' may dry up, hence no oil glut. Oil prices may swing from very low lows to absurd heights in the near future, but volatility has most of the same drawbacks as high prices; not lows. I don't think any oil producer, or group of them, will be able to maintain $25.00 oil as anything more than a brief gesture. Essentially, Iraq was supposed to do that for the US: after the 2003 invasion, the US was supposed to control and ramp up Iraq's oil production, and channel it into our economy. Didn't happen; we can't control the country, we've failed to control who the Iraqis sell their oil to, and Iraq can barely even achieve anymore (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/iraq-struggles-to-boost-oil-production/2011/06/17/AGTko3gH_story.html)the production levels Saddam used to achieve. Without a sustained oil glut, Smith's scenario doesn't obtain; the populist governments which replace the oil despots can pick and choose their customers; the US can't exert dominance, and eventually the US economy and war machine crumbles as it does in my above point, because we are too stubborn, committed, overwhelmed and economically disrupted to shift it all over to other energy sources nearly as fast as it would take to avoid collapse.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth, which is roughly zero...

ASH
06-24-11, 12:17 AM
From where I sit, I see the machine of global political economy churning its way inexorably toward a third world war, its institutions of diplomacy mired in cold war era thinking.

In my opinion, frequent regional warfare may plague many areas of the world in coming decades, but a "third world war" that resembles the two world wars of the 20th century is unlikely if not impossible. If "world war" means a single contest of sovereign survival between the great powers, that spans the globe, that takes place on the soil of at least some of the great powers, and which must end with the complete prostration of one side, then such a thing is virtually impossible.

Diplomatic institutions may be mired in Cold War era thinking, but several of the factors which constrained the Cold War to play out through a series of proxy wars and competitions for regional influence (economic and political as well as military), rather than a globe-consuming military conflagration, still apply. In a word, the great powers are all too vulnerable to fight wars of national survival with each other -- vulnerable both militarily and economically.

The advent of nuclear weapons, and the technical inadequacy of defenses against nuclear weapons, make sovereignty-ending wars between the great powers very unlikely. That's unlikely to change. Moreover, the economic importance of trade to all major powers makes a truly 'world' war very problematic to all. America's dependence on foreign energy is well-rehearsed, and we also have need of foreign capital and markets; at least we have (for now) the blue water navy, expeditionary military power, and global network of bases required to keep our trade routes open. China (to pick the potential adversary du jour) is heavily dependent upon exports, and also requires imported resources, but lacks the naval and expeditionary forces, and foreign bases, to secure that trade. (One possibly under-commented factor is that China lacks strong allies; China is even aware of this -- they note that many of their neighbors fear China more than they distrust the US, and tend to cleave to the US more firmly as Chinese power rises.) The old Soviet Union, with its captive trade block along largely interior lines of communication, was in some respects in a better position (albeit operating with a much less successful economic model). China's major markets are mostly countries that either embrace Western political values and are allies of the US, or are regional competitors who fear domination by China. China trades globally, so China's lines of trade are exposed globally. While we may well compete over access to resources in, say, Africa, this isn't a strategic picture that permits open hostilities on the scale of past world wars.

I think the model for the next couple of decades will be that of post-Soviet regional instability (e.g. Balkans), as America's ability to project hegemonic power beyond its borders diminishes, and no hegemonic power rises to take its place. Rising powers are likely to push us out of regions of the world where our hegemony imposed some stability between regional rivals, and we will likely withdraw from others. Local conflicts will develop in those areas. We will lose our ability to dominate international institutions, or what's equivalent, the writ of international institutions will be attenuated as our power declines. And we probably will fight over resources through proxies. However, in my opinion, it is unlikely that China, or other rising powers, will develop in the next couple of decades the capacity for expeditionary warfare required to fight far beyond their borders while sustaining their economies. They may become regional hegemons in our stead, but none will choose to fight a "real" world war, in the 20th century usage of the term.

EJ
06-24-11, 08:51 AM
In my opinion, frequent regional warfare may plague many areas of the world in coming decades, but a "third world war" that resembles the two world wars of the 20th century is unlikely if not impossible. If "world war" means a single contest of sovereign survival between the great powers, that spans the globe, that takes place on the soil of at least some of the great powers, and which must end with the complete prostration of one side, then such a thing is virtually impossible.

Diplomatic institutions may be mired in Cold War era thinking, but several of the factors which constrained the Cold War to play out through a series of proxy wars and competitions for regional influence (economic and political as well as military), rather than a globe-consuming military conflagration, still apply. In a word, the great powers are all too vulnerable to fight wars of national survival with each other -- vulnerable both militarily and economically.

The advent of nuclear weapons, and the technical inadequacy of defenses against nuclear weapons, make sovereignty-ending wars between the great powers very unlikely. That's unlikely to change. Moreover, the economic importance of trade to all major powers makes a truly 'world' war very problematic to all. America's dependence on foreign energy is well-rehearsed, and we also have need of foreign capital and markets; at least we have (for now) the blue water navy, expeditionary military power, and global network of bases required to keep our trade routes open. China (to pick the potential adversary du jour) is heavily dependent upon exports, and also requires imported resources, but lacks the naval and expeditionary forces, and foreign bases, to secure that trade. (One possibly under-commented factor is that China lacks strong allies; China is even aware of this -- they note that many of their neighbors fear China more than they distrust the US, and tend to cleave to the US more firmly as Chinese power rises.) The old Soviet Union, with its captive trade block along largely interior lines of communication, was in some respects in a better position (albeit operating with a much less successful economic model). China's major markets are mostly countries that either embrace Western political values and are allies of the US, or are regional competitors who fear domination by China. China trades globally, so China's lines of trade are exposed globally. While we may well compete over access to resources in, say, Africa, this isn't a strategic picture that permits open hostilities on the scale of past world wars.

I think the model for the next couple of decades will be that of post-Soviet regional instability (e.g. Balkans), as America's ability to project hegemonic power beyond its borders diminishes, and no hegemonic power rises to take its place. Rising powers are likely to push us out of regions of the world where our hegemony imposed some stability between regional rivals, and we will likely withdraw from others. Local conflicts will develop in those areas. We will lose our ability to dominate international institutions, or what's equivalent, the writ of international institutions will be attenuated as our power declines. And we probably will fight over resources through proxies. However, in my opinion, it is unlikely that China, or other rising powers, will develop in the next couple of decades the capacity for expeditionary warfare required to fight far beyond their borders while sustaining their economies. They may become regional hegemons in our stead, but none will choose to fight a "real" world war, in the 20th century usage of the term.

I agree that the next great war will not be fought in the way past two world wars were fought, but will have key features in common. The next great war will begin as all previous great wars have, with the shared belief among combatant states that the war will be a half dozen months long, contained, be prosecuted with minimal casualties, and end in a conventional way, with one side giving in to the other. Then, after many years and after expanding unpredictably and uncontrollably, the war ends in a way that was not foreseen at the outset with a scale of casualties beyond imagination. When the history is written after the next great war, the start may be traced back to the Iraq invasion in 2003, or whatever event is seen to tip the balance of power, to get the ball rolling. The war will follow a foreseeable course as you describe as it proceeds according to the logic dictated by the current balance of military power, then suddenly veer offtrack to escalate and develop in ways that no one could have imagined happening. None will choose to fight a "real" world war. The war will happen to them, and could in fact be said to be happening now.

jpatter666
06-24-11, 11:44 AM
I agree that the next great war will not be fought in the way past two world wars were fought, but will have key features in common. The next great war will begin as all previous great wars have, with the shared belief among combatant states that the war will be a half dozen months long, contained, be prosecuted with minimal casualties, and end in a conventional way, with one side giving in to the other. Then, after many years and after expanding unpredictably and uncontrollably, the war ends in a way that was not foreseen at the outset with a scale of casualties beyond imagination. When the history is written after the next great war, the start may be traced back to the Iraq invasion in 2003, or whatever event is seen to tip the balance of power, to get the ball rolling. The war will follow a foreseeable course as you describe as it proceeds according to the logic dictated by the current balance of military power, then suddenly veer offtrack to escalate and develop in ways that no one could have imagined happening. None will choose to fight a "real" world war. The war will happen to them, and could in fact be said to be happening now.

So the military-industrial complex would be one of the "investment sectors"? Welcome back Daddy Warbucks -- if you ever indeed left.....

Certainly if we see any serious mobilization, we are on the cusp. I can not recall a situation when there has been a mass mobilization and those forces have *not* been used.

jk
06-24-11, 11:56 AM
I agree that the next great war will not be fought in the way past two world wars were fought, but will have key features in common. The next great war will begin as all previous great wars have, with the shared belief among combatant states that the war will be a half dozen months long, contained, be prosecuted with minimal casualties, and end in a conventional way, with one side giving in to the other. Then, after many years and after expanding unpredictably and uncontrollably, the war ends in a way that was not foreseen at the outset with a scale of casualties beyond imagination. When the history is written after the next great war, the start may be traced back to the Iraq invasion in 2003, or whatever event is seen to tip the balance of power, to get the ball rolling. The war will follow a foreseeable course as you describe as it proceeds according to the logic dictated by the current balance of military power, then suddenly veer offtrack to escalate and develop in ways that no one could have imagined happening. None will choose to fight a "real" world war. The war will happen to them, and could in fact be said to be happening now.
that such is possible, none can deny. the same was said to be possible, and of course it was, throughout the course of the long cold-war between the ussr and usa. however, to say it is possible is not to say it is inevitable. i tend to agree with ash that restraint will continue to apply, and direct, open, conflict between superpowers will likely be avoided. the history of the cuban missile crisis shows that we came very close to nuclear war, and similar confrontations may happen in the future which trigger unimaginable consequences. but i don't think so. i'm shocked that you, ej, have moved to a more extreme position on the "doomer" scale than i occupy myself. and my respect for you means i want to think a lot more about this.

meanwhile, ash's picture of regional chaos seems likely to me as the "global policeman" goes into retirement.

i think the end of the us-ussr cold war to the some point in the near future will be viewed as analogous to the interwar period between wwi and wwii. the 1920's and, now, the 1930's offer important parallels to roughly the last couple of decades.

from an email i wrote in '07:
i think we are in the midst of geopolitical shift comparable to the one in which the u.s. achieved predominance in place of the u.k. the u.k. was the global hegemon from the end of the napoleonic wars until the interwar period of the 1920's and 1930's or so. the 2 world wars of the early 20th century and their intervening years, including the great depression, can be viewed as part of the process of transition from one global system to another. [i suppose the napoleonic wars, french revolution, etc are part of the prior transition and so on- with commercial leadership going from spain in the 16th century to the netherlands to the u.k.- but let's stick with the 19th century to the present.] the cold war, with its nuclear stand-off, froze the international system in place. the collapse of the soviet union led to the the emergence of the u.s. as the sole superpower, but it also actually unfroze the system and allowed it evolve to its current state of crisis.

i think that the u.k. to u.s. handoff, involving 2 bloody wars and a depression, was nonetheless in some ways easier than the transition we are entering. i say this because of the similar political, social and legal cultures of the 2 states involved.

the first phase, where we are now, is the process of going from the one overarching superpower to a truly multipolar world. meanwhile, there is a shift of dynamism and, eventually i believe, leadership to the asian nations. it remains to be seen whether major military conflicts can be avoided during this process. the world wars, the first perhaps even more than the second, drained england and thus facilitated the power shift. the u.s emerged as the sole industrial power, its homeland unscathed, after wwii. the soviets created a bipolar world by focusing resources on the military and creating a nuclear threat.

the hollowing out of the u.s. economy may be serving the function of ww i. i really see the u.s. as a society in decline. perhaps this decline is reversible; i don't know. but in my imagination it feels like the later days of the roman empire. when i heard about, e.g., tyco's dennis kozlowski throwing his wife a multimillion dollar birthday party, disguised as and paid for as a corporate meeting, on sardinia with an ice sculpture of david urinating stolichnaya vodka, all i could think about was fellini's satyricon.

a factor that might make a significant difference in this process is the emergence of multinational corporations. perhaps it would be more accurate to say "transnational." their stocks may be listed on a national exchange, but they really have no nationality. they may serve to moderate the system, making it less stark, less clear where all the power lies.

jiimbergin
06-24-11, 12:04 PM
that such is possible, none can deny. the same was said to be possible, and of course it was, throughout the course of the long cold-war between the ussr and usa. however, to say it is possible is not to say it is inevitable. i tend to agree with ash that restraint will continue to apply, and direct, open, conflict between superpowers will likely be avoided. the history of the cuban missile crisis shows that we came very close to nuclear war, and similar confrontations may happen in the future which trigger unimaginable consequences. but i don't think so. i'm shocked that you, ej, have moved to a more extreme position on the "doomer" scale than i occupy myself. and my respect for you means i want to think a lot more about this.

meanwhile, ash's picture of regional chaos seems likely to me as the "global policeman" goes into retirement.

i think the end of the us-ussr cold war to the some point in the near future will be viewed as analogous to the interwar period between wwi and wwii. the 1920's and, now, the 1930's offer important parallels to roughly the last couple of decades.

from an email i wrote in '07:
i think we are in the midst of geopolitical shift comparable to the one in which the u.s. achieved predominance in place of the u.k. the u.k. was the global hegemon from the end of the napoleonic wars until the interwar period of the 1920's and 1930's or so. the 2 world wars of the early 20th century and their intervening years, including the great depression, can be viewed as part of the process of transition from one global system to another. [i suppose the napoleonic wars, french revolution, etc are part of the prior transition and so on- with commercial leadership going from spain in the 16th century to the netherlands to the u.k.- but let's stick with the 19th century to the present.] the cold war, with its nuclear stand-off, froze the international system in place. the collapse of the soviet union led to the the emergence of the u.s. as the sole superpower, but it also actually unfroze the system and allowed it evolve to its current state of crisis.

i think that the u.k. to u.s. handoff, involving 2 bloody wars and a depression, was nonetheless in some ways easier than the transition we are entering. i say this because of the similar political, social and legal cultures of the 2 states involved.

the first phase, where we are now, is the process of going from the one overarching superpower to a truly multipolar world. meanwhile, there is a shift of dynamism and, eventually i believe, leadership to the asian nations. it remains to be seen whether major military conflicts can be avoided during this process. the world wars, the first perhaps even more than the second, drained england and thus facilitated the power shift. the u.s emerged as the sole industrial power, its homeland unscathed, after wwii. the soviets created a bipolar world by focusing resources on the military and creating a nuclear threat.

the hollowing out of the u.s. economy may be serving the function of ww i. i really see the u.s. as a society in decline. perhaps this decline is reversible; i don't know. but in my imagination it feels like the later days of the roman empire. when i heard about, e.g., tyco's dennis kozlowski throwing his wife a multimillion dollar birthday party, disguised as and paid for as a corporate meeting, on sardinia with an ice sculpture of david urinating stolichnaya vodka, all i could think about was fellini's satyricon.

a factor that might make a significant difference in this process is the emergence of multinational corporations. perhaps it would be more accurate to say "transnational." their stocks may be listed on a national exchange, but they really have no nationality. they may serve to moderate the system, making it less stark, less clear where all the power lies.

EJ has actually moved about to where I have been, but it still is a surprise that he has. EJ gets to talk to a lot of influential people that any of us. I have to believe that these talks have been part of the reason he has moved to 3 on the doomer scale.

VIT
06-24-11, 07:28 PM
In my opinion, frequent regional warfare may plague many areas of the world in coming decades, but a "third world war" that resembles the two world wars of the 20th century is unlikely if not impossible. If "world war" means a single contest of sovereign survival between the great powers, that spans the globe, that takes place on the soil of at least some of the great powers, and which must end with the complete prostration of one side, then such a thing is virtually impossible.


I tend to think along these lines as well. I would add another 2 factors:
- There were ideological differences in WWII which helped to mobilize/sustain combatants
- Military equipment is more expensive / resource intensive now so countries will deplete fast. If you add what was mentioned that offensive power greater then defensive so this war will quickly become survival exercise for all involved.
So what would be the reason to start a big war if the sum of the game is clearly very negative for all. Another argument that we are still just in the beginning of declining phase of Kondratieff type cycle. Where as wars start at the beginning of growing phase.


It is still a chance to have significant destruction in some places but it would not come from continuous warfare

jpatter666
06-24-11, 08:06 PM
EJ has actually moved about to where I have been, but it still is a surprise that he has. EJ gets to talk to a lot of influential people that any of us. I have to believe that these talks have been part of the reason he has moved to 3 on the doomer scale.

That's an excellent question, I too would be interested in hearing from EJ whether this particular view is being espoused in the halls of power.

That would put an accelerated spin on things.....

bpr
06-25-11, 01:05 AM
That's an excellent question, I too would be interested in hearing from EJ whether this particular view is being espoused in the halls of power.

That would put an accelerated spin on things.....

It would surprise me if these views weren't being offered by those in power. Such confidential whispers are required for them to maintain a sense of purpose as World Leaders, and justification for their existence. I'm not implying that they are not willing to walk the walk or that they are insincere, but only that a certain sense of doomer-like destiny is a job requirement at this time.

If there were a job description for US Senator you could scratch out "determined self-starter" and insert "paranoid egomaniac."

touchring
06-25-11, 03:12 AM
The advent of nuclear weapons, and the technical inadequacy of defenses against nuclear weapons, make sovereignty-ending wars between the great powers very unlikely.


I agree, but there is nothing to stop nuclear armed nations from engaging in an economic and cyberwar. If you consider what happened to Google, cyberwar has already started.

Polish_Silver
06-25-11, 08:27 AM
We need a private sector debt cut, not a tax cut.


How can banks take the hit?

If mortgages are reduced, banks will go bank-rupt. So shareholders and bondholders are wiped out. (crocodile tears). But then the FDIC and fed will have to make the checking & savings accounts good anyway. So the "middle class" will lose anyway, just by having to print money or bailout FDIC.

Since Banks work with a high degree of leverage, they have no capital to lose, which makes them such a threat to public good. They are trading with other peoples money, which is why they cannot take the losses.

PS

jk
06-25-11, 10:02 AM
How can banks take the hit?

If mortgages are reduced, banks will go bank-rupt. So shareholders and bondholders are wiped out. (crocodile tears). But then the FDIC and fed will have to make the checking & savings accounts good anyway. So the "middle class" will lose anyway, just by having to print money or bailout FDIC.

Since Banks work with a high degree of leverage, they have no capital to lose, which makes them such a threat to public good. They are trading with other peoples money, which is why they cannot take the losses.

PS
the scandanavian countries had a banking crisis in the '90s. they wiped out the shareholders, gave a stiff haircut to the bondholders, nationalized the banks to protect the savers, and then re-privatized them. i'd rather the gov't held and then sold bank shares in return for its compelled infusion of funds, than they put in the money to protect the current [mis]-mangement, who then proceed to give themselves ever-bigger bonuses.

Slimprofits
06-25-11, 11:58 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html

Scandinavian banks ^

jk
06-25-11, 01:57 PM
this coming week's cover

http://barrons.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ON-AT689_cover__KS_20110625002711.jpg

LazyBoy
06-25-11, 03:01 PM
After completing this analysis, I warn the more optimistic among you that I am moving closer to a 3 on the scale.


From where I sit, I see the machine of global political economy churning its way inexorably toward a third world war, its institutions of diplomacy mired in cold war era thinking.


So what is going to happen? more... ($ubscription)
Ok, you got me. I'll subscribe.

jk
06-25-11, 05:48 PM
the beginning of the barron's piece:


Even the most casual observer seems to know that China's economy has been growing at a roughly 10% annual rate for much of the past decade. Less recognized and arguably more important to the state of the world is the fact that China's defense spending rose even faster than that -- 12% or more a year between 2000 and 2009.

"The accelerating pace of China's defense budget increases is driving countries in the region, as well as the U.S., to react to preserve a balance of power and stability," says Jacqueline Newmyer, head of Long-Term Strategy Group, a Cambridge, Mass.-based defense consultant. "There is a real potential for arms races to emerge," she adds. "While once we assumed we'd have access to areas to conduct anti-terrorism or anti-insurgency operations, now we're compelled to think about preserving our ability to gain access to East Asia."

interestingly., the article then raises the question as to whether to invest in companies like lockheed martin, or "Chinese companies such as Xi'an Aero-Engine (600893.China) and China Shipbuilding Industrial (601989.China) ...." and, later, "The arms race could produce a mini-boom in Chinese equity offerings. At present, most of the biggest defense contractors are unlisted state-owned companies, but China wants to take them public."

as i said in 11-10, http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/17554-the-commodities-squeeze-chinese-exports-and-the-cold-war-solution part of the cold war "solution" for china is that it promotes moving up the technology ladder. as the barron's article says, '"Taking companies public "is a clear strategic priority" that also "promotes development of a dual-use economy" that serves military and civilian needs, says Cheung. Already, there are scores of dual-use firms listed just the way Boeing (BA) is in the U.S. '

other tidbits: "Japanese self-defense forces "are clearly reoriented to China as opposed to Russia," says Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation. Japan plans to add submarines and warships." "India is holding a competition for a supplier of 126 mid-range combat aircraft, its biggest defense deal. The short list includes the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EAD.France); Alenia Aeronautica, a unit of Finmeccanica (FNC.Italy), and BAE Systems (BA.UK). Also contending is the Dassault Rafale, made by Dassault Aviation (AM.France). The fighters will be manufactured with the country's Hindustan Aeronautics, the state-owned defense contractor that plans to go public this year. India also plans a three-carrier fleet." and "Australia is having its largest military expansion since World War II, spending $275 billion over the next 20 years for submarines, frigates, destroyers and the F-35 joint strike fighter. Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam all plan to buy submarines" and, most notably, "OF COURSE, THE U.S. must respond as well." of course.

and "Expect to hear the term "AirSea Battle" more often. It's a concept promoted by the independent think tank Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. This strategy would integrate U.S. air and naval forces to defeat enemies with sophisticated abilities to deny them access. The idea would be to develop ways to blind satellites and defend against or attack with long-range strikes. It's a defense against both China and Iran.

"This will shift demand from counterinsurgency warfare toward more traditional systems like long-range strike aircraft and missiles, high-end naval forces and robust space and cyber capabilities," says Jeffrey Roncka, managing partner at defense consultant Renaissance Strategic Advisors."

flintlock
06-25-11, 06:26 PM
Like a punch in the gut I read this. I've always been around a 3 on the doomer scale. But I didn't expect EJ to come around so soon. Makes me think things are worse than I thought.

I have to agree with EJ about how wars don't start out with the intention of getting so bad. WWI started out over a relatively minor regional ethnic struggle. With notes between cousins ( Wilhelm of Germany and Nicholas of Russia) attempting to settle the matter. It just snow balled from there.

There are actually some good comparisons from then with now. The world was becoming more militarized. Imperialism was on the rise. Historically minimized ethnic groups were beginning to flex their muscle and demand better treatment. How do we difuse this? I agree with what someone else said about global corporations to some degree mitigating the nationalism of the past. But to what degree?

raja
06-25-11, 11:20 PM
The way we're headed that someone will be, as usual, the most politically vulnerable, those with the weakest political and intellectual defenses, and the loss will be taken in the form of lost purchasing power, as has been my position here since starting iTulip in 1998.
Creditors will be paid back in devalued dollars . . . if they are paid back at all. Who's that going to hurt?

Slimprofits
06-26-11, 09:55 AM
Like a punch in the gut I read this. I've always been around a 3 on the doomer scale. But I didn't expect EJ to come around so soon. Makes me think things are worse than I thought.

Such low expectations!

I think it can traced to three articles by EJ. His first one about the 2008 election, in which he pointed out every candidate but two (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) were FIREmen.....A short time later, he shocked the world and 'endorsed' Obama....And when Scott Brown won in January 2010 he thought that it was a sign of a political awakening. Here we are some 16 months later and how can you come to any other conclusion than that we're fucked?

cobben
06-26-11, 12:28 PM
Barron's intentional misnomer "The Dragon Kingdom" is symptomatic of warmongering anglosaxons.

Perhaps the Chinese themselves would prefer "The Shire" if any anglification is truly necessary?

the common name remained as Zhōngguó (simplified Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 中国 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD); traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_characters): 中國 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B), <small>Mandarin pronunciation: </small>[tʂʊ́ŋkwɔ̌] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Mandarin)) through dynastic changes. This translates traditionally as "the central Kingdom", or as "the middle country".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China

addendum:

Sorry, I forgot, "The Shire" has been established as being in Chechnya.

touchring
06-26-11, 12:28 PM
There are too many people on earth, a cold war won't solve the resource shortage problems. This is really a war over resources.

jk
06-26-11, 12:36 PM
There are too many people on earth, a cold war won't solve the resource shortage problems. This is really a war over resources.

cold war shadow boxing along with hot proxy and peripheral wars are a likely means for allocating those scarce resources. that does not solve the long-term problem of limited resources, agreed. otoh, it gives time for, first, strong resource conservation measures to stretch out the adjustment, and second the development of alternative sources of energy, and alternative goods.

touchring
06-26-11, 12:48 PM
cold war shadow boxing along with hot proxy and peripheral wars are a likely means for allocating those scarce resources. that does not solve the long-term problem of limited resources, agreed. otoh, it gives time for, first, strong resource conservation measures to stretch out the adjustment, and second the development of alternative sources of energy, and alternative goods.


China consumes 1 million more barrel of oil every year. Can a cold war solve this problem? How much oil does the Soviet Union consume at the height of the last Cold War?

There are only 2 possibilities:

1. The US becomes third world.
2. WWIII.

c1ue
06-26-11, 01:12 PM
While I've always been one of the more gloomy participants in iTulip - I have to say that I disagree with the thesis of a World War III.

In my mind, a world war results from a sudden clash due to accumulated tensions between 2 or more extra-national groupings.

WW I was triggered by the assassination of an Arch Duke, but the alliances among and tensions between the 2 sides (Austro-Hungarian Empire + Germany vs. England and France) had long since predicated some outbreak of violence.

Equally WW II was triggered by rising tensions between resurgent fascist Germany and Italy vs. cultural and ideological opposites in England and Russia, while in the Pacific a resurgent Japan was equally opposed by the US.

Today we do not have these types of tensions. Europe has many problems but neither internal militarism nor the WWI/WWII types of tension exists.

Ditto in Asia - there is grave concern by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan over China, but at least part of this tension is due to US posturing.

There is plenty of economic tension over energy, but it isn't focused by specific blocs. Equally it is impossible for the vast quantities of oil or whatever to be extracted and transported without at least some minimal lack of interference from the local population. Barring a return to Mongol style pacification, of course (kill everyone there).

You can say there is some possibility for warfare due to tension between China and the US - but neither nation can either afford or be able to prosecute a conflict to a successful conclusion (i.e. pacification of the other). At best the result would be a mutual annihilation - not nuclear but economic. I very much doubt even the most moronic and jingoistic military leader in either nation has any illusions about this.

However, I think what EJ perhaps actually envisions is more along the lines of the Revolutions of 1848. The Revolutions of 1848 were a spontaneous but near universal eruption of revolutionary zeal in practically every nation in Europe.

The Revolutions of 2013 won't be due to technological progress in communications, urban worker vs. farmer, guild vs. industry, nobility vs. absolute monarch, etc etc type of tensions. In fact, it is unclear if it will even be a "revolution" in the normal political sense - i.e. an attempt to change the political system. More likely it will be simply an eruption of anger.

"Revolution" in the US will be due to economic tensions: the blue collar worker feeling (and rightly so) betrayed by the white collar management. The technical white collar workers feeling betrayed by the white collar banksters. The general populace feeling betrayed by its regulatory captured politicians. The heavily indebted and unemployed youth feeling betrayed by the entire system. etc etc.

"Revolution" in other nations will be closer to the 1848 model: greater communication, economic divide, access to power, etc etc. What we are seeing in the Middle East and North Africa is a good example: the collapse of autarkic regimes can be directly traced to the end of the Cold War.

Note: 2013 isn't some calculated date, merely a placeholder.

In timing I fully agree with EJ's conclusions.

touchring
06-26-11, 02:12 PM
While I've always been one of the more gloomy participants in iTulip - I have to say that I disagree with the thesis of a World War III.


Of course, I'm not talking about WWIII in the near future.

I know once the Chinese go on the capitalist route, how it will all end. You just have to look at South East Asia, where Chinese are less than 10% of the population but control all of their economies. In time to come, the same will happen to Africa and possibly some Western economies. It may take 30 years or even 40 years, but it is only a matter of time.

gnk
06-26-11, 04:31 PM
China consumes 1 million more barrel of oil every year. Can a cold war solve this problem? How much oil does the Soviet Union consume at the height of the last Cold War?

There are only 2 possibilities:

1. The US becomes third world.
2. WWIII.

The US has less than 5% of the world's population, yet consumes over 20% of the energy. That is ending, and with it, everything else that comes with that kind of consumption - it's mind boggling to try to comprehend how every facet of life is affected with a certain level of energy consumption. No war can maintain that lifestyle. War can only speed up the simplification of a civilization... the speed of the unraveling.

I live in Greece now, and when friends discuss the current crisis, I just tell them it's irrelevant. Bigger changes are coming that will make today's problems look tame by comparison. I'm actually working on starting my farm now. I may be years early, but this is not the kind of event you want to be late preparing for.

Sutter Cane
06-26-11, 07:00 PM
There are only 2 possibilities:

1. The US becomes third world.
2. WWIII.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Worst case scenario is both. I tend to think #1 is happening regardless, but maybe we can avoid #2 along the way. If not, WWIII would definitely speed possibility #1 along.

touchring
06-26-11, 10:28 PM
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Worst case scenario is both. I tend to think #1 is happening regardless, but maybe we can avoid #2 along the way. If not, WWIII would definitely speed possibility #1 along.

