Economic Devastation

[B.A.S.]

That's the ticket:

Do we (the US) scale back our innovative/entrepreneurial spirit in favor of restructuring the broken (or soon to be) architecture of America and returning to the fundamentals?

OR-

Ramp it up even more, riding the tidal wave all the way to the shore where we enviably crash into the beach suffering an economic depression as great as the 1930s or worse?

Huh?

Why do you equate our innovation with what is broken?

Now I think I am reading you are one of those guys who thinks technology and "complexity" are the problem and life would be great if we all returned to the Amish Paradise.

Technology is certainly not the problem. After all, I am involved in BTC. The US has high entrepreneurial rewards for those willing to try. The problem is the demand for our entrepreneurial spirit (i.e. most other nations don't care or don't have the fiscal capacity to care).

What's broken is the outlet for our innovations. There is nobody to sell it to because all the US does is innovate; we don't produce it. Take Apple for instance... Designed in California; made in China.

The US needs to start caring about itself instead of others. IMO, innovation in the US is made to export, not the reverse.

[iamback]

B.A.S. afaics you do not grasp the thesis of this thread (at least my thesis when I wrote the two essays linked from the OP, as well my posts in the Dark Enlightenment thread). The Industrial Age (high economies-of-scale, low active knowledge, high fixed investment capital manufacturing) is a negative profit activity. After the $200+ trillion global debt bubble implodes (which is the only thing holding up the Industrial Age), all that will be left standing will be the innovation.

The problem with the USA is socialism which is parasitic and destructive on the productive economy. My hypothesis is that after this global crisis, the productive economy will be primarily knowledge innovation, i.e. the manufacturing economies will be insignificant relative to the knowledge components (e.g. marketing analysis, product design, etc).

[allbits]

Tough to take anyone seriously who applies the term "socialism" to the current political setup in the United States.

There is not a single element of the power structure in the United States that is not completely hostile to socialism.

But perhaps you are using a different definition for this term?  Such as the one usually used by the right wing hordes in the United States who are suckered into believing a cartoon version of politics:

[picolo]

Tough to take anyone seriously who applies the term "socialism" to the current political setup in the United States.

There is not a single element of the power structure in the United States that is not completely hostile to socialism.

But perhaps you are using a different definition for this term?  Such as the one usually used by the right wing hordes in the United States who are suckered into believing a cartoon version of politics:

There has been more and more socialism and collectivisation in the last decades as the government grew, the debt and taxes went up and the people were not improving their life styles anymore. Rich were getting richer, poor were getting poorer.

You cannot deny the governement is intervening much more now than in the 50's. There are more social programs that ever, yet the middle class and poor are suffering more.

[iamback]

Tough to take anyone seriously who applies the term "socialism" to the current political setup in the United States.

Correct I prefer to ignore collectivists pigs that use semantic shell games to obscure the fact that growth of government as a share of GDP is the concomitant factor in all flavors of totalitarian governance, e.g. socialism, fascism, communism, and democracy.

I (as UnunoctiumTesticles) had this discussion already with you socialist pigs in the Net Neutrality thread:

^ it's the second thread I see where you posted this. Wasn't once enough? xD
Also calling every socialist retarded without knowing what socialism is, is probably not a good idea lol.

That's one thing which Americans do all the time which particularly irritates me, they clearly don't know what socialism is.

Europeans apparently don't have a clue since they will repeat their megadeath from the 1940s again in the next decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism in its generative essence is any system where the government is a very large percentage of the GDP, because implicitly it is in control of the economy and directing the redistribution of resources not for free market profit but for the "benefit of the society".

Europe precisely falls into this most generalized essence of socialism. As well you can factor in the Universal Health Care (not for profit but for social benefit), the strong political power of the debilitating unions, the government bailouts for example for Peugot, banks, etc..

Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.

