Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jpetr48
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Chris Coles View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Chris Coles View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by jpetr48 View Post
    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/far...s/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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpetr48
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Chris View Post
    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/far...s/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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Polish_Silver
    replied
    Stupid enough for the last half century

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
    Thanks, Woodsman. Funny how I have trouble wrapping my head around a lot of what EJ says but it becomes clear with hindsight:

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    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 of people on a mass scale, this statement turned out to be highly prescient indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    Good find, Woodsman. Can you possibly give us the link to that post by EJ?
    Right, totally forgot.

    http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...793#post200793

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Good find, Woodsman. Can you possibly give us the link to that post by EJ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    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.

    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 militarily. Arms and tactics 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Verrocchio
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • c1ue
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Polish Silver
    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.

    Originally posted by Polish Silver
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpatter666
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
    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.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Polish_Silver
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Slimprofits
    replied
    Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    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?

    Originally posted by Scot View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Slimprofits; 09-02-11, 06:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X