Provided technological advances are quick enough to solve the limited energy problem. And it's not just China, but also India, and other rapidly developing countries. Everyone wants to live the Western lifestyle. I've always said that this is zero sum game.

But even if the energy factor is solved, there's still the Israel problem. Friendly diplomatic and trading ties between China and Persia dates back to even before they became Muslims. If China rises, Persia will probably rise along. That will be to the detriment of Israel, and unless the Jews are willing to move to Texas or some Israel like land the US can provide, and also ship over the holy monuments, there will be trouble to come within the next couple of decades.



I live in Greece now, and when friends discuss the current crisis, I just tell them it's irrelevant. Bigger changes are coming that will make today's problems look tame by comparison. I'm actually working on starting my farm now. I may be years early, but this is not the kind of event you want to be late preparing for.

I agree, I thought as well that the greatest problem is not economic but famine. The weather has gone nuts, either no rain or too much rain. Harvests throughout the world are failing. Poor countries face the threat of famine. All the coal burning, release of toxins into the seas and pollution is scrweing up the weather.

America does have the advantage here, having a huge food surplus.

Sharky
06-27-11, 09:29 AM
WW I was triggered by the assassination of an Arch Duke, but the alliances among and tensions between the 2 sides (Austro-Hungarian Empire + Germany vs. England and France) had long since predicated some outbreak of violence.

Equally WW II was triggered by rising tensions between resurgent fascist Germany and Italy vs. cultural and ideological opposites in England and Russia, while in the Pacific a resurgent Japan was equally opposed by the US.

Today we do not have these types of tensions. Europe has many problems but neither internal militarism nor the WWI/WWII types of tension exists.

What about Israel? Or North Korea? Or India vs. Pakistan? All of which are now nuclear armed. What will happen when Iran has nukes?

If China ever makes a move militarily, Taiwan seems like a possible target/goal -- perhaps preceded by some other territorial issue. Historically, China has made it clear that it does not accept Taiwan as a separate, independent entity.

The issue of the Islamic occupation of Europe is also interesting. If there's a big flare-up in the Mideast, the consequences in Europe would likely be significant.

Food is another area of possible conflict. A large-scale famine by a nuclear armed country could easily provoke desperate measures. Nuclear blackmail only works when there's enough resources to go around.

bart
06-27-11, 03:55 PM
...
Proposed emergency policies included buying long dated government bonds to “shape the yield curve,” known as government bond price fixing in less polite circles.
...


I submit that government bond price fixing has been going on for years, although it has grown substantially since about 2007, via the Fed's Securities Lending Operation ( http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/seclend/sec_lendop.cfm ).


Something of mine from 2007: Securities Lending, tinfoil hat mode (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/1489-Securities-Lending-tinfoil-hat-mode?daysprune=-1)




The portion applying to the 10 year Treasury, last 10 months:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/daily/seclend_daily3.png

Alvaro Spain
06-27-11, 05:20 PM
So the military-industrial complex would be one of the "investment sectors"? Welcome back Daddy Warbucks -- if you ever indeed left.....

Certainly if we see any serious mobilization, we are on the cusp. I can not recall a situation when there has been a mass mobilization and those forces have *not* been used.

THE sector to invest if there is a major war, in my opinion, is anti-depressants.

c1ue
06-27-11, 05:43 PM
What about Israel? Or North Korea? Or India vs. Pakistan? All of which are now nuclear armed. What will happen when Iran has nukes?

Israel and North Korea are far too small to generate a World War.

While you might say Israel has the US behind it - who is behind Israel's opponents? Where is the opposing industrial might? Can Israel in turn conquer even more territory in the ME?

North Korea: no friends. China uses NK but NK can't rely on anyone except ironically its own partitioned off southern portion.

Pakistan and India: more credible - but again who is helping who? Where are the alliances by which Pakistan and India will draw the rest of the world into a greater conflict? And how can a greater conflict occur with nuclear weapons available to all participants - thus threatening force projection such as an outsider like the US (carrier fleets) or China (Himalayan logistics/traverse routes)?

As for Iran: again where are the other participants? Do you think Iran can conquer the ex-Soviet Central Asian States given Russia's re-extension of influence there? Can Iran attack Iraq or Saudi Arabia again without explicit permission from other powers? Can Iran successful invade Afghanistan or march on through to Pakistan despite historical ethnic and cultural differences?

The reality is that while there are plenty of places where ethnic tensions exist - there aren't any places where gigantic opposing forces are engaged in a tug of war as could be seen pre WW I or WW II.

The primary aggressor today is the United States. Barring an invasion of Mexico or Canada - neither of which is economically useful, only 3rd world nations can be safely attacked.

Hardly the recipe for massive world wide conflict.

Unless, of course, the US is able to re-institute the draft.


If China ever makes a move militarily, Taiwan seems like a possible target/goal -- perhaps preceded by some other territorial issue. Historically, China has made it clear that it does not accept Taiwan as a separate, independent entity.

China has no interest whatsoever in invading Taiwan. Taiwan is a red flag issue to distract its youth; China is already reaping most of the benefits of Taiwanese capital and technology.


The issue of the Islamic occupation of Europe is also interesting. If there's a big flare-up in the Mideast, the consequences in Europe would likely be significant.

This is more amusing fantasy. The entire Middle East and North Africa has less than the population of the EU, and this population is far poorer and poorly armed. This ignores the impossibility of combining Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, Syria, etc into a single political entity: a mixture of fantastically different ethnicities, cultures, politics, and even religious sects.


Food is another area of possible conflict. A large-scale famine by a nuclear armed country could easily provoke desperate measures. Nuclear blackmail only works when there's enough resources to go around.

Right - so how exactly does a nation fight a ground war and acquire lands on which it is able to grow lots of food?

If pipelines are vulnerable, how much more vulnerable are fields of wheat, silos, feed lots, etc?

Unless you can demonstrate that some nation - any nation - is willing and able to exterminate the entire population of a large region, the idea of fighting a war for food is ridiculous.

Wars are fought for many reasons - I cannot offhand recall a single instance where one was fought for food. Why didn't the Irish attack England during the potato famine? Why didn't China successfully invade Vietnam during its 1958-1961 famine? (The Sino-Vietnamese war wasn't until 1979)

Wars can bring famine, but not the other way around.

Jay
06-27-11, 06:31 PM
I submit that government bond price fixing has been going on for years, although it has grown substantially since about 2007, via the Fed's Securities Lending Operation ( http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/seclend/sec_lendop.cfm ).


Something of mine from 2007: Securities Lending, tinfoil hat mode (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/1489-Securities-Lending-tinfoil-hat-mode?daysprune=-1)




The portion applying to the 10 year Treasury, last 10 months:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/daily/seclend_daily3.png
Bart, fantastic chart and apropos!! Then again, what else should we expect?

EJ, I must confess, it has secretly annoyed me that you weren't a "three" years ago, but I always ascribed that to public face necessities (and the fact that I felt that you are a bit more optimistic than me) and gave you a pass because your stuff is so damn original and solid. This article is finally a bit more realistic. In fact, now that you are "here", I wonder if it is a contrarian signal and that we are going to get a bump for the next few years! :D

I still feel that your statement that the US middle class will look a lot like the Mexican middle class is very accurate. I just read, Murder City, which is about drug murders and what is left of civil life in Juarez, Mexico, and I hope to god you are wrong on the fate of the American middle class, because Juarez is a "one" on the doomer scale. That book drips with blood and feels like it will light on fire at times (in fact, I recommend no one read it, even as well as it is written. It is like reading Treblinka before WWII in some ways, yikes!) Unfortunately, I bought that sentiment then, and I buy it just as much now. I wonder if I made a mistake not focusing on moving to New Zealand instead of staying put with my family in the US.

Lastly, I will just say that building a war machine is a tremendous inflation sink. Think about it.

Thanks for the article as always.

flintlock
06-27-11, 06:58 PM
Such low expectations!

I think it can traced to three articles by EJ. His first one about the 2008 election, in which he pointed out every candidate but two (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) were FIREmen.....A short time later, he shocked the world and 'endorsed' Obama....And when Scott Brown won in January 2010 he thought that it was a sign of a political awakening. Here we are some 16 months later and how can you come to any other conclusion than that we're fucked?

Yes, give any wise man enough time, he'll see it. The biggest obstacle for most , smart or not, is having a mind open to the possibilities. Some refuse to let their minds go down that path. Like my Dad for instance, he seems to think that if nothing of the sort has happened so far in his lifetime, that it probably won't. 78 years is a lot of life experience, sure, but it pales when compared to history in general. Nothing wrong with being optimistic, but the writing is on the wall. The real question now is just how fucked we are. And how soon.

flintlock
06-27-11, 07:11 PM
I'm not necessarily in the WWIII camp either. At least not in the traditional sense. But the proxy wars will heat up for sure, something we are already seeing. But way down the line, sure, it could happen.

bart
06-27-11, 08:29 PM
Bart, fantastic chart and apropos

Thanks Jay, much appreciated.

I forgot to add in my post that EJ's work is indeed truly epic - probably in the top 3 of all time on iTulip, serious stones enabled too.

I very generally agree with it all, although my guesstimate involves a shorter time line and a few nuances.








THE sector to invest if there is a major war, in my opinion, is anti-depressants.


http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/fukitol.png

touchring
06-27-11, 11:07 PM
I'm not necessarily in the WWIII camp either. At least not in the traditional sense. But the proxy wars will heat up for sure, something we are already seeing. But way down the line, sure, it could happen.


WWIII can be avoided this century if China becomes a democracy. This will ensure that the interest of the people and the government are fully aligned.

Although democracy didn't help post-Meiji rising Japan avoid war, China doesn't have a warrior or veteran culture, no one wants to be a soldier, everyone wants to be a millionaire businessman.

gnk
06-28-11, 06:46 AM
I don't think it's about democracy. It's about maintaining economic growth to support a debt-based ever-expanding monetary system. The US has just over 300 million people that consume over 20% of the world's energy. China? They have about 300 million people living an industrialized lifestyle, and another 1 BILLION waiting in line to get their taste of the modern lifestyle.

Not enough energy to go around... someone's economy is going to take a hit. The question is, how will that choice be made? Who loses, or more likely, we all "lose?"

touchring
06-28-11, 10:14 AM
I don't think it's about democracy. It's about maintaining economic growth to support a debt-based ever-expanding monetary system. The US has just over 300 million people that consume over 20% of the world's energy. China? They have about 300 million people living an industrialized lifestyle, and another 1 BILLION waiting in line to get their taste of the modern lifestyle.

Not enough energy to go around... someone's economy is going to take a hit. The question is, how will that choice be made? Who loses, or more likely, we all "lose?"


I don't know about the US, but China is definitely going to add at least 150 million cars over the next 10 years or so. An additional 10 million barrels a day is needed. Assuming that oil production can rise 5 million barrels - to hell with peak oil, then the other 5 million barrels must come from elsewhere.

KGW
06-28-11, 12:15 PM
Barely off topic, but a few days ago I found a book that I had ordered some time ago. I think it was recommended by E.J. as a basic source. . ."A Bubble That Broke The World," by Garet Garrett, Cosimo Classics, 2005. Originally published in 1932, it examines the egregious selling of bonds that lead to the Great Depression and WW2.

LazyBoy
06-28-11, 12:17 PM
"Revolution" in the US will be due to economic tensions: the blue collar worker feeling (and rightly so) betrayed by the white collar management. The technical white collar workers feeling betrayed by the white collar banksters. The general populace feeling betrayed by its regulatory captured politicians. The heavily indebted and unemployed youth feeling betrayed by the entire system. etc etc.

There weren't many distractions in 1848. I imagine that after a long day's work, the only thing to talk about at the pub was the state of the state. Today, I almost never have a serious political discussion except on the internet.

I think we're too fat and happy in the US for a revolution. I feel "betrayed", but not enough to do much except worry. As long as the middle class has enough TV, they won't get off their butts. At most we get riled up enough to vote for "change" -- from one of the two remarkably similar political parties. As long as various social programs keep handing out dollars -- even increasingly worthless ones -- the poor can be managed. Then we can all blame the economy (or those damn teachers!!) instead of the government. I can see a carefully managed lowering of US standards without any significant "revolution".

Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military? What would it take to get people to vote in significantly different political leaders?

c1ue
06-28-11, 12:29 PM
Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military? What would it take to get people to vote in significantly different political leaders?

I have yet to see any examples of mass repression of US citizens by the US military.

It is one thing to shoot up a bunch of Pashtuns, another to fire on your fellow citizens.

As for what it would take - the reality is that we aren't that far in yet.

My long term forecast has always been for a minimum 30% drop in average American standard of living.

By my calculations, we're only 20% (6% drop or so average) of the way there. The second half will occur pretty much overnight, if history is any indication.

My view is we'll start seeing some serious action at the 20% level - that was when in the '70s you started seeing things like the SLA, as well as the series of attempted assassinations of Presidents from Ford through to Reagan.

gnk
06-28-11, 01:45 PM
I don't know about the US, but China is definitely going to add at least 150 million cars over the next 10 years or so. An additional 10 million barrels a day is needed. Assuming that oil production can rise 5 million barrels - to hell with peak oil, then the other 5 million barrels must come from elsewhere.

H regarding China's future energy needs, here's an excellent presentation (it's long, but it is broken up in parts/topics) by David Fridley - who has consulted in China and has worked for current Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

http://fora.tv/2009/06/23/Energy_Market_Developments_in_the_Pacific_Basin

More direct link to Fridley's presentation:

http://fora.tv/2009/06/23/Energy_Market_Developments_in_the_Pacific_Basin#fu llprogram note: focuses more so on coal

bart
06-28-11, 02:59 PM
...
Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military?
...


There's another side too:


"We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens [and to aid] populations in need of our assistance and our civilization." For such a cause, he and his comrades had willingly offered to "shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes."
"Make haste to reassure us that you at home support and love us as we obey and love you, for if we find that you have sent us to leave our bleached bones in these desert sands for nothing, beware the fury of the legions."
-- Marcus Flavius, a Roman centurion of the 4th Century

(emphasis mine)

flintlock
06-28-11, 05:22 PM
There weren't many distractions in 1848. I imagine that after a long day's work, the only thing to talk about at the pub was the state of the state. Today, I almost never have a serious political discussion except on the internet.

I think we're too fat and happy in the US for a revolution. I feel "betrayed", but not enough to do much except worry. As long as the middle class has enough TV, they won't get off their butts. At most we get riled up enough to vote for "change" -- from one of the two remarkably similar political parties. As long as various social programs keep handing out dollars -- even increasingly worthless ones -- the poor can be managed. Then we can all blame the economy (or those damn teachers!!) instead of the government. I can see a carefully managed lowering of US standards without any significant "revolution".

Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military? What would it take to get people to vote in significantly different political leaders?

Excellent point. People back then had nothing else to do at times but drink and get mad at the state. I've been on a medieval England reading jag lately. I'm amazed at how many uprisings they had back then. They were almost constant. Either Nobles, merchants, or peasants. Despite some pretty serious repercussions. Challenging the King was almost a sport among the nobility. Raise taxes without the permission of Parliment? Forget about it.

Hard to imagine anything like it today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

quigleydoor
06-28-11, 10:38 PM
EJ,

I noticed your unemployment duration charts are showing the mean duration. In previous reports, you used the median duration. I was really struck by how effective the median duration was, as a leading indicator of the downturn in 2007. It was one of my first experiences realizing that there is so much more data out there, revealing a clearer picture than what the MSM gives us.

So now I'm curious, why did you switch from median to mean duration of unemployment?


Two rounds of quantitative easing and multiple government stimulus programs prolonged the rebound, such as it is, but unemployment remains over 9%, far higher than two years into previous recoveries. By the official count, 14 million Americans are still unemployed, up by seven million and only 11% fewer than at the peak of 15.6 million. But these employment statistics are rosy compared to the picture of long-term unemployment, the hallmark of a persistent output gap.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/unemploymentratenumberwtmk.png

The old BLS charts that we have been using on iTulip since 1999 had to be modified because the BLS old upper limit on mean duration of unemployment was 26 weeks -- half a year. The worst previous record was 21 weeks in 1983. Mean duration of unemployment reached 40 weeks in May.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/mediandurationunemployment1948-May2011wtmk.png

Serge_Tomiko
06-29-11, 10:57 AM
THE sector to invest if there is a major war, in my opinion, is anti-depressants.

When it becomes unfeasible to enforce prohibition, I think people will just revert to the old time remedies. Opium and its derivatives still has a far higher success rate than every anti-depressant developed since the 1950s.

Serge_Tomiko
06-29-11, 11:01 AM
Today we do not have these types of tensions. Europe has many problems but neither internal militarism nor the WWI/WWII types of tension exists.


Anglo-American imperialism is waning, certainly, but the cultural reasons for World War II still exist. If anything, Germany and Japan have become the countries their various ideologies were trying to prevent, and the decadence, depravity, and nihilism that defines them is something worth fighting to stop.

The cultural cancer of liberal values is dependent upon the kinds of international systems we currently have in place, and that can't survive into the future. We have to transition back to some kind of framework of traditional culture and shared community values. The goal is to figure out a way to do that without the bloodshed and violence, but it is still a grave danger. When the porn and video games stop, you're going to have a lot of very unhappy people for whom fighting is going to be naturally a more enjoyable game.

EJ
06-29-11, 12:58 PM
that such is possible, none can deny. the same was said to be possible, and of course it was, throughout the course of the long cold-war between the ussr and usa. however, to say it is possible is not to say it is inevitable. i tend to agree with ash that restraint will continue to apply, and direct, open, conflict between superpowers will likely be avoided. the history of the cuban missile crisis shows that we came very close to nuclear war, and similar confrontations may happen in the future which trigger unimaginable consequences. but i don't think so. i'm shocked that you, ej, have moved to a more extreme position on the "doomer" scale than i occupy myself. and my respect for you means i want to think a lot more about this.

meanwhile, ash's picture of regional chaos seems likely to me as the "global policeman" goes into retirement.

i think the end of the us-ussr cold war to the some point in the near future will be viewed as analogous to the interwar period between wwi and wwii. the 1920's and, now, the 1930's offer important parallels to roughly the last couple of decades.

from an email i wrote in '07:
i think we are in the midst of geopolitical shift comparable to the one in which the u.s. achieved predominance in place of the u.k. the u.k. was the global hegemon from the end of the napoleonic wars until the interwar period of the 1920's and 1930's or so. the 2 world wars of the early 20th century and their intervening years, including the great depression, can be viewed as part of the process of transition from one global system to another. the cold war, with its nuclear stand-off, froze the international system in place. the collapse of the soviet union led to the the emergence of the u.s. as the sole superpower, but it also actually unfroze the system and allowed it evolve to its current state of crisis.

i think that the u.k. to u.s. handoff, involving 2 bloody wars and a depression, was nonetheless in some ways easier than the transition we are entering. i say this because of the similar political, social and legal cultures of the 2 states involved.

the first phase, where we are now, is the process of going from the one overarching superpower to a truly multipolar world. meanwhile, there is a shift of dynamism and, eventually i believe, leadership to the asian nations. it remains to be seen whether major military conflicts can be avoided during this process. the world wars, the first perhaps even more than the second, drained england and thus facilitated the power shift. the u.s emerged as the sole industrial power, its homeland unscathed, after wwii. the soviets created a bipolar world by focusing resources on the military and creating a nuclear threat.

the hollowing out of the u.s. economy may be serving the function of ww i. i really see the u.s. as a society in decline. perhaps this decline is reversible; i don't know. but in my imagination it feels like the later days of the roman empire. when i heard about, e.g., tyco's dennis kozlowski throwing his wife a multimillion dollar birthday party, disguised as and paid for as a corporate meeting, on sardinia with an ice sculpture of david urinating stolichnaya vodka, all i could think about was fellini's satyricon.

a factor that might make a significant difference in this process is the emergence of multinational corporations. perhaps it would be more accurate to say "transnational." their stocks may be listed on a national exchange, but they really have no nationality. they may serve to moderate the system, making it less stark, less clear where all the power lies.

I have read several responses here along the lines of "China and the US won't engage in direct military confrontation because there is no way for either to prevail over the other." To my way of thinking, US and Chinese leadership have made in one miscalculation after another for decades and are painting themselves into a corner with only one way out.

Consider the About (http://www.itulip.com/about.htm) page of iTulip from March 2006 when I re-launched the site:
Fast forward to March 2006. The NASDAQ has mostly stayed in the dumper, with various dot com stinkers sinking and disappearing into the history books, again, predictably (http://www.itulip.com/compare.htm). The DJIA, by a combination of a re-constitution of the easily manipulated 30 stock index -- throwing out some losers and adding in some winners -- and inflation has fought its way back to where it was six years ago – flat. Except that, adjusted for inflation, it is down at about 20%. But that hasn't kept Cramer from returning to CNBC to rant and throw chairs around while touting the latest "can't lose" stocks. Not coincidentally, gold has gone up, as we forecast in 2001 (http://www.itulip.com/gold.htm) when gold was trading near 20 year lows and widely derided as a loser investment class. But what really kept the U.S. out of poorhouse, if only until now, was the housing bubble. But not only did we fail to predict the housing bubble in 2001 as the Fed's answer to the stock market bubble collapse, we argued that the Fed would [I]never allow one to develop.

Wrong.

Our thinking was that in the past the Fed has been very quick to stop speculation in real estate, much more quickly than stock market speculation. Why? Real estate involves the banking system much more than the stock market bubble did and looking after the banking system is Job One for the Fed. Letting millions of homeowners buy real estate they can't afford with mortgages they can never pay back is a surefire road to mass defaults that can cripple the banking system. When a relatively normal housing cycle boom ended in the early 1990s, the U.S. banking system seized up. That response to the downside of that minor real estate cycle was a gran mal seizure compared to the massive stoke that the banking system is likely to suffer on the back end of this real estate freak show. More importantly, the political aftermath of a real estate bubble is the macro economic devastation of the host country's economy. Lots of unemployment and negative wealth effects that keep consumers home sulking and saving, not out at the mall buying goods from Asia that keep Asian central banks inspired to lend, and the virtuous circle of lending, borrowing, importing and exporting going, in our case leading to recessionary, inflationary and other re-election sensitive negative economic conditions. So why take the chance? Because it looked better, at the time, than the obvious alternative: a hugerecession and unemployment before the 2008 elections – never good for anyone's re-election bid.

If we'd been listening more carefully, we would have heard Greenspan noting in public hearings in 1999, when one senator wondered aloud if Big Al was worried about the inevitable collapse of the stock market bubble, and he replied that only a small percentage of U.S. households own stocks whereas 70% of household wealth is tied up in real estate. Don't worry about it. We got a plan.

Alas, we at iTulip.com missed the cue. What we didn't understand was that the Fed convinced themselves at the time, and may still believe today, that by the magic of securitization, the risk of defaults on all those mortgage loans that can never be repaid with current dollars is spread so far and wide around the planet that the aftermath of a housing bubble won't be anything the Fed can't deal with. Not so, and we'll explain over the next several months just how and why, and what that's going to mean to you.

So we got the housing bubble prediction wrong in 2000. We didn't understand that the Fed could be so short sighted and politically motivated to make policy decisions that might doom the nation to a decade or more of bad economic times, and all that implies socially, politically, and militarily. But the Clinton/Greenspan regime and the Bush/Greenspan regime that followed turned out in retrospect to be classic Nixon/Burns president/central banker pals. Except that rather than inflation in goods and services as a consequence of the deal cut to maintain the economy through the next election, not to mention an unpopular war, we got inflation in assets that makes nearly everyone happy, as long as the asset prices stay that way.The entire March 2006 iTulip.com About page presumed the outcome we got in 2008 and 2009, a series of events that in 2010 was considered an act of genius to foresee. To me it appeared obvious, as it must have to readers who have been following along here since 1998. If you allow a housing bubble to develop it will collapse and bring down the financial system, the banking system, and the economy, exposing it to the kind of prolonged economic crisis I explain in my output gap trap analysis.

The economy is now on a course to regress to 1980s living standards for many Americans. While that is still far better than the living standards of most of the world's people, it is far below what most Americans expect and less than the perpetual improvement they have been promised by their political leaders.

I learned my lesson from the Housing Bubble episode. No policy is too stupid and short-sighted for these guys. Setting us up for a major war then taking us into it represents a continuation of a series of mistakes, consistent with a pattern of errors driven by a set of operands. I will not spell out what the operands are as that is part of the secret sauce of my ten year forecast, but suffice it to say that they are not thinking several moves ahead but only about how to take the piece in front of them.

Our leadership over the past 30 years did not intentionally choose policies that resulted in the current economic crisis. They acted in their perceived self-interest.

There are two kinds of self-interest. Intelligent self-interest that improves your world and self-destructive self-interest that sets it back. Theirs is the latter kind.

The same self-destructive, self-interested leadership that brought you the credit bubble and that spawned the FIRE Economy, are now, via pursuit of disastrously flawed economic recovery policies, in the process of drawing you, your children, and your grandchildren into the next great war. War is the inevitable consequence of the eventual failure of these policies.

They will cause the US to enter a new recession before the output gap created by the last recession closes. The Great Recession will then become a kind of Great Depression II with many of the social stresses and political change that implies (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/7996-My-Memories-Of-The-Great-Depression-1929-To-1939).

But The Great Depression didn't cause WWII. It was a catalyst for war.

Several of you have pointed out that the political antecedents for WWII do not exist today. I agree. However, I don't expect a repeat of WWII. I expect a completely different kind of war, just as WWII was a new kind of war.

The antecedent this time is oil supply scarcity. The catalyst will be The Great Depression II and a 20% to 40% decline in US living standards.

There are two dozen factors that will give the great war its unique qualities but consider one in particular that did not exist during WWII: image driven electronic media.

Image driven electronic media is the most efficient machine of mass belief shaping in human history. It will be used by the state to erase old beliefs and create new ones in a matter of days if not hours.

The Chinese system of mass belief formation already in place erased all awareness of the Tienanmen Square massacre. It will be deployed to help China's leadership externalize China's future economic crisis. China's leadership will blame the US for its crisis once its state finance capital based prosperity ends.

Anyone who thinks that China and the US cannot engage in warfare, consider the instances when China and the US recently engaged (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/17/balkans) militarily. Arms (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch/) and tactics (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html) will be unconventional at the outset and confrontations will evolve in unexpected ways.

To sum up my argument: Leadership that is stupid and short sighted enough to let the tech bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to let the housing bubble develop to bale the economy out of the tech bubble crash, and then let the housing bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to try to restart the FIRE Economy and drive the economy toward a mid-gap recession, at which point a new round of layoffs pushes unemployment to 12% and higher and crushes consumer spending -- such leadership is stupid and short sighted enough to finish the course, to lead the US into wars it cannot win.

c1ue
06-29-11, 01:37 PM
To sum up my argument: Leadership that is stupid and short sighted enough to let the tech bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to let the housing bubble develop to bale the economy out of the tech bubble crash, and then let the housing bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to try to restart the FIRE Economy and drive the economy toward a mid-gap recession, at which point a new round of layoffs pushes unemployment to 12% and higher and crushes consumer spending -- such leadership is stupid and short sighted enough to finish the course, to lead the US into wars it cannot win.

In short - I agree with this sentiment. In fact one of my first posts on iTulip (in early 2007) was that it isn't that the US is in a position of irreversible decline, it was that the people in power - whether corporate or government - were not in the least bit interested in righting the path and that the inevitable result would be negative.

However, all of the points above (past bubbles/policies) are all largely restricted to internal US effects. Certainly the ROW participated to various degrees but all of those policies could be promulgated by the largest economy in the world with the world reserve currency.

A war, on the other hand, requires two to tango.

While I do agree China has the ability to motivate its population, equally I do not believe the Chinese leadership is similarly blinkered as to not understand what it has to lose.

My view is that China will defend itself - and in ways which make clear even to the most MSM-oriented American numbskull - that a conflict with China is not a winning proposition in any way.

This is what I mean by a US-China war being one which both will lose.

Scot
06-29-11, 02:13 PM
Image driven electronic media is the most efficient machine of mass belief shaping in human history. It will be used by the state to erase old beliefs and create new ones in a matter of days if not hours.

The Chinese system of mass belief formation already in place erased all awareness of the Tienanmen Square massacre. It will be deployed to help China's leadership externalize China's future economic crisis. China's leadership will blame the US for its crisis once its state finance capital based prosperity ends.

I've never been terrified after visiting iTulip until reading the above today. It's frightening to think we're going to have an additional 1.6 billion people believing that the USA is responsible for their misery.

EJ
06-29-11, 02:56 PM
EJ,

I noticed your unemployment duration charts are showing the mean duration. In previous reports, you used the median duration. I was really struck by how effective the median duration was, as a leading indicator of the downturn in 2007. It was one of my first experiences realizing that there is so much more data out there, revealing a clearer picture than what the MSM gives us.

So now I'm curious, why did you switch from median to mean duration of unemployment?

In this case the Mean Duration of Unemployment is interesting because it has never been higher and is still rising.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=Xk

Which method most accurately identifies the trend?

Let's use an example I found on the web. It uses company valuations data as an example.


Definitions:

Median: The middle value of a set of values.

Mean: The arithmetic average, computed by adding up a collection of numbers and dividing by their count.

Assume the below list is the result of a search and analysis of guideline companies.