Some references for those who don't want to remain ignorant:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/31/various-flavors-of-government/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/economic-thought/by-topic/socialism/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/04/government-punishes-savers-to-support-debtors-has-western-society-become-fascist/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/05/01/are-we-headed-into-global-fascism/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/11/socialism-at-its-best-how-to-destroy-the-wealth-of-a-nation/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/10/dollar-gold-dow-interest-rates/

[NotLambchop]

Correct I prefer to ignore collectivists pigs that use semantic shell games to obscure the fact that growth of government as a share of GDP is the concomitant factor in all flavors of totalitarian governance, e.g. socialism, fascism, communism, and democracy.

Even our libertardianism is not safe anymore.  Here's a little something the mainstream press tries to sweep under the rug: Proudhon was a Communist and an unrepentant Jew.  


Here's proof:
Proudhon [naively] tried to hide his all-too-obvious Jewness by writing "heartfelt" articles denouncing the a noxious bacillus [that] keeps spreading as soon as a favorable medium invites him (The Jew).

The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us." (Carnets, vol. 2, p. 337: No VI, 178)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Proudhon also invented thermite, another scientifically designed plague on humanity, which culminated in the destruction of Twin Towers (on 9/11 by his co-conspirators, the other Jews).
Coincidence?  or CREEPING TOTALITARIANISM?

[B.A.S.]

B.A.S. afaics you do not grasp the thesis of this thread. My hypothesis is that after this global crisis, the productive economy will be primarily knowledge innovation, i.e. the manufacturing economies will be insignificant relative to the knowledge components (e.g. marketing analysis, product design, etc).

There is nobody to sell it to because all the US does is innovate; we don't produce it. Take Apple for instance... Designed in California; made in China. The US needs to start caring about itself instead of others. IMO, innovation in the US is made to export, not the reverse.

This is my point exactly. Knowledge doesn't get you anywhere if you don't produce anything. There is ample evidence of this problem right now in today's US economy. Look at the financial sector. The banking and finance world have been the leading companies for years "producing" the most "product" (dollars). The finance industry doesn't create any real products made with real materials.

It's worthless. Great Nations are rarely built by knowledge components alone. They are built with blood, sweat and tears of hardworking men in the manufacturing and trades world. Look at today's US. We have a bunch of pansy ass entitled kids with no real job skills and unlimited amounts of time and whining. My father didn't whine. His father didn't whine. Now don't get me wrong, we need both, but we cannot have one without the other. I am one who is paid by my knowledge, but I cannot exist without the individuals "keeping the lights on" sort of speak.

The US needs to return a large stake of its work back to its soil. A Nation's ability to innovate can be seen as a sign of strength, but it is also a luxury. If the basic needs of a Nation are not met first, innovating is a waste of time and resources (necessity is the mother of all invention).

[allbits]

Even tougher to take someone seriously who infers that I am a socialist based on the content of my post.  You really come across like a frothy-mouthed fool despite your intelligence in some areas.  Is this your intent?

If not, you might want to reconsider your approach.

[allbits]

Tough to take anyone seriously who applies the term "socialism" to the current political setup in the United States.

There is not a single element of the power structure in the United States that is not completely hostile to socialism.

But perhaps you are using a different definition for this term?  Such as the one usually used by the right wing hordes in the United States who are suckered into believing a cartoon version of politics:

There has been more and more socialism and collectivisation in the last decades as the government grew, the debt and taxes went up and the people were not improving their life styles anymore. Rich were getting richer, poor were getting poorer.

You cannot deny the governement is intervening much more now than in the 50's. There are more social programs that ever, yet the middle class and poor are suffering more.

Debt and taxes are not rising as a result of "socialists" pulling the levers of power.