Price/Sales Valuation Multiple
(sorted from lowest to highest)
0.45
0.47
0.49
0.49
0.52
0.55
0.55
0.60
0.61 Middle of sorted sample set
0.62
0.70
0.74
0.76
0.80
0.91
5.30
10.40

Median: 0.61
Mean (Average): 1.47

In the above example, one can see that the Median is much more representative of the central tendency of the sample set. Outliers (5.30 and 10.40) can dramatically impact the mean (average), whereas the median is less affected.
I find the mean duration of unemployment data interesting because it shows that a large increase in the number of long-term unemployed outliers and fewer short-term unemployed is responsible for the difference between the steady high level of the median and the still rising level of the average.

jk
06-29-11, 05:17 PM
i assume that NEITHER of these measures accounts for discouraged workers who have exceeded their 99 [or fewer] weeks of unemployment compensation and have given up on finding work. is that correct?

jiimbergin
06-29-11, 05:31 PM
They will cause the US to enter a new recession before the output gap created by the last recession closes. The Great Recession will then become a kind of Great Depression II with many of the social stresses and political change that implies (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/7996-My-Memories-Of-The-Great-Depression-1929-To-1939).

But The Great Depression didn't cause WWII. It was a catalyst for war.

Several of you have pointed out that the political antecedents for WWII do not exist today. I agree. However, I don't expect a repeat of WWII. I expect a completely different kind of war, just as WWII was a new kind of war.

The antecedent this time is oil supply scarcity. The catalyst will be The Great Depression II and a 20% to 40% decline in US living standards.

There are two dozen factors that will give the great war its unique qualities but consider one in particular that did not exist during WWII: image driven electronic media.

Image driven electronic media is the most efficient machine of mass belief shaping in human history. It will be used by the state to erase old beliefs and create new ones in a matter of days if not hours.

The Chinese system of mass belief formation already in place erased all awareness of the Tienanmen Square massacre. It will be deployed to help China's leadership externalize China's future economic crisis. China's leadership will blame the US for its crisis once its state finance capital based prosperity ends.

Anyone who thinks that China and the US cannot engage in warfare, consider the instances when China and the US recently engaged (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/17/balkans) militarily. Arms (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch/) and tactics (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html) will be unconventional at the outset and confrontations will evolve in unexpected ways.

To sum up my argument: Leadership that is stupid and short sighted enough to let the tech bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to let the housing bubble develop to bale the economy out of the tech bubble crash, and then let the housing bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to try to restart the FIRE Economy and drive the economy toward a mid-gap recession, at which point a new round of layoffs pushes unemployment to 12% and higher and crushes consumer spending -- such leadership is stupid and short sighted enough to finish the course, to lead the US into wars it cannot win.

I wish I did not agree with your assessment, but I do. Hopefully we are both wrong.

EJ
06-29-11, 06:01 PM
...a US-China war being one which both will lose.

But why is that an argument that it will not happen?

touchring
06-29-11, 11:06 PM
I've never been terrified after visiting iTulip until reading the above today. It's frightening to think we're going to have an additional 1.6 billion people believing that the USA is responsible for their misery.


So far, I've not seen China portray the US as the bad guy, but let's take the example of the Spratly, China has been conducting news and TV propaganda internally to drum in the belief that China discovered the Spratly 2000 years ago.

In fact, a 40 episode "historical" TV epic was made to enforce that belief. I knew because I watched that serial in which the famed explorer Cheng Ho discovered China artifacts that were 2000 years old on south islands in the South China sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He_Xia_Xiyang

As scary as it sounds, I believe that much of the world will be safe as I believe that New World Order wars will be fought via proxies, and unless you are at the age to qualify for a draft, you have nothing to fear.

The most dangerous place will be Israel, which is ironic because this is the motherland of the people controlling Wall Street and the US government and their policies have facilitated the rise of the Tripartite Germany, Russia and China.

Chris Coles
06-30-11, 04:49 AM
Having gotten to this new thread very late due to a mother board failure; and now only just assimilated the entire content, I will come back again with more detail. But my take is quite different. As some already know, I believe that the driver for the immediate future will be rising sea levels, rather than oil, as the potential instigator of instability.

Please, let me dwell on for a while.

One other thought; EJ, some of your very best writing here; some passages stand out and will be quoted again and again.

gnk
06-30-11, 06:18 AM
Originally Posted by c1ue
...a US-China war being one which both will lose.


But why is that an argument that it will not happen?

It's all relative. Wars always have a victor, even King Pyrrhus of Epirus "won."

Pyrrhic Victory:

"The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war."

—Plutarch

SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory)

jpatter666
06-30-11, 08:13 AM
The most dangerous place will be Israel, which is ironic because this is the motherland of the people controlling Wall Street and the US government and their policies have facilitated the rise of the Tripartite Germany, Russia and China.

Oh touchring, don't tell me you're a believer in Zionist conspiracies.....

jiimbergin
06-30-11, 08:45 AM
Oh touchring, don't tell me you're a believer in Zionist conspiracies.....

+1

touchring
06-30-11, 09:45 AM
Oh touchring, don't tell me you're a believer in Zionist conspiracies.....


I'm pointing out how the current trend will eventually lead to disaster in the Middle East. To put it bluntly, the reason why Israel exists is because of American power. So who has the most to lose if American power wanes? Not Americans because America is protected by the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, and there's plenty of food anyway, no need to starve.

A balance of power is good for everyone, even for the rising power. World wars occur because some country rises too quickly and becomes big headed. In WWII, it was Japan that started the war in 1937. The Japanese people were sold on the idea that Japan had the moral objective to civilize then backward China, and to chase the white men out of South East Asia. Germany followed in 1939.

To put things in perspective, the Japanese economy was only a tenth of the US just before Pearl Harbor, but because Japan rose so quickly, they were over confident, and believed they could achieve anything. Sounds familiar?

jpatter666
06-30-11, 10:15 AM
Not arguing with (most) of your response. What I had issue with is your statement that the Jews control Wall Street and the US Government. Certainly there *are* Jews in Wall Street, the Government, and my local barbershop. I could likely just as easily come up with a list of Russians, Germans, Irish or red-heads.

Personally, the League of Red-Headed Conspirators has my vote.....

So far as Japan was concerned, Yamamoto had no illusions: "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years." That didn't stop Tojo though. Thinking on how both sides really blundered into war, I have to give EJ's latest commentary more thought. What he claims is to come is *exactly* how the Pacific war came to be last time.

Of course, history never repeats -- but it often rhymes.....

quigleydoor
06-30-11, 11:16 AM
In this case the Mean Duration of Unemployment is interesting because it has never been higher and is still rising. . . .

I find the mean duration of unemployment data interesting because it shows that a large increase in the number of long-term unemployed outliers and fewer short-term unemployed is responsible for the difference between the steady high level of the median and the still rising level of the average.

Very nifty. I see now that the relationship between mean and median tells a lot about the population, especially when we know that individuals in the population all increase in their duration, at the same rate, until they exit the population. Thanks for shedding light on your method.

bart
06-30-11, 11:39 AM
...

Personally, the League of Red-Headed Conspirators has my vote.....

...

The Tin Foil Hat enabled shall rule, as they always do... alien invaders über alles...

EJ
06-30-11, 12:57 PM
i assume that NEITHER of these measures accounts for discouraged workers who have exceeded their 99 [or fewer] weeks of unemployment compensation and have given up on finding work. is that correct?

That is correct. If you stay unemployed long enough, you're not unemployed anymore and don't show up in either the mean or the median rates.

labasta
06-30-11, 01:05 PM
Why not just cancel the debt instead? No inflation + debt canceled. Problem solved!

Unfortunately, our present rulers are our creditors so that it isn't going to happen. In fact, I'm glad that this crisis has happened as it has shown the whole world who really pulls the strings and governs things and it ain't the politicians.

I agree with the premise of this article. It's obvious what the real solution is to anyone who thinks.

However I disagree with a few conclusions at the end to do with the world wars. I would postulate that it was the mounted machine gun that killed millions of men in the first world war. It was actually oil that gave them protected from it in the form of a tank. A LOT more men died in WWI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties)than WWII.

Also, Germany's problem wasn't a lack of oil, but a lack of manpower as to the reason it lost. It bet on superior technology over manpower to the Russians and lost. Once it had lost all its men on the Eastern front the war was technically over.

I'm not 100% convinced on a future WWIII as I was before. One of the main reasons is that very few civilians can be brainwashed by propaganda to kill anyone in cold blood anymore (at least not in Europe). The internet has put paid to that.

If there is to be conflict it will be internally and it will be between the citizens versus the government, not between countries. For the first time I actually see a possibility of the US breaking up into states. Europe will most definitely have "marriage" issues. I am glad as I see who our real owners are and I don't like them and I don't (and never have) liked the debt system. Good riddance. We are going to see local societies make their own rules between themselves sans government... for better or worse...

steveaustin2006
06-30-11, 01:47 PM
That is correct. If you stay unemployed long enough, you're not unemployed anymore and don't show up in either the mean or the median rates.

does that mean that when we see the mainstream unemployment statistic touted - its not actually clear whether unemployment went up or down because more people (99ers) could have just fallen off the count?

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for More than 99 Weeks (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CDwQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2F R41559.pdf&rct=j&q=unemployment%20rate%2099%20weeks%20shadow%20stat s&ei=xbUMTobkFaXh0QGMkOGhDg&usg=AFQjCNGrCvGEuRQETV5X6cpdIxc2YlfK1g&sig2=sBQYzK23GgM9ybteUefyog&cad=rja)
Gerald Mayer
Analyst in Labor Policy
December 20, 2010

jiimbergin
06-30-11, 01:49 PM
Unfortunately, our present rulers are our creditors so that it isn't going to happen. In fact, I'm glad that this crisis has happened as it has shown the whole world who really pulls the strings and governs things and it ain't the politicians.

I agree with the premise of this article. It's obvious what the real solution is to anyone who thinks.

However I disagree with a few conclusions at the end to do with the world wars. I would postulate that it was the mounted machine gun that killed millions of men in the first world war. It was actually oil that gave them protected from it in the form of a tank. A LOT more men died in WWI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties)than WWII.

Also, Germany's problem wasn't a lack of oil, but a lack of manpower as to the reason it lost. It bet on superior technology over manpower to the Russians and lost. Once it had lost all its men on the Eastern front the war was technically over.

I'm not 100% convinced on a future WWIII as I was before. One of the main reasons is that very few civilians can be brainwashed by propaganda to kill anyone in cold blood anymore (at least not in Europe). The internet has put paid to that.

If there is to be conflict it will be internally and it will be between the citizens versus the government, not between countries. For the first time I actually see a possibility of the US breaking up into states. Europe will most definitely have "marriage" issues. I am glad as I see who our real owners are and I don't like them and I don't (and never have) liked the debt system. Good riddance. We are going to see local societies make their own rules between themselves sans government... for better or worse...

Everything I see on the net says WWII had far higher total death toll than WWI!

jk
06-30-11, 01:56 PM
does that mean that when we see the mainstream unemployment statistic touted - its not actually clear whether unemployment went up or down because more people (99ers) could have just fallen off the count?

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for More than 99 Weeks (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CDwQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2F R41559.pdf&rct=j&q=unemployment%20rate%2099%20weeks%20shadow%20stat s&ei=xbUMTobkFaXh0QGMkOGhDg&usg=AFQjCNGrCvGEuRQETV5X6cpdIxc2YlfK1g&sig2=sBQYzK23GgM9ybteUefyog&cad=rja)
Gerald Mayer
Analyst in Labor Policy
December 20, 2010

yes, that's how i understand it, and why i raised the issue as a question, just to be sure. i think there is a cohort of -especially- workers over 50 years old who will never work again. they are trying to get by on their savings and their cashed-out 401k's and ira's and occasional part-time work if they can get it. they are holding out until they reach 62, when they will start collecting social security "early." and then they will try to get by on that. while the baby boomers made uneconomic promises in the name of the country to themselves re social security and medicare, a subgroup of that generation will endure decades of sharply lower living standards and poverty.

jiimbergin
06-30-11, 02:03 PM
yes, that's how i understand it, and why i raised the issue as a question, just to be sure. i think there is a cohort of -especially- workers over 50 years old who will never work again. they are trying to get by on their savings and their cashed-out 401k's and ira's and occasional part-time work if they can get it. they are holding out until they reach 62, when they will start collecting social security "early." and then they will try to get by on that. while the baby boomers made uneconomic promises in the name of the country to themselves re social security and medicare, a subgroup of that generation will endure decades of sharply lower living standards and poverty.

But there are also many many younger people who also are 99ers.

cjppjc
06-30-11, 02:14 PM
Many of them may have moved back in with their parents.

jk
06-30-11, 02:36 PM
and the younger people are more likely to eventually find work at some point. they also don't have the "opportunity" to hang on until they can collect social security.

thriftyandboringinohio
06-30-11, 03:24 PM
yes, that's how i understand it, and why i raised the issue as a question, just to be sure. i think there is a cohort of -especially- workers over 50 years old who will never work again. they are trying to get by on their savings and their cashed-out 401k's and ira's and occasional part-time work if they can get it. they are holding out until they reach 62, when they will start collecting social security "early." and then they will try to get by on that. while the baby boomers made uneconomic promises in the name of the country to themselves re social security and medicare, a subgroup of that generation will endure decades of sharply lower living standards and poverty.

Three of the groomsmen at my wedding and one brother-in-law are in that cohort. I saw a term for this recently - "NQR" - Not Quite Retired. All four are 51 to 61 years old, all masters in trades like building and paving with 30+ years of diligent hard work on their resume, all doing what you describe to get by.

llanlad2
06-30-11, 03:30 PM
One of the main reasons is that very few civilians can be brainwashed by propaganda to kill anyone in cold blood anymore (at least not in Europe). The internet has put paid to that.

Civilians can very quickly become uncivil. As for"" very few civilians being brainwashed etc." The problem with the weapons we have now is that only a very few willing civilians are needed to cause mayhem. I am a close acquaintance of a 30 year old woman who was a refugee from Vukovar in the serbo-croat war. Some of the stories she has told me are gobsmacking. An example how one nutter can have a big influence is Arkan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkan) Oh and all this was in Europe by the way.

cjppjc
06-30-11, 03:59 PM
Civilians can very quickly become uncivil. As for"" very few civilians being brainwashed etc." The problem with the weapons we have now is that only a very few willing civilians are needed to cause mayhem. I am a close acquaintance of a 30 year old woman who was a refugee from Vukovar in the serbo-croat war. Some of the stories she has told me are gobsmacking. An example how one nutter can have a big influence is Arkan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkan) Oh and all this was in Europe by the way.

Thank you for that link. I had never heard of Arkan, and I am not well informed of the bloodshed in that part of the world. It does help to prove a point, that man has not evolved into some kind of gentler species.

Chris Coles
06-30-11, 05:01 PM
For what it is worth, we "oldies" have more to fear from the younger generation who see us as the reason for the high taxes and the impediment to their ongoing survival. If they, as a group, ever decide we are "expendable"; we might have a very difficult time surviving. They live on a different planet, always plugged into their stereo ear-pads etc.. We need to keep in their minds a reason for their support, perhaps by providing some leadership in our local communities that sets us out as supportive of them as a group. Food for thought.

Alvaro Spain
06-30-11, 05:16 PM
For what it is worth, we "oldies" have more to fear from the younger generation who see us as the reason for the high taxes and the impediment to their ongoing survival. If they, as a group, ever decide we are "expendable"; we might have a very difficult time surviving. They live on a different planet, always plugged into their stereo ear-pads etc.. We need to keep in their minds a reason for their support, perhaps by providing some leadership in our local communities that sets us out as supportive of them as a group. Food for thought.

You raise an important issue. From my point of view, the most important thing you can do (with respect to the problem you are talking about) is to raise your children in respect and love. If your children love and support you in your older years you shouldn't care about the rest of the younger population.

jiimbergin
06-30-11, 05:21 PM
You raise an important issue. From my point of view, the most important thing you can do (with respect to the problem you are talking about) is to raise your children in respect and love. If your children love and support you in your older years you shouldn't care about the rest of the younger population.

I agree, and I would add grandchildren, nieces and nephews etc.

Chris D.
06-30-11, 05:32 PM
the war ends in a way that was not foreseen at the outset with a scale of casualties beyond imagination

Seems like most of the losses would come as a result of famine and disease. You could see significant parts of the third world have their tentative economic gains since WW2 erased by factional proxy wars sponsored by the US and China (e.g., Afghanistan). Large parts of Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South America could be decimated much like Europe was during the 30 Years War. These regions are where the most tentative major population centers and relatively untapped resource wealth lie. Seems like a showdown over Taiwan would be the inevitable test case for nuclear brinksmanship.

c1ue
06-30-11, 07:16 PM
http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by c1ue http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=200796#post200796)
...a US-China war being one which both will lose.

But why is that an argument that it will not happen?

The one scenario I can see which would result in a WW III type eruption is where China's economic miracle ends and the Chinese government then uses patriotic sentiment to fuel a conflict with the United States to distract the population.

However, the gigantic caveat in this scenario is that both sides are then essentially in it for the distraction: control is maintained such that significant infrastructure damage, much less nuclear war, is prevented.

If the government of China were a bunch of feckless idiots like in the US, I'd be more in agreement with you.

However, the government in China is still more or less the last of China's equivalent of the 'Silent Generation' - they know firsthand the suffering from and fundamental impossibility of control in an open conflict situation.

My view is that said government is far more likely to wuwei: sway with the wind and permit the US to do things like Libya, relying instead on time and inertia to permit their opponent to destroy himself.

After all, China needs to do nothing in order for the situation in the US to come to a head.

steveaustin2006
06-30-11, 08:13 PM
That is correct. If you stay unemployed long enough, you're not unemployed anymore and don't show up in either the mean or the median rates.

I asked the fellow who's report I cited. He said that is not true - he's says that those unemployed longer than 99 weeks are in fact included in the mean and that until January no matter how long they have been unemployed they were listed as 2 yrs but since there are so many people now the BLS has changed that 2 year cap to a five 5 year cap so it doesn't skew the data. I couldn't find anything to confirm or deny on the BLS site for the inclusion/exclsion. Here's a link on the cap change:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/duration.htm

and here is the author I contacted:

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for More than 99 Weeks
Gerald Mayer GMAYER@crs.loc.gov
Analyst in Labor Policy
December 20, 2010

jk
06-30-11, 08:26 PM
i think they have to be looking for work within the past month to count as unemployed. if they are discouraged in fact as in name, they've stopped looking and they've stopped being counted.

flintlock
06-30-11, 09:49 PM
Civilians can very quickly become uncivil. As for"" very few civilians being brainwashed etc." The problem with the weapons we have now is that only a very few willing civilians are needed to cause mayhem. I am a close acquaintance of a 30 year old woman who was a refugee from Vukovar in the serbo-croat war. Some of the stories she has told me are gobsmacking. An example how one nutter can have a big influence is Arkan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkan) Oh and all this was in Europe by the way.

Its funny you brought up this war(Serbia) because I was just about to post it as example of how quickly people can lose their "civility".

People also lose their qualms about killing really quickly when they've been hungry and miserable for a while. Hard to compare what a fat and happy Europe of today (and USA) is capable of vs when TSHTF. People can turn really ugly really quickly. And the internet can be used negatively in this regard as well.


A LOT more men died in WWI than WWII. You sure about that? Or did you mean death by machine gun? Your own wiki link has WWI as the 6th most deadly conflict.


Also, Germany's problem wasn't a lack of oil, but a lack of manpower as to the reason it lost. It bet on superior technology over manpower to the Russians and lost. Once it had lost all its men on the Eastern front the war was technically over.

And for labasta, WWII was way too complicated to simply sum up Germany's reason for losing as manpower. It certainly was a factor, but a billion Red Army fanatics couldn't have beat Germany alone. Someone else brought up the fact that warfare today has very little to do with manpower. As a matter of fact, manpower could be seen as a liability at some point.

Chomsky
06-30-11, 10:04 PM
You sure about that? Or did you mean death by machine gun? Your own wiki link has WWI as the 6th most deadly conflict.

This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_ toll) shows WWII the biggest kahuna of them all.

touchring
06-30-11, 11:03 PM
Having lived all my life in an autocratic market economic system, I do know a bit of their vulnerabilities and their strategies.

Their greatest weakness is the lust for power over everything else including their own lives. The market economy is just the "means" to protect this power, and not the "end".

Their strategy is quite simple:

1). Remove social safety nets and create as many blue collar low paying jobs as possible. When people are paid just enough for subsistence, got no pensions or unemployment benefits, they will work 12hrs day or more to make ends meet - so there is no time for political activities - less social unrest.

2). Ensure there is a wide social divide - a rich and a poor class - make them hate each other - a divide and conquer strategy. However, this is a delicate operation as there is a need to ensure that not too much of this hatred is directed at the authorities. It's ok if the people hate the rich though.

So unless free trade comes to an end, China will probably introduce even more subsidies to prop up the export industry (lowly paid job making industry) and also additional measures like restricting exports of rare earth metals so that production is forced to remain in China, etc. Of course, this is a beggar thy neighbor policy that will lead to further job losses in the West (even if the West falls into depression jobs are still being exported to China).

If you guessed right, this ploy is not sustainable. When free trade ends, that's when war will start.




The one scenario I can see which would result in a WW III type eruption is where China's economic miracle ends and the Chinese government then uses patriotic sentiment to fuel a conflict with the United States to distract the population.

However, the gigantic caveat in this scenario is that both sides are then essentially in it for the distraction: control is maintained such that significant infrastructure damage, much less nuclear war, is prevented.

If the government of China were a bunch of feckless idiots like in the US, I'd be more in agreement with you.

However, the government in China is still more or less the last of China's equivalent of the 'Silent Generation' - they know firsthand the suffering from and fundamental impossibility of control in an open conflict situation.

My view is that said government is far more likely to wuwei: sway with the wind and permit the US to do things like Libya, relying instead on time and inertia to permit their opponent to destroy himself.

After all, China needs to do nothing in order for the situation in the US to come to a head.

oddlots
07-01-11, 02:03 AM
E.J. does a great Daniel Plainview, but I still prefer Patton's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhhm2rh00I

Great piece.

Chris Coles
07-01-11, 03:16 AM
As scary as it sounds, I believe that much of the world will be safe as I believe that New World Order wars will be fought via proxies, and unless you are at the age to qualify for a draft, you have nothing to fear.

The most dangerous place will be Israel

touchring brings into the debate a valid point; that perhaps the central trigger for a proxy war will be Israel. Here in Europe, we recently watched a quite riviting TV series; The Promise, which set out to describe the period running up to the end of 1948 where the British left and the State of Israel was founded. Now I am the first to admit I do not have a full grounding in the complete history of the ongoing problems in that region; but this did go some way to widening my understanding of the conflicting attitudes and problems to be surmounted if peace is to be realised. But be warned, it is a full six hours spread over four separate programs. Here is a link to the review in the New Statesman, (complete with 522 comments):
http://www.newstatesman.com/television/2011/02/israel-promise-eliza-palestine

And all four episodes from Channel4 OD http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-promise/4od

You can, if you wish, buy the full DVD: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Promise-DVD-Claire-Foy/dp/B004G5YVC8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298556504&sr=8-1

jpatter666
07-01-11, 07:58 AM
This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_ toll) shows WWII the biggest kahuna of them all.

Possible the reference was more to individual battle deaths -- for which WWI was notorious for being a meat-grinder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties

ASH
07-01-11, 01:07 PM
To sum up my argument: Leadership that is stupid and short sighted enough to let the tech bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to let the housing bubble develop to bale the economy out of the tech bubble crash, and then let the housing bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to try to restart the FIRE Economy and drive the economy toward a mid-gap recession, at which point a new round of layoffs pushes unemployment to 12% and higher and crushes consumer spending -- such leadership is stupid and short sighted enough to finish the course, to lead the US into wars it cannot win.

Sorry for the low resolution, but...

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/files/ricks3_56.jpg

(A bit of humor from The Best Defense (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/) blog at Foreign Policy.)

metalman
07-01-11, 06:07 PM
Sorry for the low resolution, but...

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/files/ricks3_56.jpg

(A bit of humor from The Best Defense (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/) blog at Foreign Policy.)

related fuzzy img...

http://www.itulip.com/usbankruptcy.gif

posted itulip 2001... usa bankrupt in 2009...

delayed to 2013...;_SO

lakedaemonian
07-02-11, 06:39 AM
After all, China needs to do nothing in order for the situation in the US to come to a head.

The same could be said of the US.

The inevitable Pakistani backed terror strike in India that finally leads to an Indian retaliatory response could escalate so quickly it may only require the US to do nothing but let it burn.

Whether China is sucked into such a conflict directly may not actually matter.

But I could imagine opportunities for the US to seize the initiative against China in such a crisis/conflict.

EJ calls for a TECI reindustrialization of the US. Surely a conflict crisis and the consequent economic one could seriously "bend" the US but possibly "shatter" China?

Couldnt it provide the necessary excuse to enact significant reform in the US?

Couldnt a significant conflict in Asia that implodes Pakistan and kneecaps Chindia take enough energy consumption offline to be a medium term net positive for the US and the West.?

And couldn't it leave the US in a stronger relative position for negotiating whats next for the future global reserve currency?

Chris Coles
07-02-11, 07:06 AM
The same could be said of the US.

The inevitable Pakistani backed terror strike in India that finally leads to an Indian retaliatory response could escalate so quickly it may only require the US to do nothing but let it burn.

Whether China is sucked into such a conflict directly may not actually matter.

But I could imagine opportunities for the US to seize the initiative against China in such a crisis/conflict.

EJ calls for a TECI reindustrialization of the US. Surely a conflict crisis and the consequent economic one could seriously "bend" the US but possibly "shatter" China?

Couldnt it provide the necessary excuse to enact significant reform in the US?

Couldnt a significant conflict in Asia that implodes Pakistan and kneecaps Chindia take enough energy consumption offline to be a medium term net positive for the US and the West.?

And couldn't it leave the US in a stronger relative position for negotiating whats next for the future global reserve currency?

You are making some pretty interesting assumptions here; primarily that the US is the all powerful state that we knew it to be back in the 1970's. But take a closer look at what is going on in the likes of China and India. Hundreds of thousands more students in higher education, than in the west. Space technology advancing very rapidly. Economies not burdened by their banking dynasties stupidities. Have we seen any sign of China or India making really threatening postures against each other? No. What we do see is China stepping forward with money and technically educated employees to take control of areas of the planet traditionally of little or no interest to the US. Africa springs immediately to mind, as also South America.

You, IMHO, are presenting the sort of analysis that comes from a belief; rather than fact. Personally I have come to the opinion that the US is sleep walking into oblivion, precisely because too many have their rose tinted spectacles on and are not addressing fact.

The US needs to wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late to bring a change in direction.

touchring
07-02-11, 11:29 AM
Whether China is sucked into such a conflict directly may not actually matter.


I doubt the Chinese will really get involved in Pakistan. Seriously speaking, do you think a Chinese man on the street knows the difference between an Indian, a Pakistan man or even a man from Bangladesh? This is really just politics at the highest levels. :(

c1ue
07-03-11, 12:47 AM
The inevitable Pakistani backed terror strike in India that finally leads to an Indian retaliatory response could escalate so quickly it may only require the US to do nothing but let it burn.

Whether China is sucked into such a conflict directly may not actually matter.

But I could imagine opportunities for the US to seize the initiative against China in such a crisis/conflict.

Perhaps you can expand on this statement, because it seems completely nonsensical to me.

Not the Pakistan vs. India part - I can see strong possibilities for conflict there though the presence of nuclear weapons changes the traditional equation considerably.

The part where this impacts China in any way negative.

1) India is China's largest rival in East Asia. Russia is a power and will remain so, but Russia has both massive numbers of nukes and strong/growing economic ties with China. A conflict between Pakistan and India allows China to bleed its greatest rival while not being directly involved. Furthermore unless the Central Asian states are somehow controlled, China's covert assistance never even comes close to where the US could interdict it.

2) The US' economic issues are not benefited in any way by a Pakistan/India conflict. Sure, some arms sales would occur, but an AfPakInd brouhaha doesn't help the US economy overall; doesn't help US energy issues; doesn't help US import dependencies. The only outside impact I could see would be China exports to Europe - and these would be impacted only if for some reason AfPakInd decided to shoot at container ships. Not a very likely scenario.

3) Any harm that might befall China due to trade impacts of AfPakInd war would affect US allies as much or more: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore. Hard to see how this is a net benefit to the US.

The only other scenario is where an AfPakInd conflict results in the destruction of the subsea cables between India and the US - this would negatively impact both the US and Indian economy, though perhaps there might be some positive US job impacts.


EJ calls for a TECI reindustrialization of the US. Surely a conflict crisis and the consequent economic one could seriously "bend" the US but possibly "shatter" China?

Couldnt it provide the necessary excuse to enact significant reform in the US?

Couldnt a significant conflict in Asia that implodes Pakistan and kneecaps Chindia take enough energy consumption offline to be a medium term net positive for the US and the West.?

And couldn't it leave the US in a stronger relative position for negotiating whats next for the future global reserve currency?

I am unclear as to why the lack of will necessary to institute necessary reforms in the US will suddenly be changed by the outbreak of an AfPakInd conflict, or a conflict with China.

I am certain at least part of EJ's recent pessimism is the complete lack of foresight and willpower he has seen at every level in the US government and industry.

As for TECI - do you seriously think the US is ahead of China in this respect?

China has a need for TECI irrespective of AGW issues; they need to ramp up their electrical as well as overall energy generation/consumption in order to transition to a 1st world economy.

This is the reason they have any wind/solar power at all - besides the export subsidy harvest:

Any power generation is useful when China had been forced to build the equivalent of 2 new coal fired electricity generation plants every week just to keep up with growing demand.