If you want to have a serious discussion on these issues, start by using long-accepted definitions of terms used by people who study and write seriously about these issues.  When you do something as absurd as call the United States political set-up "socialist", you line yourself up with a cartoon version of politics and show yourself as someone who is being duped by one of the most important strands of political propaganda that has emerged in the last three decades.  The United States is not run by socialists.  That is utterly obvious.  If it is not obvious to you, you are using a tainted definition of the word socialism, one that has been blasted into the lower echelons of political debate for the purpose of obscuring the truth.

[CoinCube]

There is not a single element of the power structure in the United States that is not completely hostile to socialism.

But perhaps you are using a different definition for this term?  
...
Debt and taxes are not rising as a result of "socialists" pulling the levers of power.
...
The United States is not run by socialists.  That is utterly obvious.  If it is not obvious to you, you are using a tainted definition of the word socialism.

allbits it is fairly clear from your response that you have not read the links in the first post of this thread.

Focusing on whatever baggage the word socialism has been associated with is a distraction. When we talk about socialism here we are typically using some variation of the following definition.

Socialism: a system of collective control especially over production and distribution in an economy.

In a socialist economy the government controlls the means of production either directly via government spending (think military industrial complex) on indirectly via redistribution to favored groups (think welfare recipients, government health care, and bank bailouts).

The system is failing because we have an unsustainable financial system that transfers tremendous wealth to a parasitic and non-productive elite. Socialism and taxes are rising because the system impoverishes an ever larger underclass who do not understanding the mechanism of their impoverishment and demand their own parasitic redistribution. Governments are insolvent because we have reached the point where the host (the productive middle class) can no longer support the appetite of these dual ever growing parasites. Debt is rising because governments are mortgaging the future to pospone the inevitable reckoning.

[allbits]

underclass who do not understand the mechanism of their impoverishment

You are describing yourself here, I think.

You are deliberately mis-using well-defined terms in a way that lines up with a key propaganda meme propagated by the very forces you seek to unmask.  Do you not see the absurdity in this?

[allbits]

Socialism: a system of collective control especially over production and distribution in an economy.

The United States has no collective control over production and distribution.  The government is completely captured and under the control of a very narrow group of private interests.  Anyone can see that.

In a socialist economy the government controls the means of production

Using this definition, a feudal system is socialism!

[CoinCube]

underclass who do not understand the mechanism of their impoverishment

You are describing yourself here, I think.

You are deliberately mis-using well-defined terms in a way that lines up with a key propaganda meme propagated by the very forces you seek to unmask.  Do you not see the absurdity in this?

...

The United States has no collective control over production and distribution.  The government is completely captured and under the control of a very narrow group of private interests.  Anyone can see that.

Personal insults so soon huh?  

Since you seem so keenly interested I am actually in the reviled 1% based on 2014 income (but I am somewhat young and have not been making that kind of money long so my net worth is not high). I am close to the government money spigot and a direct beneficiary of our current system (a winner of the status quo if you will). I would be quite happy if our current system went on without a hiccup for another 30+ years. Unfortunately that seems unlikely.  
 
I am sorry that the definition of socialism so offends you. However, you may want to check the actual dictionary before you start accusing people of "mis-using well-defined terms"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

If you don't like the word socialist feel free to substitute all instances with the term collectivism. In this context I prefer it as it is more clear and free from the political baggage. The substitution makes no difference to the arguments presented.  

Collectivism: the political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collectivism

Your blanket assertion that the government has no control over production and distribution is false. Government spending is around 40% of GDP and that number will only climb with time.


http://taxfoundation.org/article/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states

Your claim that government is captured and controlled by special interests is of course correct. But you apparently do not see that the end result of the blue teams redistribution to the poor and the red teams redistribution to the connected is identical. Both teams undercut and gut the productive working class thereby accelerating the inevitable decline.

[OROBTC]

...

CoinCube (and friends)

CC, your graph of .gov expenditures to GDP is excellent, it almost is a nice (but imperfect) definition of Socialism right there!