On contrast the electricity/power grid in the US - while antiquated and imposing an increasingly large economic handicap going forward - is still sufficient.

This among other reasons (see incompetence and shortsightedness above) is why TECI did not occur in the US and likely will not.

If obvious reforms to rein in banksters cannot be undertaken, what hope for the real world resources and direction in order to jump start TECI?

Chris Coles
07-03-11, 05:22 AM
May I recommend that everyone watch this episode of BBC Newsnight which shows us a detailed report on Pakistan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0129sw0#synopsis

c1ue
07-03-11, 12:29 PM
Representative of the military, or merely convenient partisanship?

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf




PREFACE
By Anne-Marie Slaughter
Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs
Princeton University
Director of Policy Planning, U.S. Department of State, 2009-2011

The United States needs a national strategic narrative. We have a national security strategy, which sets forth four core national interests and outlines a number of dimensions of an overarching strategy to advance those interests in the 21st century world. But that is a document written by specialists for specialists. It does not answer a fundamental question that more and more Americans are asking. Where is the United States going in the world? How can we get there? What are the guiding stars that will illuminate the path along the way? We need a story with a beginning, middle, and projected happy ending that will transcend our political divisions, orient us as a nation, and give us both a common direction and the confidence and commitment to get to our destination.

These questions require new answers because of the universal awareness that we are living through a time of rapid and universal change. The assumptions of the 20th century, of the U.S. as a bulwark first against fascism and then against communism, make little sense in a world in which World War II and its aftermath is as distant to young generations today as the War of 1870 was to the men who designed the United Nations and the international order in the late 1940s.

Consider the description of the U.S. president as “the leader of the free world,” a phrase that encapsulated U.S. power and the structure of the global order for decades. Yet anyone under thirty today, a majority of the world’s population, likely has no idea what it means.

Moreover, the U.S. is experiencing its latest round of “declinism,” the periodic certainty that we are losing all the things that have made us a great nation. In a National Journal poll conducted in 2010, 47% percent of Americans rated China’s economy as the world’s strongest economy, even though today the U.S. economy is still 2 ½ times larger than the Chinese economy with only 1/6 of the population. Our crumbling roads and bridges reflect a crumbling self-confidence. Our education reformers often seem to despair that we can ever educate new generations effectively for the 21st century economy. Our health care system lags increasingly behind that of other developed nations – even behind British National Health in terms of the respective overall health of the British and American populations.

Against this backdrop, Captain Porter’s and Colonel Mykleby’s “Y article” could not come at a more propitious time. In 1947 George Kennan published “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” in Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym X, so as not to reveal his identity as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer. The X article gave us an intellectual framework within which to understand the rise and eventual fall of the Soviet Union and a strategy to hasten that objective. Based on that foundation, the strategic narrative of the Cold War was that the United States was the leader of the free world against the communist world; that we would invest in containing the Soviet Union and limiting its expansion while building a dynamic economy and as just, and prosperous a society as possible. We often departed from that narrative in practice, as George Kennan was one of the first to recognize. But it was a narrative that fit the facts of the world we perceived well enough to create and maintain a loose bipartisan national consensus for forty years.

Porter and Mykleby give us a non-partisan blueprint for understanding and reacting to the changes of the 21st century world. In one sentence, the strategic narrative of the United States in the 21st century is that we want to become the strongest competitor and most influential player in a deeply inter-connected global system, which requires that we invest less in defense and more in sustainable prosperity and the tools of effective global engagement.

At first reading, this sentence may not seem to mark much of a change. But look closer. The Y article narrative responds directly to five major transitions in the global system:

1) From control in a closed system to credible influence in an open system. The authors argue that Kennan’s strategy of containment was designed for a closed system, in which we assumed that we could control events through deterrence, defense, and dominance of the international system. The 21st century is an open system, in which unpredictable external events/phenomena are constantly disturbing and disrupting the system. In this world control is impossible; the best we can do is to build credible influence – the ability to shape and guide global trends in the direction that serves our values and interests (prosperity and security) within an interdependent strategic ecosystem. In other words, the U.S. should stop trying to dominate and direct global events. The best we can do is to build our capital so that we can influence events as they arise.

2) From containment to sustainment. The move from control to credible influence as a fundamental strategic goal requires a shift from containment to sustainment (sustainability). Instead of trying to contain others (the Soviet Union, terrorists, China, etc), we need to focus on sustaining ourselves in ways that build our strengths and underpin credible influence. That shift in turn means that the starting point for our strategy should be internal rather than external. The 2010 National Security Strategy did indeed focus on national renewal and global leadership, but this account makes an even stronger case for why we have to focus first and foremost on investing our resources domestically in those national resources that can be sustained, such as our youth and our natural resources (ranging from crops, livestock, and potable water to sources of energy and materials for industry). We can and must still engage internationally, of course, but only after a careful weighing of costs and benefits and with as many partners as possible.

Credible influence also requires that we model the behavior we recommend for others, and that we pay close attention to the gap between our words and our deeds.

3) From deterrence and defense to civilian engagement and competition. Here in many ways is the hard nub of this narrative. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen has already said publicly that the U.S. deficit is our biggest national security threat. He and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have also given speeches and written articles calling for “demilitarizing American foreign policy” and investing more in the tools of civilian engagements – diplomacy and defense. As we modernize our military and cut spending the tools of 20th century warfare, we must also invest in a security complex that includes all domestic and foreign policy assets.

Our credibility also requires a willingness to compete with others. Instead of defeatism and protectionism, we must embrace competition as a way to make ourselves stronger and better (e.g. Ford today, now competing with Toyota on electric cars). A willingness to compete means a new narrative on trade and a new willingness to invest in the skills, education, energy sources, and infrastructure necessary to make our products competitive.

4) From zero sum to positive sum global politics/economics. An interdependent world creates many converging interests and opportunities for positive-sum rather than zero-sum competition. The threats that come from interdependence (economic instability, global pandemics, global terrorist and criminal networks) also create common interests in countering those threats domestically and internationally. President Obama has often emphasized the significance of moving toward positive sum politics. To take only one example, the rise of China as a major economic power has been overall very positive for the U.S. economy and the prosperity and stability of East Asia. The United States must be careful to guard our interests and those of our allies, but we miss great opportunities if we assume that the rise of some necessarily means the decline of others.

5) From national security to national prosperity and security. The piece closes with a call for a National Prosperity and Security Act to replace the National Security Act of 1947. The term “national security” only entered the foreign policy lexicon after 1947 to reflect the merger of defense and foreign affairs. Today our security lies as much or more in our prosperity as in our military capabilities. Our vocabulary, our institutions, and our assumptions must reflect that shift.

“National security” has become a trump card, justifying military spending even as the domestic foundations of our national strength are crumbling. “National prosperity and security” reminds us where our true security begins. Foreign policy pundits have long called for an overhaul of NSC 68, the blueprint for the national security state that accompanied the grand strategy of containment. If we are truly to become the strongest competitor and most influential player in the deeply interconnected world of the 21st century, then we need a new blueprint.

A narrative is a story. A national strategic narrative must be a story that all Americans can understand and identify with in their own lives. America’s national story has always see-sawed between exceptionalism and universalism. We think that we are an exceptional nation, but a core part of that exceptionalism is a commitment to universal values – to the equality of all human beings not just within the borders of the United States, but around the world. We should thus embrace the rise of other nations when that rise is powered by expanded prosperity, opportunity, and dignity for their peoples. In such a world we do not need to see ourselves as the automatic leader of any bloc of nations. We should be prepared instead to earn our influence through our ability to compete with other nations, the evident prosperity and wellbeing of our people, and our ability to engage not just with states but with societies in all their richness and complexity. We do not want to be the sole superpower that billions of people around the world have learned to hate from fear of our military might. We seek instead to be the nation other nations listen to, rely on and emulate out of respect and admiration.

The Y article is the first step down that new path. It is written by two military men who have put their lives on the line in the defense of their country and who are non-partisan by profession and conviction. Their insights and ideas should spark a national conversation. All it takes is for politicians, pundits, journalists, businesspeople, civic leaders, and engaged citizens across the country to read and respond.

A NATIONAL STRATEGIC NARRATIVE
By Mr. Y

This Strategic Narrative is intended to frame our National policy decisions regarding investment, security, economic development, the environment, and engagement well into this century. It is built upon the premise that we must sustain our enduring national interests – prosperity and security – within a “strategic ecosystem,” at home and abroad; that in complexity and uncertainty, there are opportunities and hope, as well as challenges, risk, and threat. The primary approach this Strategic Narrative advocates to achieve sustainable prosperity and security, is through the application of credible influence and strength, the pursuit of fair competition, acknowledgement of interdependencies and converging interests, and adaptation to complex, dynamic systems – all bounded by our national values.

From Containment to Sustainment: Control to Credible Influence

For those who believe that hope is not a strategy, America must seem a strange contradiction of anachronistic values and enduring interests amidst a constantly changing global environment.

America is a country conceived in liberty, founded on hope, and built upon the notion that anything is possible with enough hard work and imagination. Over time we have continued to learn and mature even as we strive to remain true to those values our founding fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

America’s national strategy in the second half of the last century was anchored in the belief that our global environment is a closed system to be controlled by mankind – through technology, power, and determination – to achieve security and prosperity. From that perspective, anything that challenged our national interests was perceived as a threat or a risk to be managed. For forty years our nation prospered and was kept secure through a strategy of containment. That strategy relied on control, deterrence, and the conviction that given the choice, people the world over share our vision for a better tomorrow. America emerged from the Twentieth Century as the most powerful nation on earth. But we failed to recognize that dominance, like fossil fuel, is not a sustainable source of energy. The new century brought with it a reminder that the world, in fact, is a complex, open system – constantly changing. And change brings with it uncertainty.

What we really failed to recognize, is that in uncertainty and change, there is opportunity and hope.

It is time for America to re-focus our national interests and principles through a long lens on the global environment of tomorrow. It is time to move beyond a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability); from an emphasis on power and control to an emphasis on strength and influence; from a defensive posture of exclusion, to a proactive posture of engagement. We must recognize that security means more than defense, and sustaining security requires adaptation and evolution, the leverage of converging interests and interdependencies.

To grow we must accept that competitors are not necessarily adversaries, and that a winner does not demand a loser. We must regain our credibility as a leader among peers, a beacon of hope, rather than an island fortress. It is only by balancing our interests with our principles that we can truly hope to sustain our growth as a nation and to restore our credibility as a world leader.

As we focus on the opportunities within our strategic environment, however, we must also address risk and threat. It is important to recognize that developing credible influence to pursue our enduring national interests in a sustainable manner requires strength with restraint, power with patience, deterrence with detente. The economic, diplomatic, educational, military, and commercial tools through which we foster that credibility must always be tempered and hardened by the values that define us as a people.

Our Values and Enduring National Interests

America was founded on the core values and principles enshrined in our Constitution and proven through war and peace. These values have served as both our anchor and our compass, at home and abroad, for more than two centuries. Our values define our national character, and they are our source of credibility and legitimacy in everything we do. Our values provide the bounds within which we pursue our enduring national interests. When these values are no longer sustainable, we have failed as a nation, because without our values, America has no credibility.

As we continue to evolve, these values are reflected in a wider global application: tolerance for all cultures, races, and religions; global opportunity for self-fulfillment; human dignity and freedom from exploitation; justice with compassion and equality under internationally recognized rule of law; sovereignty without tyranny, with assured freedom of expression; and an environment for entrepreneurial freedom and global prosperity, with access to markets, plentiful water and arable soil, clean and abundant energy, and adequate health services.

From the earliest days of the Republic, America has depended on a vibrant free market and an indomitable entrepreneurial spirit to be the engines of our prosperity. Our strength as a world leader is largely derived from the central role we play in the global economy. Since the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, the United States has been viewed as an anchor of global economic security and the U.S. dollar has served as an internationally recognized medium of exchange, the monetary standard. The American economy is the strongest in the world and likely to remain so well into the foreseeable future. Yet, while the dramatic acceleration of globalization over the last fifteen years has provided for the cultural, intellectual and social comingling among people on every continent, of every race, and of every ideology, it has also increased international economic interdependence and has made a narrowly domestic economic perspective an unattractive impossibility. Without growth and competition economies stagnate and wither, so sustaining America’s prosperity requires a healthy global economy. Prosperity at home and through global economic competition and development is then, one of America’s enduring national interests.

It follows logically that prosperity without security is unsustainable. Security is a state of mind, as much as it is a physical aspect of our environment. For Americans, security is very closely related to freedom, because security represents freedom from anxiety and external threat, freedom from disease and poverty, freedom from tyranny and oppression, freedom of expression but also freedom from hurtful ideologies, prejudice and violations of human rights. Security cannot be safeguarded by borders or natural barriers; freedom cannot be secured with locks or by force alone. In our complex, interdependent, and constantly changing global environment, security is not achievable for one nation or by one people alone; rather it must be recognized as a common interest among all peoples. Otherwise, security is not sustainable, and without it there can be no peace of mind. Security, then, is our other enduring national interest.

Our Three Investment Priorities

As Americans we have access to a vast array of resources. Perhaps the most important first step we can take, as part of a National Strategy, is to identify which of these resources are renewable and sustainable, and which are finite and diminishing. Without doubt, our greatest resource is America’s young people, who will shape and execute the vision needed to take this nation forward into an uncertain future. But this may require a reawakening, of sorts. Perhaps because our nation has been so blessed over time, many of us have forgotten that rewards must be earned, there is no “free ride” – that fair competition and hard work bring with them a true sense of accomplishment. We can no longer expect the ingenuity and labor of past generations to sustain our growth as a nation for generations to come. We must embrace the reality that with opportunity comes challenge, and that retooling our competitiveness requires a commitment and investment in the future.

Inherent in our children is the innovation, drive, and imagination that have made, and will continue to make, this country great. By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans – the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow – we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth.

Our second investment priority is ensuring the nation’s sustainable security – on our own soil and wherever Americans and their interests take them. As has been stated already, Americans view security in the broader context of freedom and peace of mind. Rather than focusing primarily on defense, the security we seek can only be sustained through a whole of nation approach to our domestic and foreign policies. This requires a different approach to problem solving than we have pursued previously and a hard look at the distribution of our national treasure. For too long, we have underutilized sectors of our government and our citizenry writ large, focusing intensely on defense and protectionism rather than on development and diplomacy. This has been true in our approach to domestic and foreign trade, agriculture and energy, science and technology, immigration and education, public health and crisis response, Homeland Security and military force posture. Security touches each of these and must be addressed by leveraging all the strengths of our nation, not simply those intended to keep perceived threat a safe arm’s length away.

America is a resplendent, plentiful and fertile land, rich with natural resources, bounded by vast ocean spaces. Together these gifts are ours to be enjoyed for their majesty, cultivated and harvested for their abundance, and preserved for following generations. Many of these resources are renewable, some are not. But all must be respected as part of a global ecosystem that is being tasked to support a world population projected to reach nine billion peoples midway through this century. These resources ange from crops, livestock, and potable water to sources of energy and materials for industry.

Our third investment priority is to develop a plan for the sustainable access to, cultivation and use of, the natural resources we need for our continued wellbeing, prosperity and economic growth in the world marketplace.

Fair Competition and Deterrence

Competition is a powerful, and often misunderstood, concept. Fair competition – of ideas and enterprises, among individuals, organizations, and nations – is what has driven Americans to achieve greatness across the spectrum of human endeavor. And yet with globalization, we seem to have developed a strange apprehension about the efficacy of our ability to apply the innovation and hard work necessary to successfully compete in a complex security and economic environment. Further, we have misunderstood interdependence as a weakness rather than recognizing it as a strength. The key to sustaining our competitive edge, at home or on the world stage, is credibility – and credibility is a difficult capital to foster. It cannot be won through intimidation and threat, it cannot be sustained through protectionism or exclusion. Credibility requires engagement, strength, and reliability – imaginatively applied through the national tools of development, diplomacy, and defense.

In many ways, deterrence is closely linked to competition. Like competition, deterrence in the truest sense is built upon strength and credibility and cannot be achieved solely through intimidation and threat. For deterrence to be effective, it must leverage converging interests and interdependencies, while differentiating and addressing diverging and conflicting interests that represent potential threats. Like competition, deterrence requires a whole of nation effort, credible influence supported by actions that are consistent with our national interests and values.

When fair competition and positive influence through engagement – largely dependent on the tools of development and diplomacy – fail to dissuade the threat of destructive behavior, we will approach deterrence through a broad, interdisciplinary effort that combines development and diplomacy with defense.

A Strategic Ecology

Rather than focusing all our attention on specific threats, risks, nations, or organizations, as we have in the past, let us evaluate the trends that will shape tomorrow’s strategic ecology, and seek opportunities to credibly influence these to our advantage. Among the trends that are already shaping a “new normal” in our strategic environment are the decline of rural economies, joblessness, the dramatic increase in urbanization, an increasing demand for energy, migration of populations and shifting demographics, the rise of grey and black markets, the phenomenon of extremism and anti-modernism, the effects of global climate change, the spread of pandemics and lack of access to adequate health services, and an increasing dependency on cyber networks.

At first glance, these trends are cause for concern. But for Americans with vision, guided by values, they represent opportunities to reestablish and leverage credible influence, converging interests, and interdependencies that can transform despair into hope. This focus on improving our strategic ecosystem, and favorably competing for our national interests, underscores the investment priorities cited earlier, and the imaginative application of diplomacy, development, and defense in our foreign policy.

Many of the trends affecting our environment are conditions-based. That is, they have developed within a complex system as the result of conditions left unchecked for many years. These global trends, whether manifesting themselves in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Eurasia, or within our own hemisphere impact the lives of Americans in ways that are often obscure as they propagate over vast areas with cascading and sometimes catastrophic effect.

Illiteracy, for example, is common in countries with high birth rates. High birth rates and illiteracy contribute to large labor pools and joblessness, particularly in rural areas in which changing weather conditions have resulted in desertification and soil erosion. This has led to the disruption of family and tribal support structures and the movement of large numbers of young, unskilled people into urban areas that lack infrastructure. This rapid urbanization has taxed countries with weak governance that lack rule of law, permitting the further growth of exploitive, grey and black market activities. Criminal networks prey upon and contribute to the disenfranchisement of a sizeable portion of the population in many underdeveloped nations.

This concentration of disenfranchised youth, with little-to-no licit support infrastructure has provided a recruiting pool for extremists seeking political support and soldiers for local or foreign causes, often facilitated through the internet. The wars and instability perpetrated by these extremists and their armies of the disenfranchised have resulted in the displacement of many thousands more, and the further weakening of governance. This displacement has, in many cases, produced massive migrations of disparate families, tribes, and cultures seeking a more sustainable existence. This migration has further exacerbated the exploitation of the weak by criminal and ideological profiteers and has facilitated the spread of diseases across natural barriers previously considered secure. The effect has been to create a kind of subculture of despair and hopelessness that is self-perpetuating. At some point, these underlying conditions must be addressed by offering choices and options that will nudge global trends in a positive direction. America’s national interests and values are not sustainable otherwise.

We cannot isolate our own prosperity and security from the global system. Even in a land as rich as ours, we too, have seen the gradual breakdown of rural communities and the rapid expansion of our cities. We have experienced migration, crime, and domestic terrorism. We struggle with joblessness and despite a low rate of illiteracy, we are losing our traditional role of innovation dominance in leading edge technologies and the sciences. We are, in the truest sense, part of an interdependent strategic ecosystem, and our interests converge with those of people in virtually every corner of the world. We must remain cognizant of this, and reconcile our domestic and foreign policies as being complementary and largely congruent.

As we pursue the growth of our own prosperity and security, the welfare of our citizens must be seen as part of a highly dynamic, and interconnected system that includes sovereign nations, world markets, natural and man-generated challenges and solutions – a system that demands adaptability and innovation. In this strategic environment, it is competition that will determine how we evolve, and Americans must have the tools and confidence required to successfully compete.

This begins at home with quality health care and education, with a vital economy and low rates of unemployment, with thriving urban centers and carefully planned rural communities, with low crime, and a sense of common purpose underwritten by personal responsibility. We often hear the term “smart power” applied to the tools of development and diplomacy abroad empowering people all over the world to improve their own lives and to help establish the stability needed to sustain security and prosperity on a global scale. But we can not export “smart power” until we practice “smart growth” at home. We must seize the opportunity to be a model of stability, a model of the values we cherish for the rest of the world to emulate. And we must ensure that our domestic policies are aligned with our foreign policies. Our own “smart growth” can serve as the exportable model of “smart power.” Because, truthfully, it is in our interest to see the rest of the world prosper and the world market thrive, just as it is in our interest to see our neighbors prosper and our own urban centers and rural communities come back to life.

Closing the “Say-do” Gap - the Negative Aspects of “Binning”

An important step toward re-establishing credible influence and applying it effectively is to close the “say-do” gap. This begins by avoiding the very western tendency to label or “bin” individuals, groups, organizations, and ideas. In complex systems, adaptation and variation demonstrate that “binning” is not only difficult, it often leads to unintended consequences. For example, labeling, or binning, Islamist radicals as “terrorists,” or worse, as “jihadis,” has resulted in two very different, and unfortunate unintended misperceptions: that all Muslims are thought of as “terrorists;” and, that those who pervert Islam into a hateful, anti-modernist ideology to justify unspeakable acts of violence are truly motivated by a religious struggle (the definition of “jihad,” and the obligation of all Muslims), rather than being seen as apostates waging war against society and innocents. This has resulted in the alienation of vast elements of the global Muslim community and has only frustrated efforts to accurately depict and marginalize extremism.

Binning and labeling are legacies of a strategy intent on viewing the world as a closed system. Another significant unintended consequence of binning, is that it creates divisions within our own government and between our own domestic and foreign policies. As has been noted, we cannot isolate our own prosperity and security from the global system. We exist within a strategic ecology, and our interests converge with those of people in virtually every corner of the world. We must remain cognizant of this, and reconcile our domestic and foreign policies as being complementary and largely congruent. Yet we have binned government departments, agencies, laws, authorities, and programs into lanes that lack the strategic flexibility and dynamism to effectively adapt to the global environment. This, in turn, further erodes our credibility, diminishes our influence, inhibits our competitive edge, and exacerbates the say-do gap.

The tools to be employed in pursuit of our national interests – development, diplomacy, and defense – cannot be effective if they are restricted to one government department or another. In fact, if these tools are not employed within the context of a coherent national strategy, vice being narrowly applied in isolation to individual countries or regions, they will fail to achieve a sustainable result. By recognizing the advantages of interdependence and converging interests, domestically and internationally, we gain the strategic flexibility to sustain our national interests without compromising our values. The tools of development do not exist within the domain of one government department alone, or even one sector of society, anymore than do the tools of diplomacy or defense.

Another form of binning that impedes strategic flexibility, interdependence, and converging interests in the global system, is a geo-centric approach to foreign policy. Perhaps since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, westerners have tended to view the world as consisting of sovereign nation-states clearly distinguishable by their political borders and physical boundaries.

In the latter half of the Twentieth Century a new awareness of internationalism began to dominate political thought. This notion of communities of nations and regions was further broadened by globalization. But the borderless nature of the internet, and the accompanying proliferation of stateless organizations and ideologies, has brought with it a new appreciation for the interconnectivity of today’s strategic ecosystem. In this “new world order,” converging interests create interdependencies. Our former notion of competition as a zero sum game that allowed for one winner and many losers, seems as inadequate today as Newton’s Laws of Motion (written about the same time as the Westphalia Peace) did to Albert Einstein and quantum physicists in the early Twentieth Century. It is time to move beyond a narrow Westphalian vision of the world, and to recognize the opportunities in globalization.

Such an approach doesn’t advocate the relinquishment of sovereignty as it is understood within a Westphalian construct. Indeed, sovereignty without tyranny is a fundamental American value. Neither does the recognition of a more comprehensive perspective place the interests of American citizens behind, or even on par with those of any other country on earth. It is the popular convergence of interests among peoples, nations, cultures, and movements that will determine the sustainability of prosperity and security in this century. And it is credible influence, based on values and strength that will ensure America’s continuing role as a world leader. Security and prosperity are not sustainable in isolation from the rest of the global system. To close the say-do gap, we must stop behaving as if our national interests can be pursued without regard for our values.

Credible Influence in a Strategic Ecosystem

Viewed in the context of a strategic ecosystem, the global trends and conditions cited earlier are seen to be borderless. The application of credible influence to further our national interests, then, should be less about sovereign borders and geographic regions than the means and scope of its conveyance. By addressing the trends themselves, we will attract others in our environment also affected. These converging interests will create opportunities for both competition and interdependence, opportunities to positively shape these trends to mutual advantage. Whether this involves out-competing the grey and black market, funding research to develop alternate and sustainable sources of energy, adapting farming for low-water-level environments, anticipating and limiting the effects of pandemics, generating viable economies to relieve urbanization and migration, marginalizing extremism and demonstrating the futility of anti-modernism, or better managing the global information grid – international divisions among people will be less the focus than flexible and imaginative cooperation. Isolation – whether within national borders, physical boundaries, ideologies, or cyberspace – will prove to be a great disadvantage for any competitor in the evolution of the system.

The advent of the internet and world wide web, that ushered in the information age and greatly accelerated globalization, brought with it profound second and third order effects the implications of which have yet to be fully recognized or understood. These effects include the near-instantaneous and anonymous exchange of ideas and ideologies; the sharing and manipulation of previously protected and sophisticated technologies; vast and transparent social networking that has homogenized cultures, castes, and classes; the creation of complex virtual worlds; and, a universal dependence on the global grid from every sector of society that has become almost existential. The worldwide web has also facilitated the spread of hateful and manipulative propaganda and extremism; the theft of intellectual property and sensitive information; predatory behavior and the exploitation of innocence; and the dangerous and destructive prospect of cyber warfare waged from the shadows of non-attribution and deception.

Whether this revolution in communication and access to information is viewed as the democratization of ideas, or as the technological catalyst of an apocalypse, nothing has so significantly impacted our lives in the last one hundred years. Our perceptions of self, society, religion, and life itself have been challenged. But cyberspace is yet another dimension within the strategic ecosystem, offering opportunity through complex interdependence. Here, too, we must invest the resources and develop the capabilities necessary to sustain our prosperity and security without sacrificing our values.

Opportunities beyond Threat and Risk

As was stated earlier, while this Strategic Narrative advocates a focus on the opportunities inherent in a complex global system, it does not pretend that greed, corruption, ancient hatreds and new born apprehensions won’t manifest into very real risks that could threaten our national interests and test our values. Americans must recognize this as an inevitable part of the strategic environment and continue to maintain the means to minimize, deter, or defeat these diverging or conflicting interests that threaten our security. This calls for a robust, technologically superior, and agile military – equally capable of responding to low-end, irregular conflicts and to major conventional contingency operations. But it also requires a strong and unshakable economy, a more diverse and deployable Inter Agency, and perhaps most importantly a well-informed and supportive citizenry. As has also been cited, security means far more than defense, and strength denotes more than power. We must remain committed to a whole of nation application of the tools of competition and deterrence: development, diplomacy, and defense. Our ability to look beyond risk and threat – to accept them as realities within a strategic ecology – and to focus on opportunities and converging interests will determine our success in pursuing our national interests in a sustainable manner while maintaining our national values. This requires the projection of credible influence and strength, as well as confidence in our capabilities as a nation.

As we look ahead, we will need to determine what those capabilities should include.

As Americans, our ability to remain relevant as a world leader, to evolve as a nation, depends as it always has on our determination to pursue our national interests within the constraints of our core values. We must embrace and respect diversity and encourage the exchange of ideas, welcoming as our own those who share our values and seek an opportunity to contribute to our nation. Innovation, imagination, and hard work must be applied through a national unity of effort that recognizes our place in the global system. We must accept that to be great requires competition and to remain great requires adaptability, that competition need not demand a single winner, and that through converging interests we should seek interdependencies that can help sustain our interests in the global strategic ecosystem. To achieve this we will need the tools of development, diplomacy and defense – employed with agility through an integrated whole of nation approach. This will require the prioritization of our investments in intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth; investment in the nation’s sustainable security – on our own soil and wherever Americans and their interests take them, including space and cyberspace; and investment in sustainable access to, cultivation and use of, the natural resources we need for our continued wellbeing, prosperity and economic growth in the world marketplace.

Only by developing internal strength through smart growth at home and smart power abroad, applied with strategic agility, can we muster the credible influence needed to remain a world leader.

A National Prosperity and Security Act

Having emerged from the Second World War with the strongest economy, most powerful military, and arguably the most stable model of democracy, President Truman sought to better align America’s security apparatus to face the challenges of the post-war era. He did this through the National Security Act of 1947 (NSA 47). Three years later, with the rise of Chinese communism and the first Russian test of a nuclear device, he ordered his National Security Council to consider the means with which America could confront the global spread of communism. In 1950, President Truman signed into law National Security Council finding 68 (NSC 68). Often called the “blueprint” for America’s Cold War strategy of containment, NSC 68 leveraged not only the National Security structures provided by NSA 47, but recommended funding and authorization for a Department of Defense-led strategy of containment, with other agencies and departments of the Federal government working in supporting roles. NSA 47 and NSC 68 provided the architecture, authorities and necessary resources required for a specific time in our nation’s progress.

Today, we find ourselves in a very different strategic environment than that of the last half of the Twentieth Century. The challenges and opportunities facing us are far more complex, multinodal, and interconnected than we could have imagined in 1950. Rather than narrowly focus on near term risk and solutions for today’s strategic environment, we must recognize the need to take a longer view, a generational view, for the sustainability of our nation’s security and prosperity. Innovation, flexibility, and resilience are critical characteristics to be cultivated if we are to maintain our competitive edge and leadership role in this century. To accomplish this, we must take a hard look at our interagency structures, authorities, and funding proportionalities.

We must seek more flexibility in public / private partnerships and more fungibility across departments. We must provide the means for the functional application of development, diplomacy, and defense rather than continuing to organizationally constrain these tools. We need to pursue our priorities of education, security, and access to natural resources by adopting sustainability as an organizing concept for a national strategy. This will require fundamental changes in policy, law, and organization.

What this calls for is a National Prosperity and Security Act, the modern day equivalent of the National Security Act of 1947. This National Prosperity and Security Act would: integrate policy across agencies and departments of the Federal government and provide for more effective public/private partnerships; increase the capacity of appropriate government departments and agencies; align Federal policies, taxation, research and development expenditures and regulations to coincide with the goals of sustainability; and, converge domestic and foreign policies toward a common purpose. Above all, this Act would provide for policy changes that foster and support the innovation and entrepreneurialism of America that are essential to sustain our qualitative growth as a people and a nation. We need a National Prosperity and Security Act and a clear plan for its application that can serve us as well in this strategic environment, as NSA 47 and NSC 68 served a generation before us.

A Beacon of Hope, a Pathway of Promise

This Narrative advocates for America to pursue her enduring interests of prosperity and security through a strategy of sustainability that is built upon the solid foundation of our national values.

As Americans we needn’t seek the world’s friendship or to proselytize the virtues of our society.

Neither do we seek to bully, intimidate, cajole, or persuade others to accept our unique values or to share our national objectives. Rather, we will let others draw their own conclusions based upon our actions. Our domestic and foreign policies will reflect unity of effort, coherency and constancy of purpose. We will pursue our national interests and allow others to pursue theirs, never betraying our values. We will seek converging interests and welcome interdependence. We will encourage fair competition and will not shy away from deterring bad behavior. We will accept our place in a complex and dynamic strategic ecosystem and use credible influence and strength to shape uncertainty into opportunities. We will be a pathway of promise and a beacon of hope, in an ever changing world.

Mr. Y is a pseudonym for CAPT Wayne Porter, USN and Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby, USMC who are actively serving military officers. The views expressed herein are their own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.

Serge_Tomiko
07-03-11, 01:07 PM
There are two dozen factors that will give the great war its unique qualities but consider one in particular that did not exist during WWII: image driven electronic media.

Image driven electronic media is the most efficient machine of mass belief shaping in human history. It will be used by the state to erase old beliefs and create new ones in a matter of days if not hours.

The Chinese system of mass belief formation already in place erased all awareness of the Tienanmen Square massacre. It will be deployed to help China's leadership externalize China's future economic crisis. China's leadership will blame the US for its crisis once its state finance capital based prosperity ends.


About two weeks ago, I met a Chinese woman from Shanghai. Chinese girls love me, so it was very easy to get her back to my apartment after showing her some fun bars and clubs in Manhattan. The thing I like about Chinese girls is they are quite smart, and when they're not too conservative, they can be both fun in bed and interesting to talk to. She's the third Shanghaiese girl I've gotten back to my humble abode this year. And you know what? The pillow talk has all been the same.

Why don't they renovate the subway stations? Why are your cities infested with a certain ethnic group prone to violence and destruction? Why are there so few new buildings? Why are so many American tourists so fat?

Honestly, the strength of political correctness in the US should demonstrate to any thinking man that it is the United States that has the strongest propaganda apparatus. Every Chinese person I've met is very well aware of the truth, and I think you are very wrong even about Tienanmen Square. How many Americans can even tolerate the truth - obvious to everyone in the world - that it is black people who cause most crimes in our cities? You're probably thinking about deleting this post right now. You'll never find a Chinese person so deluded by mass propaganda they will shy away from that obvious fact.

jk
07-03-11, 02:08 PM
Representative of the military, or merely convenient partisanship?

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf

the problem with "mr y"'s recommendations is not that they don't make sense - they make perfect sense and are not so different from ej's - it is that the american political system is broken. it is easy to unite in the face of a common enemy. that's why there is a saying that used to be mostly true: politics ends at the water's edge. but in a globalized world without a clear enemy, we devolve to zero-sum politics at home, and a politics that is increasingly polarized and extreme.

jpatter666
07-03-11, 03:38 PM
About two weeks ago, I met a Chinese woman from Shanghai. Chinese girls love me, so it was very easy to get her back to my apartment after showing her some fun bars and clubs in Manhattan. The thing I like about Chinese girls is they are quite smart, and when they're not too conservative, they can be both fun in bed and interesting to talk to. She's the third Shanghaiese girl I've gotten back to my humble abode this year. And you know what? The pillow talk has all been the same.

Why don't they renovate the subway stations? Why are your cities infested with a certain ethnic group prone to violence and destruction? Why are there so few new buildings? Why are so many American tourists so fat?

Honestly, the strength of political correctness in the US should demonstrate to any thinking man that it is the United States that has the strongest propaganda apparatus. Every Chinese person I've met is very well aware of the truth, and I think you are very wrong even about Tienanmen Square. How many Americans can even tolerate the truth - obvious to everyone in the world - that it is black people who cause most crimes in our cities? You're probably thinking about deleting this post right now. You'll never find a Chinese person so deluded by mass propaganda they will shy away from that obvious fact.

1 ) Most Chinese women I've met are women of sophistication and taste. Not sure where you are finding yours.... :-)
2 ) Why do you think we care?
3 ) Having just come from China/SE Asia I can assume you that the racism there is just as strong if not stronger -- and *especially* towards blacks. It's the Vietnamese or Tibetans in China, it's the Chinese or Lao's in Vietnam. It's Burmese is Thailand.
4 ) US propaganda is subtle, China is overt -- when we were there it was very hard to get anyone other than the official view.

Certainly the Chinese infrastructure boom was very impressive -- I saw it personally. I also saw it hardly being used. Talk about your capital misallocation!

Of course, what do I expect considering you seem to have Stalin for a personal hero!

Chris Coles
07-03-11, 04:59 PM
the problem with "mr y"'s recommendations is not that they don't make sense - they make perfect sense and are not so different from ej's - it is that the american political system is broken. it is easy to unite in the face of a common enemy. that's why there is a saying that used to be mostly true: politics ends at the water's edge. but in a globalized world without a clear enemy, we devolve to zero-sum politics at home, and a politics that is increasingly polarized and extreme.


You know what came to mind reading through that long statement from "Y" ? Canute, sitting in a chair, watching the tide come in while having a great deal to say ....... but with little effect. We keep hearing the same thing, except, for what it is worth, as a British inventor who discovered that the United States has not the slightest interest in a competitive industrial economy based upon intellectual property; it all comes under that wonderful word, Hyperbole! Or, as the good old Australians say; Bullshit!

Serge_Tomiko
07-03-11, 08:00 PM
Not arguing with (most) of your response. What I had issue with is your statement that the Jews control Wall Street and the US Government. Certainly there *are* Jews in Wall Street, the Government, and my local barbershop. I could likely just as easily come up with a list of Russians, Germans, Irish or red-heads.

Personally, the League of Red-Headed Conspirators has my vote.....

So far as Japan was concerned, Yamamoto had no illusions: "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years." That didn't stop Tojo though. Thinking on how both sides really blundered into war, I have to give EJ's latest commentary more thought. What he claims is to come is *exactly* how the Pacific war came to be last time.

Of course, history never repeats -- but it often rhymes.....

You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.

c1ue
07-03-11, 09:36 PM
So far as Japan was concerned, Yamamoto had no illusions: "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years." That didn't stop Tojo though. Thinking on how both sides really blundered into war, I have to give EJ's latest commentary more thought. What he claims is to come is *exactly* how the Pacific war came to be last time.

The US was embargoing oil into Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.

Is the US embargoing China for anything?

Similarly Japan didn't hold large sums of US Treasuries, nor was there (I believe) a lot of trade.

In this light it is far easier to understand why Tojo did what he did. The facts which Tojo as well as Yamamoto understood (the US being both far larger and more technologically advanced), no one disputes.

jpatter666
07-04-11, 08:56 AM
You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.

Your proof please?

jpatter666
07-04-11, 09:03 AM
The US was embargoing oil into Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.

Is the US embargoing China for anything?

Similarly Japan didn't hold large sums of US Treasuries, nor was there (I believe) a lot of trade.

In this light it is far easier to understand why Tojo did what he did. The facts which Tojo as well as Yamamoto understood (the US being both far larger and more technologically advanced), no one disputes.

Did not China start restricting rare earth exports at one point? What if China starts pressuring the US via it's Treasury holdings? Who says it'll be China being the "trapped" aggressor? I think very well could be the US.

I'm thinking about how both sides felt they were boxed into a corner -- aggravated by misinterpretations by the politicians complemented by a Japanese military decided on eventual conflict (the argument wasn't about going to war, it was whether to attack the US/Britain or the USSR)

I'm just wondering how both sides could blunder into conflict.

metalman
07-04-11, 09:07 AM
Honestly, the strength of political correctness in the US should demonstrate to any thinking man that it is the United States that has the strongest propaganda apparatus. Every Chinese person I've met is very well aware of the truth, and I think you are very wrong even about Tienanmen Square.

really? go ahead. name 1 event in usa history that the usa gov't has erased.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xuuddurPLV8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


How many Americans can even tolerate the truth - obvious to everyone in the world - that it is black people who cause most crimes in our cities? You're probably thinking about deleting this post right now. You'll never find a Chinese person so deluded by mass propaganda they will shy away from that obvious fact.

if more criminals in usa cities are african vs russian or italian... what's your solution? treat all blacks as criminals... like the cops do?

congrats on bedding the racist chinese chicks. they don't know any better. chances are they won't see 1 black guy on the street in a year in china. all they know about blacks is what they watch in usa movies... the ones chinese officials let them see. what's your excuse?

btw, this account by a black guy living in china is hilarious... lists the questions he gets from the locals all the time...

Question #3: So… is it true? Do you have a big penis?
IC: WTF?! Dude, I don’t even know you! What the hell happened to hello? How are you just going to walk up to me on the street, obviously drunk, and ask me some profane shit like that? Of course I do!


Question #4: Can I touch your hair?
IC: What the fuck is this, a petting zoo? Hell naw you can’t touch my hair. What kinda shit is that to ask someone? Can you touch my hair? Get outta here.


http://www.shlaowai.com/2010/03/29/being-black-in-china/

touchring
07-04-11, 10:20 AM
Did not China start restricting rare earth exports at one point? What if China starts pressuring the US via it's Treasury holdings? Who says it'll be China being the "trapped" aggressor? I think very well could be the US.


That's right.

Slimprofits
07-04-11, 10:36 AM
So the military-industrial complex would be one of the "investment sectors"? Welcome back Daddy Warbucks -- if you ever indeed left.....

Certainly if we see any serious mobilization, we are on the cusp. I can not recall a situation when there has been a mass mobilization and those forces have *not* been used.

I've mentioned this before (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/12952-The-ignored-bubble?p=144176#post144176), but If you had invested in humvee manufacturers after 9/11/01, you would have made a literal killing.

c1ue
07-04-11, 11:15 AM
Did not China start restricting rare earth exports at one point? What if China starts pressuring the US via it's Treasury holdings? Who says it'll be China being the "trapped" aggressor? I think very well could be the US.

I'm thinking about how both sides felt they were boxed into a corner -- aggravated by misinterpretations by the politicians complemented by a Japanese military decided on eventual conflict (the argument wasn't about going to war, it was whether to attack the US/Britain or the USSR)

I'm just wondering how both sides could blunder into conflict.

The China rare earths 'delay' was due to a dispute with Japan.

As the US does almost no actual manufacturing using said rare earths, it is silly to say this was a move aimed at the US.

Secondly the US has plenty of rare earths - it simply is cheaper to buy from China. The US is unwilling to undergo the highly polluting, high labor use, low cash returns of rare earth mining/processing:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/26/article-1350811-0CE39E43000005DC-825_634x376.jpg

Inside the Baotou Xijun Rare Earth refinery in Baotou, where neodymium, essential in new wind turbine magnets, is processed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1R9KJtH92

As for Treasury holdings - I'm unclear on what kind of pressure you mean.

Do you mean China desiring to redeem the Treasury paper certificates for electronic dollar bits? Or paper dollars? All of which the US Treasury as well as the Federal Reserve can create out of thin air?

Please present something credible.

Oil in the 1930's was literally the foundation of modern industry. No oil, no factories (assuming you don't have coal, which Japan doesn't).


really? go ahead. name 1 event in usa history that the usa gov't has erased.

I guess it depends on what you mean by erased.

China literally erases via the Great FireWall of China.

The US erases via 'Dancing with the Stars' and starlet sex video tapes.

How much mention is there of the internment of Americans of Japanese descent in WW II?

Of the many-fold abuses of American Indians in the first 150 years of American Independence?

How often is it remarked on the multiple attempts on President's lives in the last 'bad' period: 1973-1985?

metalman
07-04-11, 11:56 AM
I guess it depends on what you mean by erased.

China literally erases via the Great FireWall of China.

The US erases via 'Dancing with the Stars' and starlet sex video tapes.

How much mention is there of the internment of Americans of Japanese descent in WW II?

Of the many-fold abuses of American Indians in the first 150 years of American Independence?

How often is it remarked on the multiple attempts on President's lives in the last 'bad' period: 1973-1985?

people shut out the facts we don't want to hear... not special to americans. show me the intent by gov't to hide these facts. there is none here...

but... i wonder if the usa does not also have a firewall. i have a google alert set up to look for a 3 dozen phrases... one is 'fire economy'

never comes up.

kinda like someone doesn't want the phrase known/used.

bart
07-04-11, 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by Serge_Tomiko http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=201108#post201108) You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.

Your proof please?


Please don't encourage this line, not because there isn't some truth... but rather due to where it ends up. Been there, done that on a few unmoderated forums and it's almost always about hate and spin and similar - and basically worthless in the long run.

If (name of group or religion or country etc.) is really "eeeeeeeeevil" and has supposedly been that way for a long time, the "solution" is usually in the area of euthanasia - to put it politely. And that has never ever ever worked - throughout recorded history.
It sure works to stir up emotion and hate and wars and similar though. ;_AR

jpatter666
07-04-11, 09:07 PM
Good point. ST, consider request withdrawn and further discussion directed to /dev/null

metalman
07-04-11, 10:15 PM
Please don't encourage this line, not because there isn't some truth... but rather due to where it ends up. Been there, done that on a few unmoderated forums and it's almost always about hate and spin and similar - and basically worthless in the long run.

If (name of group or religion or country etc.) is really "eeeeeeeeevil" and has supposedly been that way for a long time, the "solution" is usually in the area of euthanasia - to put it politely. And that has never ever ever worked - throughout recorded history.
It sure works to stir up emotion and hate and wars and similar though. ;_AR

i recall a flotilla of refugees arriving at itulip from a certain right wing site... back in 2006... by my reckoning... daily :(

touchring
07-05-11, 12:54 AM
Why are there so few new buildings?


Speaking of new buildings, no country or city can beat Singapore, where buildings just 10 years old are being demolished and replaced with new ones.

c1ue
07-05-11, 01:33 AM
people shut out the facts we don't want to hear... not special to americans. show me the intent by gov't to hide these facts. there is none here...

I don't think you need to try very hard to see how specific areas have the data hidden or ignored.

The difference is simply a more sophisticated understanding of "information management".

For example: the US reconnaissance plane that collided with a mainland Chinese fighter some years back. Try and find the data for exactly where said recon plane was at the time of collision.

It isn't that the data doesn't exist or is a national security issue.

It is that it is simply left out..."forgotten"

For that matter, what about Gary Webb's work?

Sharky
07-05-11, 02:26 AM
I'm just wondering how both sides could blunder into conflict.

History is full of examples. Typically, one side misjudges the importance to the other about something, or they assume a rational response (and the time to form one) and get an emotional one instead. Cultural differences can play a huge role. I don't think most Americans understand how far apart Chinese and American cultures and values really are from one another.

Regional conflict escalation is an easy case. China depends heavily on Iran for oil. What if something bad happens there? Will China choose a side? I bet they will.

touchring
07-05-11, 05:36 AM
History is full of examples. Typically, one side misjudges the importance to the other about something, or they assume a rational response (and the time to form one) and get an emotional one instead. Cultural differences can play a huge role. I don't think most Americans understand how far apart Chinese and American cultures and values really are from one another.

Regional conflict escalation is an easy case. China depends heavily on Iran for oil. What if something bad happens there? Will China choose a side? I bet they will.


In my opinion Chinese culture is a subset of American culture - just remove the religion and values, and you'll get Chinese culture.

bart
07-05-11, 06:55 AM
i recall a flotilla of refugees arriving at itulip from a certain right wing site... back in 2006... by my reckoning... daily :(

rimshot!

iTulip is and was a refuge... and civil, I reckon. :(

ash777
07-05-11, 11:26 AM
Your proof please?

http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-wall-street/

Summary:
Of the fifty-one(51) senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies, thirty-seven(37) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 72%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies by a factor of 36 times(3,600 percent).
* Jewish Population of the United States by State:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

shiny!
07-06-11, 11:51 AM
http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-wall-street/

Summary:
Of the fifty-one(51) senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies, thirty-seven(37) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 72%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies by a factor of 36 times(3,600 percent).
* Jewish Population of the United States by State:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

Speaking as someone who is Jewish on one side of the family, I've always attributed the disproportionate numbers of Jews represented in finance throughout the ages as being a result of Jewish culture and Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education than many other minorities do. And once "in", it's easier for up and coming Jews just entering the workforce to network with family friends already on the inside. You can see this with all sorts of minorities in various fields that they tend to dominate.

You can also see this kind of disproportionate representation among Sikhs in India.. Sikhs are a small minority but are "disproportionally" represented in business because they value education and hard work, perhaps moreso than many people who believe they will have to wait to be born into a better incarnation in order to prosper. This is probably changing now with the growing middle-class in India, but for many years it was true.

Polish_Silver
07-06-11, 12:20 PM
Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education


I find this kind of explaination very convincing. Jews are also "way out of proportion" in physics departments, the Manhattan project,
and during the 1960's, doctors offices. Somebody should tally the nobel prizes. I am betting more than 30% are going to people at least partly jewish.

bart
07-06-11, 02:42 PM
Just googled it (and no, I'm not Jewish):


The Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation of Sweden to men and women who have rendered the greatest service to humankind. Between 1901 and 2008, more than 750 Nobel Prizes were handed out. Of these, at least 163 are Jews.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nobels.html

ash777
07-06-11, 03:25 PM
Speaking as someone who is Jewish on one side of the family, I've always attributed the disproportionate numbers of Jews represented in finance throughout the ages as being a result of Jewish culture and Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education than many other minorities do. And once "in", it's easier for up and coming Jews just entering the workforce to network with family friends already on the inside. You can see this with all sorts of minorities in various fields that they tend to dominate.

You can also see this kind of disproportionate representation among Sikhs in India.. Sikhs are a small minority but are "disproportionally" represented in business because they value education and hard work, perhaps moreso than many people who believe they will have to wait to be born into a better incarnation in order to prosper. This is probably changing now with the growing middle-class in India, but for many years it was true.

It's called 'nepotism'.


---Culture of Critique, Preface to the First Paperback Edition
Prof. Kevin MacDonald, California State University Long Beach
<snip>**snip**
Although there is much evidence that Europeans presented a spirited defense
of their cultural and ethnic hegemony in the early- to mid-20th century, their rapid
decline raises the question: What cultural or ethnic characteristics of Europeans
made them susceptible to the intellectual and political movements described in
CofC? The discussion in CofC focused mainly on a proposed nexus of
individualism, relative lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral
universalism—all features that are entirely foreign to Judaism. In several places
in all three of my books on Judaism I develop the view that Europeans are
relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to
individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures
historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to
this discussion—Jewish groups. I update and extend these ideas here.

The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by
strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less
powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive,
cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy
on Judaism. This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to
individualism. Individualist cultures show little emotional attachment to
ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the
importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding
yourself” (Triandis 1991, 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward
strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social,
altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of
ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes
toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little
emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of
common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in
individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that
there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are
culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while
collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups
(Triandis 1990, 61). Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for
between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.

Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than
typical Western societies. I make this argument in Separation and Its Discontents
(MacDonald 1998a; Ch. 1) and especially in A People That Shall Dwell Alone
(MacDonald 1994; Ch. 8), where I suggest that over the course of their recent
evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than
Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This was originally proposed by
Fritz Lenz (1931, 657) who suggested that, because of the harsh environment of
the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency
toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective would not
imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group
competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or
require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically
adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse
physical environment than at competing with other groups (Southwood 1977,
1981), and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for
extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Evolutionary
conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in
group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in
combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support
large groups.

European groups are part of what Burton et al. (1996) term the North Eurasian
and Circumpolar culture area.9 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers
adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure
for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because
the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily
significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship
relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more
equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of
monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and
marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). As discussed
below, all of these characteristics are opposite those found among Jews.

<snip></snip></snip><snip><snip></snip></snip><snip>**snip**

</snip>"Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism
and hyper-ethnocentrism—a phenomenon that goes a long way
toward explaining the chronic hostilities in the area. I give many examples of
Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy and have suggested in several places
that Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is biologically based (MacDonald 1994, Ch. 8;
1998a, Ch. 1). It was noted above that individualist European cultures tend to be
more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard,
it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense
fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite
pattern is found for infants from North Germany.14 The Israeli infants were much
more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the
North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli
babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the
North German babies were the opposite—findings that fit with the hypothesis
that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and
ethnocentrism."

**snip**
<snip></snip>

llanlad2
07-06-11, 04:31 PM
Personally I believe Jews were involved in money because within the other monotheistic religions money lending at interest was sinful. It wasn't until the late 1400s that it was decriminalised so to speak. Hence Jews were an integral part of finance and banking. Raising capital was dependant upon this. Additionally within the Torah it is ok to lend money at interest to Gentiles but not other Jews.
Equally important is that the Jews were forever being persecuted and expelled from all parts of Europe and often denied equal rights. Therefore it was natuarl for them to be merchants as other forms of trade/permanent settlement were denied to them. They couldn't join guilds for example.

As a result of the above, Jews through circumastances outside their control did not have many options. However the options open to them lent themselves to becoming wealthy,entrepreneurial, numerate, multi-lingual and ready to run for the hills pretty sharp. If you were a Jew without those qualities you wouldn't last long.

Some deep grained/in bred idea of Nepotism has little to do with any of the above it's just a result of environment.

Below is taken from Wikipedia on Lombard Banking which was forerunner of central banking.



History of Lombard Banking
Main articles: History of pawnbroking and Pawnbroker

A Christian prohibition on profit from money 'without working' made banking sinful. Though Pope Leo the Great forbade charging interest on loans by canon law, it was not forbidden to take collateral on loans. Pawn shops thus operate on the basis of a contract that fixes in advance the 'fine' for not respecting the nominal term of the 'interest free' loan, or alternatively, may structure a sale-repurchase by the 'borrower' where the interest is implicit in the repurchase price. Similar conventions exist in modern Islamic banking. As no economy or money-based society can prosper without any credit, various ways around the prohibition were devised, so that the lowly pawnshop contractors could bundle their risk and investment for larger undertakings. Christianity and Judaism generally ban usury, but allow usury towards heretics. Thus Christians could lend to Jews and vice versa. The only real necessity for a young man who desired a future in the financial world of the Middle Ages was the ability to read and write; the methods used for bookkeeping were carefully kept within families and slowly spread along trade routes. Therefore, this knowledge was available most readily to Jesuits and Jews, who consequently played a major role in European finance. Generally the Jesuits took the role of go-between with heads of state, while the Jews manned the low-end pawnshops. This explains the disproportionately large share of Jews in the goldsmith trade and early diamond market (diamonds being a lightweight alternative to gold).

It comes as no surprise that the pawn shops of Rome were the most prosperous of all, especially in the 15th century under Popes Pius IV and Sixtus V. This Italian 'Lombard' pawn shop method became famous. The use of the term 'Lombard' for pawn shop grew slowly from city to city, and became prevalent in Cahors, southern France, from where the Christian Cahorsins moved as far North as London[1] and Amsterdam in the 13th century; at the latter, they were called Cahorsijnen, Cawarsini or Coarsini.[2]
[edit]
15th and 16th centuries

In 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain signed a decree expelling all Jews who refused to be converted to Christianity. A considerable number moved into Portugal. Many members of the migrant Jewish community in Portugal proceeded to become wealthy in commercially successful Portuguese port cities. Being forced on the move, Jewish families remained mobile and quickly developed international family agencies for growing brokerage houses involved with shipping. Such family networks of mobile Jewish "lombards" migrated from port city to city with the Spanish Inquisition and created international networks. In France the Lombards became synonymous with the Cahorsins. Most European cities still have a street named Lombard Street after the pawn shop that once housed there. In Dutch, the name for a pawn shop is still lommerd, and the same etymology persists in the names of various banks (unless named after some family). In Polish and Russian, a pawn shop is called simply lombard.

ash777
07-06-11, 04:31 PM
I find this kind of explaination very convincing. Jews are also "way out of proportion" in physics departments, the Manhattan project,
and during the 1960's, doctors offices. Somebody should tally the nobel prizes. I am betting more than 30% are going to people at least partly jewish.

Nobel Prize is a joke - even Obama got one.

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud

by Ian Mosley

http://us.altermedia.info/images/Einstein.jpg
Albert Einstein is today revered as “the Father of Modern Science”. His wrinkled face and wild hair has become a symbol for scientific genius and “his” famous E = mc^2 equation is repeatedly used as the symbol for something scientific and intellectual. And yet there has for years been mounting evidence that this “Father of Modern Science” was nothing but a con man, lying about his ideas and achievements, and stealing the work and the research of others.
The most glaring evidence against Einstein concerns “his” most famous equation. One website (http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/emc2.htm) notes “The equation E=mc^2, which has been forever linked to Einstein & his Theory of Relativity was not originally published by Einstein. According to Umberto Bartocci, a professor at the University of Perugia and a historian of mathematics, this famous equation was first published by Olinto De Pretto …two years prior to Einstein’s publishing of the equation. In 1903 De Pretto published his equation in the scientific magazine Atte and in 1904 it was republished by the Royal Science Institute of Veneto. Einstein’s research was not published until 1905… Einstein was well versed in Italian and even lived in Northern Italy for a brief time.”
It is unheard of to pass over the original inventor of an equation and to give credit to someone, who claims to have derived it AFTER the equation and its derivation have been published. The equation “E=mc^2″ should be called the “De Pretto Equation” not the “Einstein Equation.”
This raises the question: “What sort of man was Einstein?” Is there evidence that he may have been prone to unethical behavior? One website (http://www.2ubh.com/features/Einstein.html) reports “Einstein… was still far from the ideal husband. A year before they married, Maric gave birth to a daughter, Lieserl, while Einstein was away. The child’s fate is unknown – she is presumed to have been given up for adoption, perhaps under pressure from Einstein, who is thought to have never seen his first born. After the marriage, Mileva bore two sons but the family was not to stay together. Einstein began an affair with his cousin Elsa Lowenthal while on a trip to Berlin in 1912, leaving Mileva and his family two years later. Einstein and Mileva finally divorced in 1919, but not until after Einstein sent his wife a list of ‘conditions’ under which he was willing to remain married. The list included such autocratic demands as ‘You are neither to expect intimacy nor to reproach me in any way’. After the divorce, he saw little of his sons. The elder, Hans Albert, later reflected ‘Probably the only project he ever gave up on was me.’ The younger, Eduard, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and died in an asylum. Einstein married Elsa soon after the divorce, but a few years later began an affair with Betty Neumann, the niece of a friend… Accusations of plagiarism aren’t limited to Mileva – it’s also been claimed that Einstein stole the work of a host of other physicists. One question which may remain moot is quite how much Einstein drew from the work of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare in formulating the theory of special relativity. Elements of Einstein’s 1905 paper paralleled parts of a 1904 paper by Lorentz and a contemporary paper by Poincare. Although Einstein read earlier papers by the two, he claimed not to have seen these later works before writing the 1905 paper. One apparently damning fact is that the 1905 paper on special relativity had no references, suggesting that Einstein was consciously hiding his tracks.”
One source (http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/history-1.html)notes “David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein.” Another source (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm)notes “Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.” Apparently Hilbert’s work was soon to become “Einstein’s work.”
The historic record is readily available and the truth is known to many scientists and historians, even if they are afraid to say anything. The idea that light had a finite speed was proven by Michelson and Morley decades before Einstein. Hendrik Lorentz determined the equations showing relativistic time and length contractions which become significant as the speed of light is approached. These gentlemen along with David Hilbert and Olinto De Pretto have been airbrushed out of the picture so that Einstein could be given the credit for what they had done.
Einstein appeared to latch onto his first wife, a much more talented student three years his senior, to compensate for his own limited abilities. Another website (http://home.comcast.net/%7Extxinc/prioritymyth.htm)notes: “…in 1927, H. Thirring wrote, ‘H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein’s first work (1905). . . .’ Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, (1953), included a chapter entitled ‘The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz’. Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker’s famous book. . .”
Einstein was a minor contributor at best and in any case an intellectual thief and pretentious braggart. Einstein was still alive when Whitaker’s book was published and he said NOTHING about it. No libel suit, no refutation, no public comment at all.
Einstein was the first great fraudster and idea-thief in modern science. His theft of Olinto De Pretto’s equation E = mc^2 gave him considerable scientific credibility which he built a career on. De Pretto was not a career physicist and spent his life as an industrialist, passing away in 1921. De Pretto had published his equation twice before Einstein and was no doubt amazed that someone could claim credit for his work. Einstein used and eventually discarded his first wife, Mileva, who was a much more brilliant student than Einstein and is suspected of writing much of Einstein’s early work. (She may have been reluctant to expose Einstein since he was still the father of her children.) David Hilbert’s work on the equations for Special Relativity was submitted for publication before Einstein and was sent to Einstein as correspondence. Einstein claimed credit for the equations which Hilbert derived. (David Hilbert passed away in 1943.)
Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein’s students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word “heresy” to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist.


http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/albert-einstein-plagiarist-and-fraud_1295.html

llanlad2
07-06-11, 05:02 PM
Laughable. Only a complete ignoramus would state that he wasn't a great physicist. He certainly didn't plagiarise the General Theory of Relativity which is a whole bigger ball game compared to special theory of relativity. It's the General Theory that blew everyone away.

bart
07-06-11, 05:06 PM
Nobel Prize is a joke - even Obama got one.