Arguing over semantics of Socialism may not be productive.  Most of us know it when we see it.  The USA (see CC's graph last post) is heading quickly to Socialism by almost ANY definition.  I don't have the stats handy, but I would consider ANY national economy with close to 40% .gov expenditures to be pretty close...  Some of the European countries, IIRC, are well over 50%.  Yow!

*   *   *

CC, your distinction between INCOME and WEALTH is very cogent.  Being in the 1% of income will allow you to rapidly build up real wealth.  And since I do not know your situation, I could only suggest saving as much as you can.  Hardly anyone who is young saves.  Particularly if your income could be at real risk.  A cop I know has started saving money for the first time in his LIFE.  But, many municipalities are weak now, he could lose all the overtime he is making or even his job if something goes wrong (a bad arrest, etc.).

And even though I highly respect the intellectual power of iamback's arguments, I still would be diversified...  NO ONE can predict the future.

[iamback]

Socialism: a system of collective control especially over production and distribution in an economy.

The United States has no collective control over production and distribution.  The government is completely captured and under the control of a very narrow group of private interests.  Anyone can see that.

In a socialist economy the government controls the means of production

Using this definition, a feudal system is socialism!

As I said you are a socialist pig who has fallen into the trap of blaming the "1%", and would advocate regulation of (and thus effectively redistributing from) the 1% back to the 99% in order to rectify what you think is the problem.

What you don't realize is that the 0.00001%[1] who has captured the media and the government is using that trap to get you to support redistributing from yourself to them. Here is an example:

USA votes to tax and steal the internet (but they thought they were voting "for the Internet" dumb ass sheeople).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html

Decadence. USA to kill the goose that laid its golden eggs. High tech will run from the USA.

Until you understand this (probably never), you will remain (probably forever) a sheep. Isn't it amazing that a reasonably intelligent person such as yourself can be so fooled. Even the very intelligent CoinCube was similarly fooled before he read my essays. So don't feel too bad about me calling a spade a spade. At least you can rectify your ignorance if you choose too.

The semantic difference between your definitions is obfuscation.

P.S. The reason I don't bother to be polite is because you socialist pigs are an incorrigible lot.

[1]

This is the Council on Foreign Relations publication. It generally predicts five to twenty years out institutional changes and what is on the horizon before it happens. The topics addressed are issues of concern to the CFR and not necessarily reflect official position or consensus among the elite, but . http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143162/paul-vigna-and-michael-j-casey/bitcoin-for-the-unbanked There is a clear split. The central banks dont like Bitcoin, the tax authorities are neutral because it is so heavily centralized on Coinbase and Bitpay that it can be taxed automatically. The income is "matchable" if it goes through bitpay/coinbase. The upper tiers support Bitcoin and vaguely hope it may be able to reign in the FED or generally believe it will promote justice in the world. They see banks seizing houses they dont own and selling them without even pretense. They understand the FED and financial sector group is too powerful to be restrained by law... There is a sincere intention that technologies like Bitcoin may get the poor or anyone with a cell phone onto the global financial system. There is a split between the interests... Bitcoin is really a war of the 1% against the 0.00001%. I wrote my response to your post before you wrote your post: Also don't assume TPTB are against Bitcoin. I think they love it. The overriding globalists want to destroy the existing monetary system and replace it with a global control. A global non-anonymous ledger is a coup for them.

[iamback]

Government spending is around 40% of GDP and that number will only climb with time.

I am disappointed that you continue to quote this very low figure without a caveat that it doesn't include regulation, since I have documented upthread that with the costs of regulation the figure is greater than 60% in the USA.

The government has much control over the economy with regulations. For example, if you are not a friend of the Obama administration, you don't get a carbon tax waiver, then you must close your electricity generation plant (or sell it to one of his cronies). This has actually been happening. Google the news in 2012. See Bundy thread to dig into all the abuse and land grabs by the BLM.

[OROBTC]

...

iamback wrote:

"P.S. The reason I don't bother to be polite is because you socialist pigs are an incorrigible lot."  LOL...  You must have been quoting Maggie Thatcher.