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud

by Ian Mosley
...




http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/stop_spin.gif

jiimbergin
07-06-11, 05:07 PM
Laughable. Only a complete ignoramus would state that he wasn't a great physicist. He certainly didn't plagiarise the General Theory of Relativity which is a whole bigger ball game compared to special theory of relativity. It's the General Theory that blew everyone away.

+1

jiimbergin
07-06-11, 05:07 PM
http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/stop_spin.gif

+1

jk
07-06-11, 09:57 PM
einstein won his nobel for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. brownian motion, special relativity and the equivalence of matter and energy just happened to come out the same year. pretty good for a guy who, according to some on this board, was just an ordinary doofus.

Jay
07-06-11, 11:14 PM
the problem with "mr y"'s recommendations is not that they don't make sense - they make perfect sense and are not so different from ej's - it is that the american political system is broken. it is easy to unite in the face of a common enemy. that's why there is a saying that used to be mostly true: politics ends at the water's edge. but in a globalized world without a clear enemy, we devolve to zero-sum politics at home, and a politics that is increasingly polarized and extreme.
The broken American political system is a symptom of a vapid consumeristic country wallowing in debt that has hollowed out its middle class. Until the debt is cleared, the pie will continue to shrink and conversations at all levels will take on the tone of a zero-sum game. In my opinion TECI is impossible and has always been impossible unless the debt level is cleared. The desires of those in engaged in political conversation within the system do not matter when the rules of the game call for the pieces to become more scarce. The economy will not recover in real terms if the debt overhead doesn't change or wages don't increase enough to cover debt servicing, so the conversation won't recover either.

I also believe that the only way the existing power structure stays in power long term is if the debt machine can start cranking again. They will never let the debt level clear willfully. Debt is power and it provides structure. So those that gain from the existing debt pyramid will start it again, and try and control the "upstarts" who want to protest. Public or private debt is less important than increasing the overall level of debt. As debt levels grow, politics stay broken as there will be no real economic growth, no real middle class, and no possible fruitful dialog. High debt levels destroy the middle class and you need a vibrant educated middle class to have an educated political dialog. If you are an oligarch, things have been going swimmingly for the last few years.

The ironic thing is that politics does end at the water's edge. That edge isn't Commies, or Chinese, or Muslims, or Terrorists, but Debt. Both parties have one mission, one agreement, and that is to increase debt levels. Anyone in federal politics that doesn't believe this mantra is an outsider and considered a grave threat by those who support the debt system. This is what financial imperialism looks like.

Democrats, entitlements; Rebublicans, war. Water's edge.

The only way I see the powers that be creating enough debt to get this turkey flying again is to have a huge war. Carbon Money might have done it.

touchring
07-06-11, 11:53 PM
Speaking as someone who is Jewish on one side of the family, I've always attributed the disproportionate numbers of Jews represented in finance throughout the ages as being a result of Jewish culture and Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education than many other minorities do. And once "in", it's easier for up and coming Jews just entering the workforce to network with family friends already on the inside. You can see this with all sorts of minorities in various fields that they tend to dominate.

You can also see this kind of disproportionate representation among Sikhs in India.. Sikhs are a small minority but are "disproportionally" represented in business because they value education and hard work, perhaps moreso than many people who believe they will have to wait to be born into a better incarnation in order to prosper. This is probably changing now with the growing middle-class in India, but for many years it was true.


I believe that Jews are genetically smarter than most people, but there's always a trade off in life. Smart in finance or science doesn't mean that you're good in governance.

China overcome this by having sub-races that are good at different stuff. Northern Chinese and Hakka Chinese (a roving group) are good at governance, North Eastern Chinese good at military (Manchurian), Eastern (shanghai) and Central Chinese good at commerce, Southern Chinese good at international relations and trade, and Western Chinese good at science. Even though originally of different race, intermixing over two millenniums ensure that all have at least one part in three or four that is in common - the Han ancestry - that ties them together.

ash777
07-07-11, 12:34 AM
I believe that Jews are genetically smarter than most people, but there's always a trade off in life. Smart in finance or science doesn't mean that you're good in governance.


Kevin MacDonald: Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained

**snip**

In a 1998 op-ed (”Some minorities are more minor than others”), Ron Unz pointed out “Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population. Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America” (See also Edmund Connelly’s take.) A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads. (Princeton had only 13% Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over 6 times the Jewish percentage in the population to around 10 times.)

Jews therefore constitute a vastly disproportionate share of the population classified as White at elite universities. Data from an earlier study by Espenshade show that around half of the students at elite universities are classified as White, suggesting that Jews and non-Jews classified as White are approximately equal in numbers. (Given that students from the Middle East are also classified as White, there is the suggestion that Jews outnumber non-Jewish students of Christian European descent.)

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

**snip**

These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; I can’t find the NYTimes article on the web.) Clearly anything less that 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.

The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. As noted previously, the poster child for this corruption is the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The fact that she is a Princeton graduate now makes even more sense given that when she went to Princeton the percentage of Jews was around 18% — more in line with the de facto affirmative action policies favoring Jews that we see now in most Ivy League universities.
Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population.
**snip**

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Harvard1.bmp


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Harvard.html

Chris Coles
07-07-11, 03:49 AM
Speaking as someone who is Jewish on one side of the family, I've always attributed the disproportionate numbers of Jews represented in finance throughout the ages as being a result of Jewish culture and Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education than many other minorities do. And once "in", it's easier for up and coming Jews just entering the workforce to network with family friends already on the inside. You can see this with all sorts of minorities in various fields that they tend to dominate.

You can also see this kind of disproportionate representation among Sikhs in India.. Sikhs are a small minority but are "disproportionally" represented in business because they value education and hard work, perhaps moreso than many people who believe they will have to wait to be born into a better incarnation in order to prosper. This is probably changing now with the growing middle-class in India, but for many years it was true.

I too am not a Jew, but for nearly a decade, my best friend was. I came to deeply respect him for his openness and ability to debate every subject under the sun. Certainly, my experience, (while I do have other Jewish acquaintances, my lifetime experience is limited), is that the above statement is true.

Chris Coles
07-07-11, 03:58 AM
It's called 'nepotism'.


---Culture of Critique, Preface to the First Paperback Edition
Prof. Kevin MacDonald, California State University Long Beach
<snip>**snip**
Although there is much evidence that Europeans presented a spirited defense
of their cultural and ethnic hegemony in the early- to mid-20th century, their rapid
decline raises the question: What cultural or ethnic characteristics of Europeans
made them susceptible to the intellectual and political movements described in
CofC? The discussion in CofC focused mainly on a proposed nexus of
individualism, relative lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral
universalism—all features that are entirely foreign to Judaism. In several places
in all three of my books on Judaism I develop the view that Europeans are
relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to
individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures
historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to
this discussion—Jewish groups. I update and extend these ideas here.

The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by
strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less
powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive,
cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy
on Judaism. This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to
individualism. Individualist cultures show little emotional attachment to
ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the
importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding
yourself” (Triandis 1991, 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward
strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social,
altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of
ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes
toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little
emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of
common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in
individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that
there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are
culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while
collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups
(Triandis 1990, 61). Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for
between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.

Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than
typical Western societies. I make this argument in Separation and Its Discontents
(MacDonald 1998a; Ch. 1) and especially in A People That Shall Dwell Alone
(MacDonald 1994; Ch. 8), where I suggest that over the course of their recent
evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than
Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This was originally proposed by
Fritz Lenz (1931, 657) who suggested that, because of the harsh environment of
the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency
toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective would not
imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group
competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or
require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically
adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse
physical environment than at competing with other groups (Southwood 1977,
1981), and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for
extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Evolutionary
conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in
group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in
combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support
large groups.

European groups are part of what Burton et al. (1996) term the North Eurasian
and Circumpolar culture area.9 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers
adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure
for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because
the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily
significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship
relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more
equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of
monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and
marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). As discussed
below, all of these characteristics are opposite those found among Jews.

<snip></snip></snip><snip><snip></snip></snip><snip>**snip**

</snip>"Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism
and hyper-ethnocentrism—a phenomenon that goes a long way
toward explaining the chronic hostilities in the area. I give many examples of
Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy and have suggested in several places
that Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is biologically based (MacDonald 1994, Ch. 8;
1998a, Ch. 1). It was noted above that individualist European cultures tend to be
more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard,
it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense
fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite
pattern is found for infants from North Germany.14 The Israeli infants were much
more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the
North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli
babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the
North German babies were the opposite—findings that fit with the hypothesis
that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and
ethnocentrism."

**snip**
<snip></snip>

Now this gets much more interesting. if this is to be believed, I am a CLASSIC European individualist.

But surely the answer to the many questions raised is to start a new debate about the need for all such cultures, Jews being a good example, to recognise that they end up in the same position as any group who exclude new "Blood"; they eventually degrade their own sub-group through a lack of genetic diversity?

Ergo; being the dominant group today; does not prevent them from future collapse from a lack of diversity. They may well have built into their culture the mechanism for their own long term demise.

Chris Coles
07-07-11, 04:11 AM
Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein’s students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word “heresy” to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist.


http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/albert-einstein-plagiarist-and-fraud_1295.html

While not a academic, but having worked for some years at a time with some very respected academics; yet too, have been treated as a "heretic" by others and seen with my own eyes, how many academics have deep difficulties with new thinking from others, I can well believe this account to be true.

The problem is a lack of leadership. Any original thinker always has to deal with periods of time, sometimes very lengthy, when their "well" dries up for one reason or another. But today, modern science has become so competitive, and academic status is so driven by a need for a constant flow of results; then the combination of a fear of losing credibility, and the desperate need for a constant flow of new thinking, published papers; must inevitable lead to plagiarism. Indeed, there are many recorded cases; so it would not be credible to suggest that it does not occur.

Today, I believe that science has a desperate need for new leadership. But, sadly, that change will almost certainly have to wait for the "passing of the old guard" before the necessary change will occur.

cjppjc
07-07-11, 09:26 AM
Please don't encourage this line, not because there isn't some truth... but rather due to where it ends up. Been there, done that on a few unmoderated forums and it's almost always about hate and spin and similar - and basically worthless in the long run.



Too bad. You did try. Now this good article by EJ has taken on a odor not in keeping with the original thoughts.

Munger
07-07-11, 11:45 AM
I find this kind of explaination very convincing. Jews are also "way out of proportion" in physics departments, the Manhattan project,
and during the 1960's, doctors offices. Somebody should tally the nobel prizes. I am betting more than 30% are going to people at least partly jewish.

Studies have confirmed that the Ashkenazi have significantly higher IQ than most other populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence). While one standard deviation doesn't make a remarkable difference at the thick end of the normal curve, it will have huge effects at the upper spectrum. This is sufficient to explain why there are so many Ashkenazi physicists, economists, chess grandmasters, financiers, mathematicians, etc etc etc -- all fields with high cognitive demands. Vitiates any basis for bizarre and unlikely conspiracy theories.

jk
07-07-11, 11:46 AM
Too bad. You did try. Now this good article by EJ has taken on a odor not in keeping with the original thoughts.

+1. surely there are other sites around the web that would welcome racist discussion. quoting 1931 "studies" about the "nordic race"? hmmm

we_are_toast
07-07-11, 12:01 PM
You people are all crazy! There have been many studies showing that Intelligence is directly proportional to wheat consumption. But not just any wheat, it has to be in the form of bread. But again, not just any bread. People eating unleavened bread tend not to be as intelligent as people eating a well baked rye, for example. But of course, the most intelligent people of all, are people who have a fascination with;

"Toast" :)

Not to change the subject but, here's something Paul Krugman was saying about the output gap awhile ago.


...
Wait, there’s more. Ben Bernanke can’t push on a string – but he can pull, if necessary. Suppose fiscal policy ends up being too expansionary, so that real GDP “wants” to come in 2 percent above potential. In that case the Fed can tighten a bit, and no harm is done. But if fiscal policy is too contractionary, and real GDP comes in below potential, there’s no potential monetary offset. That means that fiscal policy should take risks in the direction of boldness.

So what kinds of numbers are we talking about? GDP next year will be about $15 trillion, so 1% of GDP is $150 billion. The natural rate of unemployment is, say, 5% — maybe lower. Given Okun’s law, every excess point of unemployment above 5 means a 2% output gap.

Right now, we’re at 6.5% unemployment and a 3% output gap – but those numbers are heading higher fast. Goldman predicts 8.5% unemployment, meaning a 7% output gap. That sounds reasonable to me.

So we need a fiscal stimulus big enough to close a 7% output gap. Remember, if the stimulus is too big, it does much less harm than if it’s too small. What’s the multiplier? Better, we hope, than on the early-2008 package. But you’d be hard pressed to argue for an overall multiplier as high as 2.

...

jiimbergin
07-07-11, 12:34 PM
+1. surely there are other sites around the web that would welcome racist discussion. quoting 1931 "studies" about the "nordic race"? hmmm

+1 +1

touchring
07-07-11, 12:56 PM
I see this as economics and political talk. Without talking about groups of people, how do you perform a complete analysis?

Al Qaeda, Osama's 'grievances', Sept 11, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, America's debt crisis, they are all related. Obama is smart in addressing this issue, but it might be too late or he doesn't have the power.

The Art of War


So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

bart
07-07-11, 01:04 PM
Too bad. You did try. Now this good article by EJ has taken on a odor not in keeping with the original thoughts.

Hopefully Fred or admin will come up with something to help avoid this type of "special" topic and thread hijack - and odor too.

Perhaps start a "Jooz" or MENA thread/section and move initial posts there... :(

ash777
07-07-11, 02:27 PM
Studies have confirmed that the Ashkenazi have significantly higher IQ than most other populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence). While one standard deviation doesn't make a remarkable difference at the thick end of the normal curve, it will have huge effects at the upper spectrum. This is sufficient to explain why there are so many Ashkenazi physicists, economists, chess grandmasters, financiers, mathematicians, etc etc etc -- all fields with high cognitive demands. Vitiates any basis for bizarre and unlikely conspiracy theories.

From the same wikipedia entry:

Lynn in his 2006 book Race Differences in Intelligence writes that Israel has an average IQ of only about 95. Lynn explains this by breaking down the Israeli population into three components: 40 percent Ashkenazi Jews with an average IQ of 103; 40 percent Sephardi Jews (Oriental Jewish) with an average IQ of 91; and 20 percent Arab with an average IQ of 86. Lynn suggests these differences could have arisen from selective migration (more intelligent Jews emigrated to Britain and the USA), intermarriage with neighboring populations with different average IQs, selective survival through persecution (European Jews were the most persecuted), and the presence of ethnic non-Jews among the Ashkenazim in Israel as a result of the immigration of people from the former Soviet Bloc countries who posed as Jews.
David and Lynn in a 2007 literature review examined the average IQ of European (largely Ashkenazi) and Sephardic Jews in Israel and found a 14 point lower average score for the Sephardic Jews. The authors argue that this can be explained by the hypothesis of Cochran et al. since Sephardic Jews were allowed to work in a much wider range of occupations and therefore did not come under the evolutionary pressure described in the Cochran et al. study.[12]
A 2010 study by Bray et al. genotyped 471 unrelated Azkhenazi individuals and write that most of the diseases are not under strong positive selection, but rather rose to their current frequency through genetic drift after a population bottleneck. They also write that the Azkhenazi population are less isolated than previously thought with between 35 and 55 percent of the modern Ashkenazi genome coming from European descent.[13]

And from post 140:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/19599-The-Next-Ten-Years-%C2%96-Part-I-There-will-be-blood-Eric-Janszen?p=201370#post201370

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

Chris Coles
07-07-11, 05:41 PM
Hopefully Fred or admin will come up with something to help avoid this type of "special" topic and thread hijack - and odor too.

Perhaps start a "Jooz" or MENA thread/section and move initial posts there... :(

It seems my previous posts were taken in the wrong way; I was not, from my own starting point, aiming to include anything that was considered racist and if anything that I have posted here has been taken in that way, it was entirely not intended and I apologize for any offense that may have been given.

This thread is on the subject of the potential for a war to stem from the collapse of the economies of the West; surely it is a valid topic to look at the dominant group that have led to the collapse? Their underlying thinking and where that line of thought stems from?

jiimbergin
07-07-11, 05:50 PM
Hopefully Fred or admin will come up with something to help avoid this type of "special" topic and thread hijack - and odor too.

Perhaps start a "Jooz" or MENA thread/section and move initial posts there... :(

That would be great. Hopefully it happens soon.

bart
07-07-11, 05:59 PM
That would be great. Hopefully it happens soon.

Indeed.

The incessant "proselytizing" and comments about "the dominant group" (insert eyerolls to taste) and continual thread hijack is unwelcome.

Maybe he'll get a clue and start a new thread himself.

charliebrown
07-07-11, 07:27 PM
Sorry if this is a stupid ah ha moment.

But are the war drums against Iran then really a ruse for war drums beating for the Chinese?

The scary thing is, Iran is building a nuke. They are showing their prowess in missiles by having test fires. I assume once they have nuke they will light one off in the desert for a demo too. It dosen't have to be good one, a crappy 20Kt gun type bomb that just makes heat and noise will suffice.

What will be the West's response?
If they bomb Iran what will be China's response?

How much oil do the Chinese get from Iran?

One would think that if we had plans to bomb Iran we would not be siphoning off oil for the SPR.
Although the people running the place are not very good at looking more than one step ahead.

jpetr48
07-07-11, 07:49 PM
Sorry if this is a stupid ah ha moment.


What will be the West's response?
If they bomb Iran what will be China's response?

How much oil do the Chinese get from Iran?


Pretty confusing, uh? Oil will be a casualty in this war but the target is Israel. You will see an alliance of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Central Asian and Far East Asian leaders. They just met for tea at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit held in the Kazakhstan capital of Astana. The SCO, formed in 2001, is widely seen a rival to NATO. There, Ahmadinejad delivered a blistering speech against the “slavers and colonizers” of the West, called for a new world order, including the building of an anti-Western military and political alliance.

An Associated Press report quotes Ahmadinejad as calling on Russia, China and Central Asian countries “to form a united front against the West.”

So as this plays out, I am certain Israel will be the major front. Because Ahmadinejad thinks big, my guess is a multi-staged attack not only in Israel but also chemical, bio warfare used in major financial metro areas in US and Europe.
Like all the other record disasters in weather, earthquakes, etc, this will be unlike any war our nation or Israel has experienced.

KGW
07-07-11, 08:51 PM
Do you know of the emphasis on the first 3 Sefiros? Pretty much explains it, no genes involved. They are: chochmah (wisdom), binah (understanding) and da'as (knowledge).



Studies have confirmed that the Ashkenazi have significantly higher IQ than most other populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence). While one standard deviation doesn't make a remarkable difference at the thick end of the normal curve, it will have huge effects at the upper spectrum. This is sufficient to explain why there are so many Ashkenazi physicists, economists, chess grandmasters, financiers, mathematicians, etc etc etc -- all fields with high cognitive demands. Vitiates any basis for bizarre and unlikely conspiracy theories.

touchring
07-08-11, 12:36 AM
What will be the West's response?
If they bomb Iran what will be China's response?

How much oil do the Chinese get from Iran?


My take is that China is not capable nor willing to make a military response, but can surely make a tactical economic response, e.g. order banks and corps not to do lend or do business with the culprit country, etc.

At the end of the day, $$$ talks. I'm sure there is plenty of behind the scene negotiating and "arm twisting" that we do not know.

If Iran creates the nuclear bomb and the other Arab countries also want a bomb for themselves, what will happen? At the present moment, Saudi Arabia and Iran are run being by rational thinking governments, so even if they got the bomb, no one is going to use it. But what happens in the future, say 20 years down the road, if someone like Gaddafi or Saddam Husein seizes control? Mad people that would even sacrifice their own family members to maintain control.

So ultimately who will pay for the price of the "Age of the Greed" that Krugman talked about?

Chris Coles
07-08-11, 04:11 AM
If Iran creates the nuclear bomb and the other Arab countries also want a bomb for themselves, what will happen? At the present moment, Saudi Arabia and Iran are run being by rational thinking governments, so even if they got the bomb, no one is going to use it. But what happens in the future, say 20 years down the road, if someone like Gaddafi or Saddam Husein seizes control? Mad people that would even sacrifice their own family members to maintain control.?

I was struck by the recent report on BBC Newsnight that stated Pakistan had 160 Nukes and is building 16 every year. Not a wonder that many are becoming nervous about the instability of such nations.

charliebrown
07-08-11, 09:31 AM
I am very weak on my world history, but I think the U.S.S.R and China have their own "slavers and colonizer" past, and
not so distant past. I guess all politcos are the same aren't they?

Verrocchio
07-08-11, 11:30 AM
Speaking of new buildings, no country or city can beat Singapore, where buildings just 10 years old are being demolished and replaced with new ones.

Um, that's been happening for years in Hong Kong.

touchring
07-08-11, 11:38 AM
I am very weak on my world history, but I think the U.S.S.R and China have their own "slavers and colonizer" past, and
not so distant past. I guess all politcos are the same aren't they?


Much of the atrocities committed by the original "Han race" had probably been lost in history or even undocumented, but just to indicate the amount of colonization through the ages, the origin Han kingdom was only so big, barely the size of Taiwan today.

ca. 2070 BC–ca. 1600 BC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/45/Xia_dynasty.svg/250px-Xia_dynasty.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_Dynasty#Origins_and_early_development

touchring
07-08-11, 01:56 PM
Um, that's been happening for years in Hong Kong.

I still find plenty of old buildings in Hong Kong. It is for this reason why some will find the US looking like third world when they come to Singapore, because anything older than 10-15 years old is being torn down and rebuilt. Entire roads are being re-tarred all the time to make them look brand new.



I was struck by the recent report on BBC Newsnight that stated Pakistan had 160 Nukes and is building 16 every year. Not a wonder that many are becoming nervous about the instability of such nations.

You're starting to connect the dots, welcome to the New World Order, but UK is very far from the Middle East, and the technology required to make nukes the size of soft drink cans and smuggle through the ports and airports will not exist for at least 60 years. This will be a problem for the Middle East.

c1ue
07-08-11, 02:48 PM
I was struck by the recent report on BBC Newsnight that stated Pakistan had 160 Nukes and is building 16 every year. Not a wonder that many are becoming nervous about the instability of such nations.

What exactly is the offensive benefit of nukes?

You can't take over a country using nukes - you can only destroy it.

Nukes, however, make invading a nation completely impractical.

As Israel has nukes - I am continually amazed by the ongoing meme that Iran would destroy Israel if Iran had nukes.

As nutty as Ahmadinejad or whoever <insert bogeyman du annum> may be, it has yet to be demonstrated that they are suicidal.

Chris Coles
07-08-11, 04:30 PM
As nutty as Ahmadinejad or whoever <insert bogeyman du annum> may be, it has yet to be demonstrated that they are suicidal.

But you miss the point, they ARE good at getting others, particularly the young and impressionable, to do just that! Pakistan even more so.

touchring
07-08-11, 10:05 PM
But you miss the point, they ARE good at getting others, particularly the young and impressionable, to do just that! Pakistan even more so.


Like pak military hoarding OBL and saudi financing him? Talking about being caught with pants down. :|

Outsourcing is popular nowadays, even for military ops and .... cyberops. The US also uses contractors.

Wars are fought through proxies but that doesn't make them less damaging.

touchring
07-09-11, 01:30 AM
As nutty as Ahmadinejad or whoever <insert bogeyman="" du="" annum=""> may be, it has yet to be demonstrated that they are suicidal.


You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.

Since you do not live in a dictatorship, you may not understand the mentality of dictatorships - they value their power more than the lives of their family and even their own lives.

Gaddafi is a good example of a madman who will use nukes on Europe if he had one.

I'm not saying that something needs to be done, never mind that it is already too late for something to be done. Anyway, this is a Middle East problem. Life continues in the rest of the world even if the Middle East goes up in flames.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/08/gaddafi-threat-to-attack-europe

</insert>
Muammar Gaddafi has threatened to send hundreds of Libyans to launch attacks in Europe in revenge for the Nato-led military campaign against him.

In a speech on Libyan television the Libyan leader said: "Hundreds of Libyans will martyr in Europe. I told you it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But we will give them a chance to come to their senses."

The Canary Islands, Sicily, other Mediterranean islands as well as Andalusia in southern Spain were Arab lands that should be liberated, he said.<insert bogeyman="" du="" annum="">
</insert>

Sharky
07-09-11, 02:29 AM
At the present moment, Saudi Arabia and Iran are run being by rational thinking governments, so even if they got the bomb, no one is going to use it.

Iran's government is rational? It's a theocracy; the very definition of irrational.


You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.

Ahmadinejad is really more of a figurehead than anything else. He certainly isn't the real seat of power.

FRED
07-09-11, 07:39 AM
You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.


You will no doubt disagree but you are displaying a pattern of prejudicial comments that is neither in the spirit of iTulip nor related to the topic of this thread.

Over the years we have learned that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to educate the uneducable about race and culture.

Any additional off-topic posts here will be deleted.

You are welcome to start a new thread on the Rant and Rave (http://www.itulip.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/24-Rant-and-Rave) forum on the topic of race, ethnicity, and culture and perhaps other members will attempt to teach you more about it.

As a starting point consider the following data.

Median household income 2009 (US Census) (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html)
White: $70,000
Asian: $90,000

c1ue
07-09-11, 04:45 PM
But you miss the point, they ARE good at getting others, particularly the young and impressionable, to do just that! Pakistan even more so.

Sending off your own young men to die in conflict isn't the same thing as staring down the barrel of a nuke yourself.

Do you really doubt that leadership will not be among the first targets in a nuclear conflict?


You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.

Since you do not live in a dictatorship, you may not understand the mentality of dictatorships - they value their power more than the lives of their family and even their own lives.

Gaddafi is a good example of a madman who will use nukes on Europe if he had one.

Gaddafi is a big mouth who says all sorts of wacky stuff.

And let's note: would NATO be able to bomb the crap out of Libya at will if Libya had a half dozen nuclear weapons with a short or intermediate range delivery system?

Let's not forget that Libya and Gaddafi were being praised and awarded as recently as 6 months ago. Look in the Libya threads to see pics of him shaking hands with various European leaders including Sarkozy.

While I am the last person to say Gaddafi is a wonderful human being, the reality is that he is being attacked at least in part because he lacks the means to defend himself and his country.

touchring
07-10-11, 02:46 AM
While I am the last person to say Gaddafi is a wonderful human being, the reality is that he is being attacked at least in part because he lacks the means to defend himself and his country.


How about Pearl Harbor? Was the US attacked because the Japanese rulers deems the US incapable of defending itself?

Because of 66 years of post-WWII peace, we start to take for granted about danger of dictatorships and what can happen if they grow overconfident. Give them an inch and they will want a yard - they will want control out of their borders - it is the nature of dictatorships to yearn for more power. There is no such thing as a peaceful dictator. If it appears peaceful, it is a Trojan horse.

Anyway, nukes are no longer scary as we find them to be in the past. Japan had been nuked thrice and the Japanese are still surviving?

Therefore I do not believe that nukes can prevent wars. 7 centuries ago, the mongols burnt down entire cities along with the people in them for not surrendering, and yet there are others that still would not surrender. It is said that 300,000 people in Moscow were slaughtered. That was the equivalent of nukes of today.


Meanwhile, more news on Spratly.

For those of you who do not know where the Spratly is, here is the map. ;_CC

If China is claiming Spratly, I hope Singapore will also claim Spratly, because as you can see, the distance is about the same.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/images/spratly-islands2.gif


http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/07/10/11/china-hardliners-teach-spratly-intruders-%E2%80%98-lesson%E2%80%99


China hardliners to teach Spratly intruders ‘a lesson’


Hardliners in the Chinese Military Academy are raring to teach China’s neighbors “a lesson” for intruding into the South China Sea, which they consider part of their national territory, a Chinese Southeast Asian expert said.


Shen Hong-Fang, professor and senior research fellow at the Center of Southeast Asian studies at Xiamen University, spoke of “a new upsurge” of Chinese nationalism set off by claims made by some Asian countries, including the Philippines, over territory China considers its own.
“Some suggested that it is the right time to adopt necessary measures to teach some countries a lesson,” Shen said, startling participants at the two-day Conference on the South China Sea held in Manila last week.



She added there are those who think it justifiable “for China to launch a war against the invaders.”


The Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia have staked claims over some of the 160 islands that constitute the Spratlys in the South China Sea. These countries, along with Indonesia which is a non-claimant, have filed protests before the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) over the “nine-dash line map” China submitted to prove its claim.