*   *   *

I would consider the 0.01% - 0.0001% to all be the Evil Capitalists much excoriated by our Socialist pals.  0.01% is 1 in 10,000 people.  While I have little experience with large numbers of the very rich, it is not JUST the owners of the media (etc.) who carry blame for using SOCIALISM to prop-up their wealth gathering.

The 0.0001% (one in a million) need a class just below them.  Which they would pay pretty well.  Their Squires if you will.

Middle management counts...  Tenured professors...  Lobbyists...  Low level banksters...



EDIT: Anyone touting "global warming" should be automatically inducted into the Socialist Class.

[iamback]

The 0.0001% (one in a million) need a class just below them.  Which they would pay pretty well.  Their Squires if you will.

Middle management counts...  Tenured professors...  Lobbyists...

Oh yeah nearly everyone is complicit, from the lower class up to the 1-in-a-10-million elite. It is a social disease, which is what I wrote about in my essay (linked in the first post of this thread) on "understanding everything fundamentally".

The 0.0001 - 0.00001% elite (e.g. Bilderbergers) need the 1% (e.g. executives of Goldman Sachs) but they also need to maintain control over them, which is the point of my quote about Bitcoin in the prior post. Bitcoin appears to be a fulcrum (for the elite) against their underlings (the grunts at the banks).

Afaics so far (my current thought process), Armstrong's myopia is he equates the 0.00001% with the 1%. He thinks that when Rothchilds sent one of his relatives to work with him[1], that was representative of the Rothschilds ineptitude or impotence, i.e. he thinks the cycles are in control and not the elite (which I agree, but I argue the 0.00001% elite align themselves with the cycles and do plan out how to maximize top-down control within that framework). The Bilderbergers need Armstrong, that is why he is still alive and free.

[1]

... http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/22/14636/ I think Armstrong is just speaking matter-of-factly when he says the direction will be the one-world digital reserve currency: REPLY: I really think all of this conspiracy nonsense is absurd. YES there are groups that get together like G20 and Bilderberg meetings. I have even been the keynote speaker at such elite banking meetings. However, wanting to do something and actually being able to do it is another thing all together. I have the fortune of knowing some very talented people... We had “Uncle Ed” Rothschild implant his nephew into our company. I began getting calls from clients asking what was going on because he had gone through my roledex calling clients saying to buy a horrible Canadian mining company so Uncle Ed could sell his position. So if you think these people “know” and are in absolute control of everything, you are buying into bullshit. They hated my guts and they put the words in the mouth of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who never met a banker it did not kneel to. These people tried to manipulate markets – not the world. They were all jumping into Russia after they bailed out and sold Southeast Asia. They invited me to the IMF dinner Edmond Safra paid for to try to get me to join them. I told them Russia would fail. When it did, they argued it was me who manipulated the world economy because I had more influence than they did. Let’s put this straight. If such groups were all powerful, then why do they go bust with each crash and run to government for bailouts? I do not disagree that there are groups who “try” to control things, but there is no way they can stop anything from happening. I do not speak of these things off the cuff. I have had FIRST HAND up front experience. All the conversations I ever had about the markets and manipulations were on tapes. There was also a group of us who monitored what these people were up to next. All of that evidence that in a REAL government would have sent them to jail, magically vanished in the collapse of World Trade Center 7 – the building that magically fell by itself in less than 7 seconds and was not hit by anything. CONVENIENT? ...

EDIT: Anyone touting "global warming" should be automatically inducted into the Socialist Class.

Yup:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?tag=agw (150+ IQ genius Eric Raymond, who invented the term "open source")
Seven Eight Warning Signs of Junk Science
AGW panic ending with a whimper
Causes and implications of the pause
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/13/global-warming-why-it-is-nonsense/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/23/global-warming-v-environment/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/02/scientists-caught-again-faking-global-warming-data/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/01/global-warming-being-exposed-as-a-fraud/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/07/computer-modeling-depends-upon-the-input-un-global-warming-model-dead-wrong-for-18-years/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/21/global-warming-crowd-now-argue-it-is-cycles-that-mask-the-warming-trend/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/22/great-lakes-with-historical-record-ice/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/28/global-warming-crowd-want-more-money-to-study-of-all-things-the-4-seasons/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/07/global-warming-crowd-forgot-about-underwater-volcanoes-oops/

Include anyone touting Net Neutrality.

[iamback]

I still would be diversified...  NO ONE[except Armstrong's computer model] can predict the future.

Afaics Armstrong can and does accurately predict the future. The longer the time between the date of his prediction and the date of the predicted event, the more accurately he can predict it (it is actually short-term predictions that are more variable and don't follow a cyclicity).

Even Armstrong advocates having some gold and silver coins. He says hold the most recognizable form, i.e. not bullion. Because if these become useful, then it will be in chaotic personal barter situation where no assays are available.

Armstrong has clarified why and how he can predict so accurately:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/02/cyclical-techical-fundamental-analysis/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/02/27739/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/02/cyclical-symmetry/

Cyclical Symmetry

I have written before how strange symmetry seems to unfold with the names like the last Roman Emperor having the founder Romulus and the first Emperor Augustus. The same in Byzantium and even the forecasts for Popes. I have explained that it made perfect sense that the first Sovereign Default should be Greece for that is where Western Civilization began. Athens was the first Financial Capital of the World in the West taking that from the Persians.

The first banking failure in 1931 that set in motion the Great Depression took place in Austria. It was the failure of Credit Anstalt, which was partly owned by the Rothschilds, that set off the banking panic.

Well now, the first European bank collapse is also in Austria. The creditor participation in the Austrian Heta bank could mean up to 50% loss for the holders of bonds. The biggest problem of the Austrian model lies in the great temptation for states to abuse their extensive rights and thereby do great harm together with buyers of bonds.

As always, where it begins, it strangely ends. I really cannot explain this one. It is merely an observation.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/02/consumer-credit-moving-higher-into-2015-75/

Consumer Credit Moving Higher into 2015.75

Subprime consumer borrowing — encompassing auto loans, credit card loans and personal loans — climbed to $189 billion in the first 11 months last year, the highest total since 2007, according to a study compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Equifax. This is precisely what I mean about living with the cycle. People will spend when they SEE everyone else spending. This provides the foundation to consumer confidence. This is why the rich are important. If they are driving around in flashy cars and going out to dinner, not only are they spending, they are creating the impression everything is OK and this becomes the contagion that spreads as consumer confidence. If they spend nothing and save, the rest of society will follow. It is an interesting leadership role.

This is right on time. We should see the peak in debt on a private level whereas when the economy turns down [after 2015.75], governments will be desperately trying to borrow more and more.

[OROBTC]

...

iamback

Author George Friedman (CEO of StratFor, so a NeoCon, but I have no problem with him) wrote two books in the past few years.  One predicting the next 100 years, and later a book predicting the next 10 years.  He too said that the macro-trends for the next 100 years were more predictable as far as he was concerned than the next 10 years (because of Black Swans and other one-off events).  I don't have the titles handy, but if you are interested, they are for sale, for sure, via Amazon.  (My wife makes me get rid of books when I finish them...)

I too will be watching this September (2015.75), red alert!  Historically, September is the worst month on the average for stocks.  October is when we see the big drops...

I would agree w/ Armstrong re coins vs. bullion.  Gold 1 oz Eagles are easy to test ("ring" test, OD and weight), and are relatively familiar (here).  For residents of other countries, go with the local coins.  Easy recognition is a BIG PLUS.  Gold diversification would suggest HODLing some 0.25 oz and 0.10 oz Eagles for smaller transactions.