That map practically covers the whole of the South China Sea and encroaches over the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone of some its neighbors, the Philippines included.


Brunei and Taiwan are also claiming parts of the Spratlys.


In its note verbale last April 14, China accused the Philippines of having “started to invade and occupy some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha (Spratly) Islands.”
Asked by Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez about the role of the Chinese Military Academy in the leadership’s decisions, Shen said it is “a very influential group. “
The Chinese Military Academy, formally known as the Academy of Military Sciences (AMS), is the highest-level research institute and center of military sciences of the People’s Liberation Army which is a major force in the Chinese government.


A Philippine diplomat who requested anonymity said Shen would not be making such strong statements without the approval of the Chinese government.
Shen reiterated previous declarations of Chinese officials that the South China Sea is a “core interest,” just like Tibet and Taiwan.


She quoted a published statement by Han Xudong, an army colonel and a professor at the PLA’s National Defense University (NDU), that “China’s comprehensive national strength especially in military capabilities is not yet enough to safeguard all of the core national interests.”


Golez expressed concern over what China would do “if their ‘national strength especially in military capabilities’ would be enough to take care of all core national interests.”


Shen also quoted another NDU professor, Zhang Zhongzhao, as saying that “the best time of solving the territory disputes has already passed” and that “diplomatic negotiations alone cannot solve the problem.”


She described Zhang as “a well-known military theorist,” and further quoted him saying that to defend national sovereignty, the Chinese should have the “courage to use the sword if it is really needed.”


Shen said the Chinese government is under public pressure to stand firm on the South China Sea. “If China lost more territory to foreign states, the national honor would be under attack and the people and the army would question the legitimacy of the government,” she said.


“It is of utmost importance that the government is not considered by people or the army as internally or externally weak which in turn could have severe political consequences,” she added.


Included in Shen’s recommendations to ease tension in the South China Sea is joint exploration in disputed areas. The Philippines already took this step during the term of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when it started a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) with China and Vietnam, which was completed in 2008. At least 70 percent of the coverage of the JMSU is in areas claimed by the Philippines. The constitutionality of the agreement is being questioned in the Supreme Court.


The Manila SCS conference was organized by the Foreign Service Institute of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the National Defense College of the Philippines and the Development Academy of Vietnam.

c1ue
07-10-11, 03:59 PM
How about Pearl Harbor? Was the US attacked because the Japanese rulers deems the US incapable of defending itself?

Pearl Harbor was attacked because the US was conducting economic warfare on Japan in the form of an oil embargo.

As I've noted in previous posts: oil for Japan was literally the staff of economic growth.

Where is the Chinese embargo on the US? Or vice versa?

Verrocchio
07-10-11, 05:30 PM
You will no doubt disagree but you are displaying a pattern of prejudicial comments that is neither in the spirit of iTulip nor related to the topic of this thread.

Over the years we have learned that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to educate the uneducable about race and culture.

Any additional off-topic posts here will be deleted.

You are welcome to start a new thread on the Rant and Rave (http://www.itulip.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/24-Rant-and-Rave) forum on the topic of race, ethnicity, and culture and perhaps other members will attempt to teach you more about it.

As a starting point consider the following data.

Median household income 2009 (US Census) (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html)
White: $70,000
Asian: $90,000

+1

Verrocchio
07-10-11, 05:41 PM
You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.

You're on to something here, TR. Ahmadinejad is the public face of the Iranian government, but the powers behind him are even more radical.

jiimbergin
07-10-11, 05:46 PM
You will no doubt disagree but you are displaying a pattern of prejudicial comments that is neither in the spirit of iTulip nor related to the topic of this thread.

Over the years we have learned that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to educate the uneducable about race and culture.

Any additional off-topic posts here will be deleted.

You are welcome to start a new thread on the Rant and Rave (http://www.itulip.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/24-Rant-and-Rave) forum on the topic of race, ethnicity, and culture and perhaps other members will attempt to teach you more about it.

As a starting point consider the following data.

Median household income 2009 (US Census) (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html)
White: $70,000
Asian: $90,000

Thanks Fred

touchring
07-10-11, 10:22 PM
You're on to something here, TR. Ahmadinejad is the public face of the Iranian government, but the powers behind him are even more radical.


I'm not making any inference, just saying I won't trust an authoritarian government to be peaceful in the long term (30-50 years). This includes bipartisanship.

doom&gloom
07-11-11, 07:12 PM
You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.

You would have made a perfect Nazi. Jews in Germany accounted for roughly 1% of the population, but made quite the target for Hitler. Stealing their "welth" helped fund a good part of the war for Germany. Maybe you can find a few to steal from yourself?

Or better yet, watch the series running now on The History Channel anout the Nazi's, as I was last night, and get yourself a real education.

flintlock
07-13-11, 01:00 AM
What exactly is the offensive benefit of nukes?

You can't take over a country using nukes - you can only destroy it.

Nukes, however, make invading a nation completely impractical.

As Israel has nukes - I am continually amazed by the ongoing meme that Iran would destroy Israel if Iran had nukes.

As nutty as Ahmadinejad or whoever <insert bogeyman du annum> may be, it has yet to be demonstrated that they are suicidal.

I have to agree with this. Nuclear attack on Israel would lead to massive retaliation. With nukes, its the countries that don't have 'em that feel threatened.

touchring
07-13-11, 01:34 AM
I have to agree with this. Nuclear attack on Israel would lead to massive retaliation. With nukes, its the countries that don't have 'em that feel threatened.


I'm not advocating something needs to be done, but for discussion purpose, I think don't I can agree that radical countries that have nukes will not pose a danger to world peace in the long term. By long term, I'm looking at a 20-30 years time frame.

Nowadays, countries just don't attack each other directly or openly. Remember the Mumbai terrorists attack? Some Indians believe that the Pak military or spy agencies are behind it. Just a couple of men with AK 47 can wreck so much havoc. If something similar happens 30 years into the future, it maybe with one of the dudes carrying a suitcase nuke device.

Chris Coles
07-13-11, 10:52 AM
Nearly fifty years ago I signed on as a trainee forester with HM Forestry Commission. One of the first jobs I had was bent down, forked stick in one hand, grass hook in the other, weeding young trees in a long enclosure where the rows of trees were more than a mile long. It was high summer, so no shirt, and the only entertainment, now and again, was to hear one of my colleagues suddenly shout out and start running for their life followed by a swarm of wasps. There were a lot of wasp nests; so it was not long before I too swept my grass hook over a nest entrance and suffered some very nasty stings; and this thread has reminded me that, sometimes, without knowing any better, it is still possible to walk into trouble, entirely innocently. So the first point I wish to make is that I did not set out to stir up trouble, nor, do I sincerely believe; did anyone else here.

My "tribe" is I am a Brit. Churchill once made a very pertinent remark about the difference between the British and Americans which roughly translates into; "one language, two different cultures". I came to iTulip as a means to debate themes; mostly but not always presented to us by EJ as here, where the theme is to postulate the potential for a war caused by economic difficulties. But just like my experience with weeding trees, here I did not think about the very simple fact that others will see the potential for a war as a return to a very dark period during which some very depraved people tried their best to exterminate them. So the second point I feel I must make is that I do not, for one moment, believe that anyone here was thinking to turn the debate in such a negative direction.

Our problem, here, in such a debate, is a matter of tribal description. Being a Brit, never assigns me any religious aspect to my tribal description. But as a Brit, I am not minded to walk away from a debate either, however difficult it gets; because the most important aspect of any disagreement is to talk the matter through, as peacefully as possible; so that we can all get to an agreement of what truly matters.

To give you all a better idea of where I am coming from, you need to understand that my childhood was riven by religious argument. My father having lost all his friends in France 1918, then lost his shirt in 1929, and then "got religion" badly a decade before I was born and my home was a battleground dominated by the imposition of intense fighting between my father and his by then large family, quietly moderated by my mother who assumed a position of friendly neutrality. I grew up in a family at war over religion and it was not a happy time; but, by golly, it taught me the value of debate.

Take this how you will; No one here is any form of a Nazi, and as such, some of the statements made here, against those of us trying to get to grips with the debate can only be seen as deeply objectionable and totally reprehensible. (Yes, on both sides). Our problem is we do not have an easy answer to the matter of identity. No one took a blind bit of notice when we were debating the recent nuclear tragedy in Japan; where the hierarchical structures preclude any debate with everyone in Japanese industrial and political life bowing to seniority. But here, in trying to get at why the Western economy has collapsed; we have run into a storm of dissent caused by our inadvertent religious description of the leadership. If we had a non religious "tribe" description none of this would have occurred. May I be so bold as to ask, does anyone have an answer to that conundrum?

Now, turning to the debate, the potential for war; and why we have got to where we are. What certainly I was trying to get at was the answer to the question: how do we change the mindset of the leadership? For, again, like it or not, famously; The Buck Stops Here.

Whomever they are, and whatever their background; they must come to terms with their own failure. This is not about trying to set them up for systematic deletion in a fireplace; this is all about getting across the idea that they have to change direction in their own thinking. If, by grouping together, channeling their efforts into circling the wagons to protect themselves from a perceived threat; they entirely misunderstand the debate; then, like it or not, someone has to have the brass cheek to say; "Enough", get real, this is not about religion, this is all about an attitude of mind that has passed over the higher responsibility to lead the nation. Particularly towards a better prosperity for the many whom; without such leadership, have no other option than to fight in a war.

If I am to be shunned for being so blunt, so be it; that is the price I have decided to pay for the debate. For, to my mind, the central theme for this debate; the potential for war; is far far more important than my iTulip image. We are not debating whether or not any one of us might be drawn into a war, for the chances are the most of us here today are too old to be considered suitable participants; but we must recognise the potential for millions of lives to be disrupted and lost. That is not a trivial matter over which we should be seen, for one moment, bickering between ourselves over a small matter of a tribal description.

The national leadership, of all nations involved, at all levels of responsibility, financial, institutional and political; must now sit back and recognise their own input to the current economic difficulties. All of them; all, must rethink their own responsibility and look again at why they have made such desperately bad decisions in the past and learn the lessons through open debate with all of us on the outside; who can see a way forward. No one has all the answers; but neither will anyone succeed without examining their own solution in comparison to every other presented.

That is the great responsibility of leadership. So; get on with it and stop bickering, we are all friends here and everyone is trying their best to find a solution.

Chris Coles.

Raz
07-13-11, 02:17 PM
Pearl Harbor was attacked because the US was conducting economic warfare on Japan in the form of an oil embargo.

As I've noted in previous posts: oil for Japan was literally the staff of economic growth.

Where is the Chinese embargo on the US? Or vice versa?

Correct. +1

bart
07-13-11, 06:29 PM
.... So the first point I wish to make is that I did not set out to stir up trouble, nor, do I sincerely believe; did anyone else here.



Fair enough.


My "tribe" is I am a Brit. Churchill once made a very pertinent remark about the difference between the British and Americans which roughly translates into; "one language, two different cultures". I came to iTulip as a means to debate themes; mostly but not always presented to us by EJ as here, where the theme is to postulate the potential for a war caused by economic difficulties. But just like my experience with weeding trees, here I did not think about the very simple fact that others will see the potential for a war as a return to a very dark period during which some very depraved people tried their best to exterminate them. So the second point I feel I must make is that I do not, for one moment, believe that anyone here was thinking to turn the debate in such a negative direction.



I get highly concerned when extremely hot topics like Jews enter in, especially when spin is present - the best example being that Einstein post.

I've so far seen two decent boards go down in flames and attract some real psychos - true guns freaks who think murder is a real answer, and extreme real racists and haters too - and it started off with the subject of Jews and religious evangelism.




Our problem, here, in such a debate, is a matter of tribal description. Being a Brit, never assigns me any religious aspect to my tribal description. But as a Brit, I am not minded to walk away from a debate either, however difficult it gets; because the most important aspect of any disagreement is to talk the matter through, as peacefully as possible; so that we can all get to an agreement of what truly matters.



I'd be cautious if I were you with the tribal assumption on religion - Church of England and the monarchy and Bank of England and all.

Religion and worship is not limited to just organized religious groups.


...

Take this how you will; No one here is any form of a Nazi, and as such, some of the statements made here, against those of us trying to get to grips with the debate can only be seen as deeply objectionable and totally reprehensible. (Yes, on both sides). Our problem is we do not have an easy answer to the matter of identity. No one took a blind bit of notice when we were debating the recent nuclear tragedy in Japan; where the hierarchical structures preclude any debate with everyone in Japanese industrial and political life bowing to seniority. But here, in trying to get at why the Western economy has collapsed; we have run into a storm of dissent caused by our inadvertent religious description of the leadership. If we had a non religious "tribe" description none of this would have occurred. May I be so bold as to ask, does anyone have an answer to that conundrum?



We disagree here. That other poster (Serge?) reminded me greatly in the way he started out of a few others on those two boards that went down. I'm not accusing him of being a Nazi... but reserve judgement. Let's just say it wouldn't surprise me greatly if he is at least a partial Holocaust denier.
While I'm at it, your use of the phrase "dominant group" and the word "tribe" is of concern too - they both have potentially very hit emotional connotations.

Note that I have severely blasted groups/"tribes" like banksters and will likely continue, but have also noted that "banksters" does not in any way mean all bankers - "banksters" are a small minority of all bankers.

As far as a non religious tribe description, "human" works for me - and it carries a message too about "obsessive individualism".


Now, turning to the debate, the potential for war; and why we have got to where we are. What certainly I was trying to get at was the answer to the question: how do we change the mindset of the leadership? For, again, like it or not, famously; The Buck Stops Here.



Perhaps it is actually possible to avoid what EJ is describing, but much of the reason I didn't post here for quite a while is that my own expectations and forecasts of what is ahead are also dark, and I couldn't bring myself to post stuff that dark in any detail - especially after having been attacked so much for being the bearer of bad tidings via various facts and charts.

A friend has noted a few times to me that "despair is a sin" and I certainly haven't given up and do much behind the scenes or anonymously, but I think we passed the point of no return quite a while ago. My efforts now are mostly concentrated on making the period ahead smoother and less painful for folk, and more on what we all put together "afterwards".


Whomever they are, and whatever their background; they must come to terms with their own failure. This is not about trying to set them up for systematic deletion in a fireplace; this is all about getting across the idea that they have to change direction in their own thinking. If, by grouping together, channeling their efforts into circling the wagons to protect themselves from a perceived threat; they entirely misunderstand the debate; then, like it or not, someone has to have the brass cheek to say; "Enough", get real, this is not about religion, this is all about an attitude of mind that has passed over the higher responsibility to lead the nation. Particularly towards a better prosperity for the many whom; without such leadership, have no other option than to fight in a war.



I've posted this quote before, and think it still applies quite well, especially the last paragraph:



"...throughout recorded time...there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low...The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern."

-- 1984, George Orwell




If I am to be shunned for being so blunt, so be it; that is the price I have decided to pay for the debate. For, to my mind, the central theme for this debate; the potential for war; is far far more important than my iTulip image. We are not debating whether or not any one of us might be drawn into a war, for the chances are the most of us here today are too old to be considered suitable participants; but we must recognize the potential for millions of lives to be disrupted and lost. That is not a trivial matter over which we should be seen, for one moment, bickering between ourselves over a small matter of a tribal description.



I believe it has almost nothing to do with some supposed iTulip image, but rather (at least per my experience) of where it inevitably goes when the area is taken up - basically nowhere on a net basis. Hot emotions, flames, Godwin's Law, using Google to prove anything. etc. etc. - been there, done that and it ends us as "rant vs. rant".

War effects everyone, even us geezers... and I expect way more than millions of lives to be lost. :(


The national leadership, of all nations involved, at all levels of responsibility, financial, institutional and political; must now sit back and recognize their own input to the current economic difficulties. All of them; all, must rethink their own responsibility and look again at why they have made such desperately bad decisions in the past and learn the lessons through open debate with all of us on the outside; who can see a way forward. No one has all the answers; but neither will anyone succeed without examining their own solution in comparison to every other presented.

That is the great responsibility of leadership. So; get on with it and stop bickering, we are all friends here and everyone is trying their best to find a solution.

Chris Coles.




I still believe the area is best covered, by those that desire to, by a threads or threads in the rant & rave section. Perhaps it can be discussed civilly but I'm not holding breath.

One last point - I put together a large list of logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance issues etc. a while back to try and increase awareness in the area of debate etc.:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

touchring
07-13-11, 10:55 PM
There were a lot of wasp nests; so it was not long before I too swept my grass hook over a nest entrance and suffered some very nasty stings; and this thread has reminded me that, sometimes, without knowing any better, it is still possible to walk into trouble, entirely innocently. So the first point I wish to make is that I did not set out to stir up trouble, nor, do I sincerely believe; did anyone else here.


I now realize that this is a 'taboo topic' among Americans so there is a general avoidance to discuss about it even objectively.

My approach is avoid the emotions and look at hard facts.

The US military policy in the Middle East spun an OBL, led to Iraq war, Afghanistan war, which depleted US treasury, created the opportunity for credit surplus authoritarian nations such as Russia and China to rise, acquire technology and power.

Of cos, on the capitalism side, there is excessive greed for profits, Walmart, Madoff, etc.

Having lived all my life in an authoritarian country, I think I know them well enough. Their ultimately goal is not economic development to better the lives of the people or even profits, but power and control, the former is just a means to fulfill the latter. To secure that power, everything can be sacrificed, the people, religion, god, even their own families members, e.g. Gaddafi. The religious will say he is possessed by the demon.

In my opinion, a sudden shift in world power balance, e.g. rise of Japan after Meiji, is dangerous to long term world peace, and even dangerous to people of the country that is rising - Japanese people were also a victim. I read a bit about Japan post-Meiji in school. Japan had little natural resources and during those times there was no free trade, so as Japan grew economically there is a need to acquire iron ore, copper, etc, and that could only be done by force. So Japan conquered Manchuria which was resource rich, and then went on and on. As their power grew, they went crazy...

A great misconception among the West is that China will cannot embrace consumerism. Those who read history will know that Eastern China, especially the Shanghai, Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces were once the most prosperous regions on earth since the Roman times, and they used banknotes a thousand years before Europe. People wonder why the people in Shanghai are smarter - it is in the genes. I've no doubt that China will become very successful from the economic point of view.

A stronger Russia and China will mean Iran will rise - 10 years ago - no one could imagine that Iran could openly make nukes. When Iraq tried, they were smacked. Recently, Pakistan declares that it wants to move closer with China.

So post-Iraq & Afghan war, the Middle East has not become more stable, but even more dangerous.

How will all this end up 10-20 years down the road?

Of cos, the US can withdraw from the Middle East entirely leaving allies to the wolves. Without assured oil supply from the Middle East, the US economy will crash, but the US has sufficient food so no one will starve, and besides the people that will have the most to lose are the Wall Street bankers and Walmart billionaires. Life will still continue for ordinary citizens. Within 10 years of that oil shock, people will start to use electric cars, oil becomes less important, the US economy will recover, everyone will wonder why were we so dependent on oil in the past?

bart
07-14-11, 12:19 AM
I now realize that this is a 'taboo topic' among Americans so there is a general avoidance to discuss about it even objectively.



Au contraire - the only points are to take it on to the rant & rave section, and don't divert existing threads. If it really turns out to be a sane discussion after a few weeks, ask Fred to move it elsewhere.

I think you'll be appalled at what turns up though.


My approach is avoid the emotions and look at hard facts.

The US military policy in the Middle East spun an OBL, led to Iraq war, Afghanistan war, which depleted US treasury, created the opportunity for credit surplus authoritarian nations such as Russia and China to rise, acquire technology and power.




Of course, and the area goes way way deeper than that - and is far from just about the US - or Israel.

sunpearl71
07-14-11, 12:36 AM
Remember the Mumbai terrorists attack? Some Indians believe that the Pak military or spy agencies are behind it.

Based on a comprehensive court trial, it has been established that the attacks were supported by the Pak spy agency ISI.
Complete coverage from a local Indian newspaper group here:
http://www.indianexpress.com/fullcoverage/26-11-kasab-trial/108/

Chris Coles
07-14-11, 07:46 AM
I still believe the area is best covered, by those that desire to, by a threads or threads in the rant & rave section. Perhaps it can be discussed civilly but I'm not holding breath.

One last point - I put together a large list of logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance issues etc. a while back to try and increase awareness in the area of debate etc.:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

In the early 1990’s I spotted a small error in a document placed on public record to support a major flood defence proposal for what is a significant City, Salisbury, here in the UK. I wrote to the Council and placed a copy on record for the public enquiry. My input was ignored. Over a long period of time, I tried my best to get someone to look, but every effort was refused. This was a major project for the city and the group of people involved classically, circled the wagons and refused to listen. I even got barked at, right across a public meeting by the Leader of the Council; "You are wrong!" The simplest thing would have been to take a short walk, no more than ten minutes and look at what I had spotted with a mark one eyeball, accept the mistake and adjust their proposals accordingly; but they simply could not do that. From what one can make of it, they perceived the problem as a threat to their authority; they could not see the problem as a minor matter of a detail. In the end, I asked a world class hydrologist to take a look and his confirmation led, eventually, to the abandonment of the entire proposal.

As I see it, this debate is about the exact same mechanism; circling the wagons to protect, when there is no need. All I am trying to get across is that by refusing to accept that there is a misunderstanding of criticism; you miss the wider responsibility; that this is nothing to do with any particular religion, nor origins, nor tribe; this is a problem of an avoidance of debate by trying to make out that the debate is, in some way, improper. Moreover, believe it or not, you have fallen into the trap of actually using, for your own purpose, the rules, particularly 1 & 2 that you yourself asked me to read. But, then, have you the honesty and courage to accept that?

The core problem with the economy is not the people there already; it is a refusal to allow new thinking into the inner circle, and the instinctive, protective, fear based mechanism, and thus consequent use of accusations of racism, to defend that inner circle. What we desperately need is new thinking, right at the top of our elite, our leadership. To be able to achieve that, we need a recognition of the need to bring new people, new thinking, new ideas, new faces, into the inner debate. We cannot force that from the outside; this simply has to be recognised from within. The wagons have to be brought back into line to face the economic problems head on and the leadership must permit outside debate into the mindset of their inner circle.

bart
07-14-11, 08:08 AM
I still hold the same opinion and still suggest a thread in rant & rave.

There is no intent to suppress opinions or posts, but rather to encourage you and others to have at it - I could be wrong and the discussion could turn out to be a relatively sane one... although your very own rather critical thoughts about Americans and truth leave little hope.
My own experience for years on other boards when "Jooz" come up is very far from encouraging. Is there some truth from the anti-Jooz area - of course... but the fixed ideas and refusal to view the "other side" (the example about Asian income is just one) have always condemned sane and balanced discussions. It has always turned into "he said, she said" emotionally hot flaming, logical fallacies, personal attacks etc. eventually.



I also believe that this may apply:


"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

— Michael Crichton

Verrocchio
07-14-11, 10:52 AM
"My approach is avoid the emotions and look at hard facts."

Good luck with that, Touchring! Let us know how that works out for you. Facts are, in fact <grin>, slippery things. Why? Because, as stated succinctly in the abstract below: All facts are a function of interpretation. This applies equally well to so-called historical facts, not just legal facts.
Houston Law Review, Vol. 45, 2009 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1116644##)
Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-68 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1116644##)

Abstract:
What are facts? More precisely, what are facts within the contemplation of law? We might sensibly seek an answer to this question in the law of evidence, where we find a distinction that seems to furnish the key to understanding just what the law means by a fact - the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. For the promise of direct evidence is that it brings the fact-finder in direct contact with crucial facts about the instant dispute. By contrast, circumstantial evidence is said to give clues that require inferences to connect them to the critical facts of the case. And so, if we can understand how direct evidence enables us to apprehend facts in an unmediated way, then we should be able to understand facticity itself.

The problem with the direct-circumstantial distinction is not just that common beliefs about its significance turn out to be false. (For example, circumstantial evidence is not generally less reliable than direct evidence.) A more fundamental problem is that the distinction makes no logical sense. There simply is no category of evidence that brings us into direct contact with crucial facts, because no such contact is possible.

Fortunately, it turns out that understanding the illusory nature of the direct-circumstantial distinction gives us just the purchase we need to understand what facts are in the context of legal decision-making - and, by extension, what facts are generally. All facts are a function of interpretation. This unavoidability of interpretation makes all facts a matter of inference, and consequently all evidence - direct or circumstantial - nothing more or less than a contribution to that inferential process.

Verrocchio
07-14-11, 10:56 AM
PS

I can imagine that a well-intentioned person might respond that the elusive nature of most "facts" is well understood, and this is precisely why we need debate, discussion, and, hopefully, dialogue, so that we can arrive at a better understanding, and so forth. As Bart has explained, experience, most particularly with the medium of communication that we are using, has taught us that this applies wonderfully well to many topics, but not to all, and certainly not to this one.

c1ue
07-14-11, 03:22 PM
The US military policy in the Middle East spun an OBL, led to Iraq war, Afghanistan war, which depleted US treasury, created the opportunity for credit surplus authoritarian nations such as Russia and China to rise, acquire technology and power.

And why do you say this behavior is due to military policy?

What makes you not consider the possibility that said military policy is an outgrowth of economic policy?

Of ideological and/or nationalistic goals?


Having lived all my life in an authoritarian country, I think I know them well enough. Their ultimately goal is not economic development to better the lives of the people or even profits, but power and control, the former is just a means to fulfill the latter. To secure that power, everything can be sacrificed, the people, religion, god, even their own families members, e.g. Gaddafi. The religious will say he is possessed by the demon.

Living your life in an authoritarian country doesn't itself convey any information.

How can you know what exactly is going through the minds of the 'authorities'?

As a very young child, your parents are god.

As a teenager, often your parents become the devil.

As a young parent, your parents become a godsend.

Yet the parents are the same.

touchring
07-14-11, 11:03 PM
Living your life in an authoritarian country doesn't itself convey any information.

How can you know what exactly is going through the minds of the 'authorities'?

As a very young child, your parents are god.

As a teenager, often your parents become the devil.

As a young parent, your parents become a godsend.

Yet the parents are the same.


They've got excellent propaganda. There's an adage, If Its Too Good To Be True, Its Not True. Don't believe too much in spins. There is no free lunch or saints iin this world, especially so when it comes to politics and power.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gvvrZYDTUCJKEHZhKhRUViJ10dKQ?docId=aff736da7 a9244bab2745c7a17220a06


HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Armed Chinese soldiers allegedly beat a Vietnamese fisherman and threatened other crew members before driving them out of waters near disputed South China Sea islands claimed by both countries, a Vietnamese official said Thursday.


A Chinese navy ship chased the fishermen before dispatching a speedboat with 10 soldiers armed with automatic rifles and batons, a border official in Vietnam's central Quang Ngai province said on condition of anonymity, citing policy. The soldiers boarded the fishing boat near the contested Paracel Islands.


The soldiers punched and kicked the Vietnamese captain and threatened nine other crew members in the July 5 incident, he said, adding the captain was not injured.
The Vietnamese official said the Chinese soldiers confiscated one ton of fish from the boat and drove it from the area. The fishermen continued working before coming to shore and reporting the incident to authorities Wednesday, he said.


If you've not experienced their system, it is not easy to understand the mindset of dictators. Is Gaddafi really that bad? Do you know that Libya has free education and healthcare that Americans will envy? Libya is not Egypt, life is actually quite good in Libya.

The problem starts when you try to dislodge them, they will go crazy, their power is like an indispensable part of their life - this is somewhat similar to a love stricken lady, whose love can change to frightening hate. All dictatorships will end up in disaster regardless of how well they start off.

There are trade offs in life, nothing is perfect. If you thought you found a perfect system, that is because you have not seen the end result.

jpatter666
07-15-11, 08:04 AM
There are trade offs in life, nothing is perfect. If you thought you found a perfect system, that is because you have not seen the end result.

Or as might be expressed another way - TANSTAAFL

c1ue
07-15-11, 10:26 AM
The problem starts when you try to dislodge them, they will go crazy, their power is like an indispensable part of their life - this is somewhat similar to a love stricken lady, whose love can change to frightening hate. All dictatorships will end up in disaster regardless of how well they start off.


Frankly the only difference is in scale, not in reaction - whether 'democratic' government or not.

Or do you ascribe what is happening in the US as happening due to 'freedom' as opposed to 'hanging on to power'?

touchring
07-15-11, 11:30 AM
Frankly the only difference is in scale, not in reaction - whether 'democratic' government or not.

Or do you ascribe what is happening in the US as happening due to 'freedom' as opposed to 'hanging on to power'?


I consider the USA a half democracy at best.

Verrocchio
07-16-11, 10:23 AM
The problem starts when you try to dislodge them, they will go crazy

Like ticks, I suppose. If you go after one, you want to make sure you get the head.

flintlock
07-16-11, 02:11 PM
I'm not advocating something needs to be done, but for discussion purpose, I think don't I can agree that radical countries that have nukes will not pose a danger to world peace in the long term. By long term, I'm looking at a 20-30 years time frame.

Nowadays, countries just don't attack each other directly or openly. Remember the Mumbai terrorists attack? Some Indians believe that the Pak military or spy agencies are behind it. Just a couple of men with AK 47 can wreck so much havoc. If something similar happens 30 years into the future, it maybe with one of the dudes carrying a suitcase nuke device.

I should have said, "With nukes, its the countries that don't have 'em that feel MOST threatened". Does anyone in the US really fear a direct nuclear attack by Iran? Probably not. What we do fear is a change of the status quo that an attack by Iran on a neighbor would bring about. Or any assistance Iran may give to terrorists who would like to nuke America. My point was that the most intimidated are those countries in the region with Iran who do not have the ability to retaliate, nor close enough relations with a power that can. Historically its the little guys who get treated like trading cards in the aftermath of wars. "I'll give you Alsace in return for Slovakia and a future country to be named at a later date".

flintlock
07-18-11, 10:42 AM
I'm still amazed that in WWI countries could get young men to subject themselves to such conditions. Trench warfare has to be about as bad as it gets. I just watched a documentary on Gallipoli, and I think it said that at any one time about 2/3 of the men had dysentery. Then throw in lack of decent food and water, broiling heat, freezing cold, the stench of thousands of dead bodies, and of course the idiot uncaring commanders. Yet for the most part, the British maintained discipline throughout the war. Amazing.

Chris Coles
07-18-11, 11:11 AM
I'm still amazed that in WWI countries could get young men to subject themselves to such conditions. Trench warfare has to be about as bad as it gets. I just watched a documentary on Gallipoli, and I think it said that at any one time about 2/3 of the men had dysentery. Then throw in lack of decent food and water, broiling heat, freezing cold, the stench of thousands of dead bodies, and of course the idiot uncaring commanders. Yet for the most part, the British maintained discipline throughout the war. Amazing.

Having been born in 1944 I can only record the extensive dinner conversations with my father who, at the age of 18 was posted to France to fly Spads and SE5a's with a Polish squadron. They averaged about six weeks lifespan and I remember seeing a map with the locations of all the downed aircraft. By all accounts they partied like there was no tomorrow and as kids we were often "treated" to his renditions of Polish war cries. He was once loaned a brand new Bristol fighter with a optical sight through the control panel and he tried to drop his bombs using that as he flew down on a target, pulling the toggles to release the two bombs. When he flew back to base, he arrived to find the airfield had a lot of people running around the field holding hands and he thought the party had spilled out onto the airfield. But when he went to land, it turned out that one of the bombs was hanging from his undercarriage and they were trying to warn him. The aircraft blew up as he landed, but he survived. He had lots of stores like that. But the truth is, he lost all his friends and the whole thing deeply affected him.

I had a similar meeting with an old man in Salisbury in the 1990's, bolt upright and steely strong but very frail. He turned out to be called "Pinky" because he was THE Regimental Sergeant Major for the Manchester Regiment whose parade uniform was pink. He had been the non commissioned officer that called the entire regiment to attention and then gave the order to march out of Singapore under the surrender to the Japanese. He related his experiences at the hands of the regiments captors; a truly harrowing story.

In the 1970's I worked in a section that also had a man that had fought in Burma; he would not talk about it. Not one word.

War effects everyone differently, dependent upon their role and responsibilities; war is not ever to be taken lightly; it has a devastating effect upon the strongest man or woman.

jiimbergin
07-18-11, 11:37 AM
Having been born in 1944 I can only record the extensive dinner conversations with my father who, at the age of 18 was posted to France to fly Spads and SE5a's with a Polish squadron. They averaged about six weeks lifespan and I remember seeing a map with the locations of all the downed aircraft. By all accounts they partied like there was no tomorrow and as kids we were often "treated" to his renditions of Polish war cries. He was once loaned a brand new Bristol fighter with a optical sight through the control panel and he tried to drop his bombs using that as he flew down on a target, pulling the toggles to release the two bombs. When he flew back to base, he arrived to find the airfield had a lot of people running around the field holding hands and he thought the party had spilled out onto the airfield. But when he went to land, it turned out that one of the bombs was hanging from his undercarriage and they were trying to warn him. The aircraft blew up as he landed, but he survived. He had lots of stores like that. But the truth is, he lost all his friends and the whole thing deeply affected him.

I had a similar meeting with an old man in Salisbury in the 1990's, bolt upright and steely strong but very frail. He turned out to be called "Pinky" because he was THE Regimental Sergeant Major for the Manchester Regiment whose parade uniform was pink. He had been the non commissioned officer that called the entire regiment to attention and then gave the order to march out of Singapore under the surrender to the Japanese. He related his experiences at the hands of the regiments captors; a truly harrowing story.

In the 1970's I worked in a section that also had a man that had fought in Burma; he would not talk about it. Not one word.

War effects everyone differently, dependent upon their role and responsibilities; war is not ever to be taken lightly; it has a devastating effect upon the strongest man or woman.

1944 must have been a very good year since we both were born that year! I only knew one WWII vet who would talk much about what he did and I have yet to find a Vietnam vet who will talk at all.

Chris Coles
07-19-11, 04:43 AM
1944 must have been a very good year since we both were born that year! I only knew one WWII vet who would talk much about what he did and I have yet to find a Vietnam vet who will talk at all.

Vintage stuff Jiimbergin, perhaps best in the house?? :)

flintlock
07-21-11, 07:35 PM
Your Dad was a WWI pilot! Amazing.

I try to explain to my kids how all this history stuff isn't all so ancient as it seems. My grandmother used to tell me about feeling the bullet still under her grandfather's skin from the American Civil War! Sometimes it fails to sink in just how real these events were.

Chris Coles
07-22-11, 03:13 AM
Your Dad was a WWI pilot! Amazing.

I try to explain to my kids how all this history stuff isn't all so ancient as it seems. My grandmother used to tell me about feeling the bullet still under her grandfather's skin from the American Civil War! Sometimes it fails to sink in just how real these events were.

May I be so bold as to suggest that you take your children to the National Air Museum at Dayton Ohio. One of the gigantic hangers is devoted to WW1 aircraft and the other to all the development aircraft during the great leap forward in the 1950' and 1960's. (From the web site it looks a lot bigger than when I saw it in the 1980's). http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ Also, expect to spend the whole day there, there is a lot to see. One of my best days out ever.

Ghent12
07-30-11, 09:20 PM
I'm still amazed that in WWI countries could get young men to subject themselves to such conditions. Trench warfare has to be about as bad as it gets. I just watched a documentary on Gallipoli, and I think it said that at any one time about 2/3 of the men had dysentery. Then throw in lack of decent food and water, broiling heat, freezing cold, the stench of thousands of dead bodies, and of course the idiot uncaring commanders. Yet for the most part, the British maintained discipline throughout the war. Amazing.

War changes things considerably in the minds and bodies of its participants. I read the book "House to House" by David Bellavia which was about the most recent Iraq conflict and specifically about urban warfare inside Fallujah. It described how everyone he fought alongside and he had soiled themselves out of necessity. I think my paraphrasing isn't doing it justice--it's a good read to get an idea of the visceral nature of modern warfare.

Chris Coles
07-31-11, 03:42 AM
I'm still amazed that in WWI countries could get young men to subject themselves to such conditions. Trench warfare has to be about as bad as it gets. I just watched a documentary on Gallipoli, and I think it said that at any one time about 2/3 of the men had dysentery. Then throw in lack of decent food and water, broiling heat, freezing cold, the stench of thousands of dead bodies, and of course the idiot uncaring commanders. Yet for the most part, the British maintained discipline throughout the war. Amazing.

You need to think through the full situation of those troops. They had been placed on a ship, dropped off after a long voyage onto a shore with NO facilities whatever and then add that the slightest chance that ANY ONE of them were going to try and walk off; the individual would be shot as a deserter .... and, in any case, where were they going to go? No ship behind them, hostile Turks in front.

The same for WW1. if they did not go over the top they were to be branded as a coward. My own father went through that when, on an early flight, one of the connecting rods on his aircraft engine broke with it sticking out of the engine and the engine sounding like it was going to totally seize up, so he turned back to the airfield and was summarily arrested for cowardice and only got away with it when they could see he was telling the truth. If his engine had not been visibly damaged, I would not be here today as he would have been shot on the spot.

All those troops were drawn into the most horrific situation, way beyond anything a soldier has to endure today. Imagine watching 20,000 others dead right before your eyes and yet no option but to follow? Madness. Eventually, even the Generals were brought to realise their stupidity; but not until millions had been slaughtered. Utter Madness.

touchring
08-17-11, 01:55 AM
All those troops were drawn into the most horrific situation, way beyond anything a soldier has to endure today. Imagine watching 20,000 others dead right before your eyes and yet no option but to follow? Madness. Eventually, even the Generals were brought to realise their stupidity; but not until millions had been slaughtered. Utter Madness.

It depends on which side you're on. If you are an Afghan freedom fighter, you'll be in an even more horrific position than a WWI soldier. Or well, maybe less since the firepower from an Apache or Predator makes a relatively quick death.

lakedaemonian
08-17-11, 05:30 AM
It depends on which side you're on. If you are an Afghan freedom fighter, you'll be in an even more horrific position than a WWI soldier. Or well, maybe less since the firepower from an Apache or Predator makes a relatively quick death.


This would be an example of where cross pollination with other forums and respected SMEs might prove enlightening.

c1ue
08-20-11, 11:37 AM
In case you didn't know - there is no question that all those women-less, boy baby bulge youngsters in China don't have any fear of confrontation with the West.

The question has always been: will they be contained by the oldsters on top? Can they?

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Wild-brawl-ends-Georgetown-8217-s-exhibition-ga?urn=ncaab-wp4252


http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/33/33c2eea2959810da81eeeac1e4e4aae6/wild_brawl_ends_georgetowns_exhibition_game_in_chi na_early.jpg
Follow Yahoo! Sports on Facebook (http://yhoo.it/igDQeZ) and be the first to know about the most interesting stories of the day.
At the same time as Vice President Joe Biden is visiting Beijing in hopes of improving relations between the U.S. and China (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/biden-bonds-with-chinese-vp-dines-at-fried-liver-restaurant.html), another group on a goodwill trip from Washington (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/teams/waf/) encountered an unexpected diplomatic hiccup.
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/43/4307efe78bd6bd593f1652854e5c8824/wild_brawl_ends_georgetowns_exhibition_game_in_chi na_early.jpg

Georgetown (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/teams/gae/) had to leave the court during the fourth quarter of its exhibition game against the Bayi Rockets on Thursday night in Beijing after both benches emptied and a wild brawl erupted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/fight-ends-georgetown-basketball-exhibition-in-china/2011/08/18/gIQAs1zeNJ_story.html) between the two teams. None of the Hoyas was seriously injured despite trading punches with the opposing players and having to dodge chairs thrown onto the court and water bottles hurled from the stands. (http://twitter.com/#%21/gene_wang/status/104179367789338625)

The best account of what led to the melee comes from the Washington Post's Gene Wang, apparently the lone U.S. reporter in attendance.

Wang wrote that the game was tense from the outset and had to be stopped earlier after two players exchanged words. At one point, a Rockets player even berated John Thompson III as the Georgetown coach yelled instructions to his players.

The hard fouls and constant bickering eventually devolved into bedlam when Bayi big man Hu Ke was called for a foul against Georgetown guard Jason Clark. The senior made it clear he did not appreciate the hard foul, sparking the initial exchange of shoves that led players from both benches to run onto the court in defense of their teammates.

Video of the melee (http://youtu.be/bk0c6mm-0F8) is available at the bottom of this post and this photo gallery from Sina.com (http://slide.sports.sina.com.cn/slide_2_792_15732.html) also offers several more scenes of the chaos. It was bad enough that Georgetown coach John Thompson III yanked his team off the court, made a hasty exit out of the arena with the score tied at 64 and then issued the following statement about the incident soon afterward. (http://twitter.com/#%21/HoyasinChina)

"Tonight, two great teams played a very competitive game that unfortunately ended after heated exchanges with both teams," Thompson said. "We sincerely regret that this situation occurred. We remain grateful for the opportunity our student athletes are having to engage in a sport they love here in China, while strengthening their understanding of a nation we respect and admire at Georgetown University."

It's unclear whether Georgetown will continue its 11-day exhibition tour of China or not, but the Hoyas certainly have had a memorable trip so far.

Wednesday's impromptu visit with Biden once seemed like the most exciting part of the trip. Now that's a distant second.

touchring
08-21-11, 02:09 AM
In case you didn't know - there is no question that all those women-less, boy baby bulge youngsters in China don't have any fear of confrontation with the West.

The question has always been: will they be contained by the oldsters on top? Can they?


People can be brain washed easily by politicians to feel the sense invincibility. Why did Japan invade Pearl Harbor? Why would anyone perform kamikaze. Megalomania can be contagious.

Often the one's greatest enemy is oneself. That's why I always believe that authoritarianism will ultimately lead to the path of self-destruction. Regardless of how well one does at the beginning, the final result is destruction.

Satan is very real. Satan will lure you with success, money and glory at the start, but eventually will devour your soul and your very lives.

c1ue
08-21-11, 04:13 PM
Why did Japan invade Pearl Harbor?

We've already talked about this.

It had a little to do with Japan, and a lot to do with British and American economic warfare.

The rest was just a result of operations.

Slimprofits
08-22-11, 03:10 PM
front page of the Sunday Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/08/21/away_from_the_boston_technology_hub_the_poor_only_ get_poorer/


While family incomes across Massachusetts have generally risen over the past three decades, the state’s poorest residents have fallen behind. And nowhere have they fallen farther than here in Western Massachusetts, where families in the bottom fifth of the income scale have seen inflation-adjusted earnings drop below 1979 levels, according to a new study by University of Massachusetts economists.

[..]

For example, the inflation-adjusted median income of affluent families in Greater Boston has grown 54 percent since 1979, to $230,000 from $150,000 a year, largely due to high-paying technology jobs.

In Berkshire County and the Pioneer Valley, where decades of plant closings have left hollowed-out economies, the inflation-adjusted median income of the poorest families fell 24 percent, from $21,000 a year in 1979 to $16,000 - on par with some of the most impoverished parts of Appalachia.

Ghent12
08-31-11, 10:56 PM
We've already talked about this.

It had a little to do with Japan, and a lot to do with British and American economic warfare.

The rest was just a result of operations.
Ah yes, more of the "nobody is truly in control of their own actions" type of memes.

c1ue
08-31-11, 11:32 PM
Ah yes, more of the "nobody is truly in control of their own actions" type of memes.

What exactly are you trying to say?

I've never said Japan was right in attacking Pearl Harbor; what I said above is that there were clear logical reasons why Japan did so, and prominent among them was economic provocation/warfare by the United States and UK.

To go from that to "it isn't Japan's fault" is just as ludicrous as saying "Japan was wrong in attacking China in 1936" but ignoring the literal waves of attempts by mainland China to attack Japan.

Polish_Silver
09-01-11, 01:56 PM
I didn't know that Japan was threatenedy by China in the 1930's. Have to read up on that.
However, the economic sanctions against Japan were supposedly because of thier growing empire
in the far east. It was supposed to be a peaceful way of containing this belligerent nation.
The US should have expected a military response, and the Pearl Harbor defenses were badly
mismanaged.

Slimprofits
09-01-11, 07:04 PM
Sanctions are ALWAYS an act of war. Only an act of Orwellian redefinition can change that reality.

Scot
09-01-11, 10:43 PM
Sanctions are ALWAYS an act of war. Only an act of Orwellian redefinition can change that reality.

The collective refusal of a nation to economically cooperate or assist or help another nation is not an attack and is certainly not an act of war.

jk
09-02-11, 08:26 AM
The collective refusal of a nation to economically cooperate or assist or help another nation is not an attack and is certainly not an act of war.

i believe there was a blockade of others' commerce involved.

c1ue
09-02-11, 11:06 AM
I didn't know that Japan was threatenedy by China in the 1930's.

Japan and China have had an adversarial relationship for literally thousands of years.

The term Kamikaze in fact arose from a typhoon sinking a Chinese invasion fleet.

It was only after the Meiji Restoration that Japan was in a position to repay its centuries of being bullied by China.


It was supposed to be a peaceful way of containing this belligerent nation.

I recommend you read up on the history more. In fact Japan had signed commercial agreements to buy literally millions of barrels of US oil and oil products; these were all either unilaterally abrogated or held up by deliberate US internal bureaucracy.

It was this act which the scholars agree - on both sides of the Pacific - which prompted Japan's leadership to consider other actions. In fact it was this act which allowed the militant faction within Japanese politics to gain ascendancy.

There is no question Japan was belligerent, but that isn't the issue. In the same period, Germany was belligerent but didn't undergo any embargoes.

In fact there were far more provocations than the oil embargo.

The Flying Tigers, for example, was a cadre of US pilots and airplanes supplied to China to fight the Japanese 6 months before Pearl Harbor.

Germany and the Soviet Union both also supplied Chiang Kai Shek in order to 'contain' Japan.


The collective refusal of a nation to economically cooperate or assist or help another nation is not an attack and is certainly not an act of war.

If your nation is 80% dependent on oil imports, and your largest supplier just canceled all its previously signed agreements with you to supply oil, do you consider this an act of peace?

And what if said supplier also sent its military aircraft and pilots specifically to fight your forces?

Slimprofits
09-02-11, 06:08 PM
the economic sanctions against Japan were supposedly because of thier growing empire
in the far east. It was supposed to be a peaceful way of containing this belligerent nation.
The US should have expected a military response,

If the US should have expected a military response, than it wasn't a peaceful action.

Sanctions are almost always a step on the way up to military engagement of some kind. Are there any examples of this not being true?


The collective refusal of a nation to economically cooperate or assist or help another nation is not an attack and is certainly not an act of war.

If two entities are not cooperating and they're also not ignoring each other, than what is the state of their relationship?

Sanctions are not ignoring.

Polish_Silver
09-03-11, 10:05 AM
The US should have expected Japan to make a military response, because Japan was using it's military very aggressively to expand territory. Piss them off for any reason, expect them to attack you.

I have an old fashioned view that war always involves people being shot at, explosives going off, occupation of foreign soil, etc.
Cutting off oil just does not count. They were not using that much oil to grow thier rice, so it was harldy life threatening.


The oil export termination possibly should have been handled differently, but letting a cruel empire like Japan buy critical resources without limit is unethical!

Supplying CKS was participating in war, but CKS was not exactly invading Japan!

jpatter666
09-03-11, 02:28 PM
The US should have expected Japan to make a military response, because Japan was using it's military very aggressively to expand territory. Piss them off for any reason, expect them to attack you.

I have an old fashioned view that war always involves people being shot at, explosives going off, occupation of foreign soil, etc.
Cutting off oil just does not count. They were not using that much oil to grow thier rice, so it was harldy life threatening.


The oil export termination possibly should have been handled differently, but letting a cruel empire like Japan buy critical resources without limit is unethical!

Supplying CKS was participating in war, but CKS was not exactly invading Japan!

The US did expect Japan to attack -- but they thought the Philippines. They got caught with their pants down at Pearl Harbor also I think most here are aware how scandalously close the US came to it being the other way around. Luck often plays a major factor in war.

So far as sanctions and oil are concerned, should the US have responded differently to the 1973 oil embargo then? I suppose you could make a similar comparison to the US and Saudi Arabia now. If Saudi suddenly got off all oil exports to the West (I'll say West instead of US since yes, we don't get nearly as much from them) how would the Western Powers respond?

I'd imagine not very well.....

c1ue
09-03-11, 06:18 PM
The US should have expected Japan to make a military response, because Japan was using it's military very aggressively to expand territory. Piss them off for any reason, expect them to attack you.

Um, ok. So the US' naked imperialistic grab for Spanish possessions in the Pacific a mere generation prior (i.e. the Spanish American War of 1898) which netted the US the Phillipines, Guam, and Puerto Rico - is ok.

But Naked Japanese aggression is not.


Supplying CKS was participating in war, but CKS was not exactly invading Japan!

Right, so Russian and Chinese advisors and equipment in Vietnam and North Korea as just as equally acts of peace as were American advisors and Stingers in Afghanistan.

Verrocchio
09-04-11, 10:32 AM
Um, ok. So the US' naked imperialistic grab for Spanish possessions in the Pacific a mere generation prior (i.e. the Spanish American War of 1898) which netted the US the Phillipines, Guam, and Puerto Rico - is ok.

But Naked Japanese aggression is not.


Export controls and embargos (the US 1940 Export Control Act, the 1973 OAPEC Oil Embargo), deception (the Mukden Incident, the Tonkin Gulf Incident of August 4th), proxy wars (US advisers in Afghanistan, as already cited; and treaties (the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the 1858 Treaty of Amity and Commerce) are all legitimate ways to shape relations with other states. Both Japan and the US ascended to become great powers in the 19th and 20th centuries, although almost every important dimension of their respective economies and cultures stand in contrast. Japan sought to gain control of the resources that were necessary for continued economic expansion, and the US sought to contain an incipient rival. These are legitimate goals of nation-states, and historical precedents aplenty can be found for the means that each nation used to pursue them.

Woodsman
08-03-14, 08:25 AM
I learned my lesson from the Housing Bubble episode. No policy is too stupid and short-sighted for these guys. Setting us up for a major war then taking us into it represents a continuation of a series of mistakes, consistent with a pattern of errors driven by a set of operands. I will not spell out what the operands are as that is part of the secret sauce of my ten year forecast, but suffice it to say that they are not thinking several moves ahead but only about how to take the piece in front of them.

Our leadership over the past 30 years did not intentionally choose policies that resulted in the current economic crisis. They acted in their perceived self-interest.

There are two kinds of self-interest. Intelligent self-interest that improves your world and self-destructive self-interest that sets it back. Theirs is the latter kind.

The same self-destructive, self-interested leadership that brought you the credit bubble and that spawned the FIRE Economy, are now, via pursuit of disastrously flawed economic recovery policies, in the process of drawing you, your children, and your grandchildren into the next great war. War is the inevitable consequence of the eventual failure of these policies.

They will cause the US to enter a new recession before the output gap created by the last recession closes. The Great Recession will then become a kind of Great Depression II with many of the social stresses and political change that implies (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/7996-My-Memories-Of-The-Great-Depression-1929-To-1939).

But The Great Depression didn't cause WWII. It was a catalyst for war.

Several of you have pointed out that the political antecedents for WWII do not exist today. I agree. However, I don't expect a repeat of WWII. I expect a completely different kind of war, just as WWII was a new kind of war.

The antecedent this time is oil supply scarcity. The catalyst will be The Great Depression II and a 20% to 40% decline in US living standards.

There are two dozen factors that will give the great war its unique qualities but consider one in particular that did not exist during WWII: image driven electronic media.

Image driven electronic media is the most efficient machine of mass belief shaping in human history. It will be used by the state to erase old beliefs and create new ones in a matter of days if not hours.

The Chinese system of mass belief formation already in place erased all awareness of the Tienanmen Square massacre. It will be deployed to help China's leadership externalize China's future economic crisis. China's leadership will blame the US for its crisis once its state finance capital based prosperity ends.

Anyone who thinks that China and the US cannot engage in warfare, consider the instances when China and the US recently engaged (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/17/balkans) militarily. Arms (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch/) and tactics (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html) will be unconventional at the outset and confrontations will evolve in unexpected ways.

To sum up my argument: Leadership that is stupid and short sighted enough to let the tech bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to let the housing bubble develop to bale the economy out of the tech bubble crash, and then let the housing bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to try to restart the FIRE Economy and drive the economy toward a mid-gap recession, at which point a new round of layoffs pushes unemployment to 12% and higher and crushes consumer spending -- such leadership is stupid and short sighted enough to finish the course, to lead the US into wars it cannot win.

Reading this again in light of the recent conversations around the new Cold War and the 50th anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin lie.

Chris
08-03-14, 10:44 AM
Frankly, I have no fingernails left after re-reading that analysis. I recall having a similar feeling of utter helplessness and worry for my children's future the first time I read it.

shiny!
08-03-14, 11:32 AM
Good find, Woodsman. Can you possibly give us the link to that post by EJ?

Woodsman
08-03-14, 11:49 AM
Good find, Woodsman. Can you possibly give us the link to that post by EJ?

Right, totally forgot.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/19599-The-Next-Ten-Years-%C2%96-Part-I-There-will-be-blood-Eric-Janszen?p=200793#post200793

shiny!
08-03-14, 12:32 PM
Right, totally forgot.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/19599-The-Next-Ten-Years-%C2%96-Part-I-There-will-be-blood-Eric-Janszen?p=200793#post200793

Thanks, Woodsman. Funny how I have trouble wrapping my head around a lot of what EJ says but it becomes clear with hindsight:



Image driven electronic media is the most efficient machine of mass belief shaping in human history. It will be used by the state to erase old beliefs and create new ones in a matter of days if not hours.

With Facebook perfecting emotional manipulation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/) of people on a mass scale, this statement turned out to be highly prescient indeed.

Polish_Silver
08-03-14, 10:21 PM
I have read several responses here along the lines of "China and the US won't engage in direct military confrontation because there is no way for either to prevail over the other." To my way of thinking, US and Chinese leadership have made in one miscalculation after another for decades and are painting themselves into a corner with only one way out.

. . . .



To sum up my argument: Leadership that is stupid and short sighted enough to let the tech bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to let the housing bubble develop to bale the economy out of the tech bubble crash, and then let the housing bubble run to its disastrous conclusion, stupid and short sighted enough to try to restart the FIRE Economy and drive the economy toward a mid-gap recession, at which point a new round of layoffs pushes unemployment to 12% and higher and crushes consumer spending -- such leadership is stupid and short sighted enough to finish the course, to lead the US into wars it cannot win.

Well, they have been that stupid since at least 1960 (http://ramblingsdc.net/FutilityOfWar.html).

jpetr48
08-04-14, 01:13 AM
Frankly, I have no fingernails left after re-reading that analysis. I recall having a similar feeling of utter helplessness and worry for my children's future the first time I read it.

after reading this, i have to agree. It made me wonder how did those who lived during the 1930s make it thru in the US?
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/life_14.html

It appears that a simple life style replaced the more lavish and people formed community easier.
I am not sure how this would play out with our younger generation. iPhone, iPad everything is personally designed to you and me. No need to meet just text
when the next collapse does happen how will our children rally together or will they just tweet?

Chris Coles
08-04-14, 04:48 AM
after reading this, i have to agree. It made me wonder how did those who lived during the 1930s make it thru in the US?
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/life_14.html

It appears that a simple life style replaced the more lavish and people formed community easier.
I am not sure how this would play out with our younger generation. iPhone, iPad everything is personally designed to you and me. No need to meet just text
when the next collapse does happen how will our children rally together or will they just tweet?

It is then that us "Oldies", I am 70, will have a need to step forward to provide some leadership. We grew up without all these attachments, and thus know how to adapt without them. As I see it, we have to stay in the background and be open to direct interaction when TSHTF, as it will.

My advice to others at my age is to open conversations with the young at every opportunity. My own experience is that the young today have very little experience of such direct contact; yet welcome it as a new experience. Let them gain some confidence, so that, when they need to talk, they will already know that the contact is always welcomed with a smile.

On the other hand, if we push them away; they will surely place the blame upon our generation and that may lead to violence towards us; so we have every reason to keep the dialogue going at every opportunity.

lakedaemonian
08-04-14, 07:28 AM
It is then that us "Oldies", I am 70, will have a need to step forward to provide some leadership. We grew up without all these attachments, and thus know how to adapt without them. As I see it, we have to stay in the background and be open to direct interaction when TSHTF, as it will.

My advice to others at my age is to open conversations with the young at every opportunity. My own experience is that the young today have very little experience of such direct contact; yet welcome it as a new experience. Let them gain some confidence, so that, when they need to talk, they will already know that the contact is always welcomed with a smile.

On the other hand, if we push them away; they will surely place the blame upon our generation and that may lead to violence towards us; so we have every reason to keep the dialogue going at every opportunity.

This is may be a somewhat relevant analog.

In my research of the buildup of the Arab Spring, the thing that actually and tangibly tied the virtual to the literal were personal relationships between members of the virtual only online Arab Spring movement networks with the real world soccer/football/hooligan club/thug networks.

Each on their own would have been ineffective:

virtual world only networks would have produced impotent "bring back our girls" memes without any lasting effect

Real world only hooligan networks would have produced random uncoordinated chaos lacking credibility without any lasting effect

But together they made for a potent combination.

Maybe in the west it may be a pairing between internet savvy youth networks with mature physical space networks.

I could imagine tactics to divide generations over retirement welfare for the old, student debt for the young, opposite sides of the real estate value continuum, and a battle over ultimately limited healthcare resources may prevent it from gaining traction.

But I think it will take a partnership between virtual and real networks to leverage sufficient social/political power to effect substantive change.

jpetr48
08-04-14, 10:45 AM
It is then that us "Oldies", I am 70, will have a need to step forward to provide some leadership. We grew up without all these attachments, and thus know how to adapt without them. As I see it, we have to stay in the background and be open to direct interaction when TSHTF, as it will.

My advice to others at my age is to open conversations with the young at every opportunity. My own experience is that the young today have very little experience of such direct contact; yet welcome it as a new experience. Let them gain some confidence, so that, when they need to talk, they will already know that the contact is always welcomed with a smile.

On the other hand, if we push them away; they will surely place the blame upon our generation and that may lead to violence towards us; so we have every reason to keep the dialogue going at every opportunity.

well said Chris - we are not too far apart i am 58.
i just did what you said this weekend- in helping one of our universities raise money, before the event, i struck up a conversation with a student/worker. He was 27 and told me the story of after losing his mother and father he became angry at God and developed the prodigal son lifestyle. However at a latter age he has restored his self esteem and is now majoring in psychology so that he can help other at risk teenagers and young adults. He currently volunteers on a peer board with judges that review some of these dysfunctional cases so that compassion and restoration can occur. (BTW- the stats are that most of these at risk problems happen from broken households (70%) and we both agreed between ages 18-26.
The point is within this generation we will also see leaders and it is our job to encourage and listen to them also.
I am quite proud to play a small role in raising capacity for other fields so more students like this can be the light in a dark world.