Economic Devastation

[AnonyMint]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: When the liquidity dam breaks, we're all damned
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Wed, June 25, 2014 5:46 am
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The liquidity that exists today is largely a lack of panic and belief in the power of the system to always provide liquidity. Once that confidence dam breaks, all hell is going to break loose. It is going to lay waste to the global economic as ferocious accelerated waterfall crash pace, once it breaks.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/25/feds-exit-tax-on-bonds-confirms-liquidity-crisis/

Don't forget the velocity of money has been plummeting. See the chart I posted on that a few weeks ago.

Velocity has gone down because many countries are starting to use their own currency on bilateral trade.

You don't seem to understand relative size. The volume drop far exceeds the rise of any use of other currencies.

I added the chart to the prior post.

[1715066939]

1715066939

[1715066939]

1715066939

[hashman]

Don't forget the velocity of [fiat] has been plummeting. See the chart I posted on that a few weeks ago.

Thanks for your posts anonymint!

Just curious, do you believe there is any accuracy to these (or any) fiat statistics?  After using coin networks for some years we become accustomed to actually knowing the money supply, days destroyed, transactions per sec., etc..   For me there is a stark contrast between this kind of transparency and the numbers we hear thrown around in the fiat realm (80 billion per month QE, velocity decreasing, GDP, etc).  However it seems you are putting some import on this particular metric despite the lack of transparency in measurement technique or verifiability.  Could you explain why? 

Cheers -- 

[STT]

Velocity has gone down because many countries are starting to use their own currency on bilateral trade.

Is it also effected by the amount of money tied up in bonds.   Im not sure the amount of trade diverted is yet adding up to much considering world gdp growth.

Also im wondering if the high velocity of things like bitcoin is in some way compensating for turgid markets elsewhere where competition and free enterprise is restricted(regulated), hence very high velocity in cryptocurrency

[AnonyMint]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

[Benjig]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

Just what IS it with all these robots? They're putting people out of work--if a robot is doing a job, a person isn't. Also, they're used militarily to KILL people. But the real stupidity of it all is, why are we building these machines to our detriment?

[STT]

Very impressive, looks like Ed209.  The future is now, I'd be blown away if it was autonomous especially or is it remotely controlled or specifically pre programmed is what I expect


Guys this is covered by Luddism and also Adam Smith I think.   If an invention makes a task easier, society will benefit even while some jobs become redundant.   Maybe the majority of a population were employed in agriculture at one point in time; all those jobs disappeared, yet we do well because we are wasting less time (or do more in less time at least, then waste time at leisure not work)

Technological unemployment is here.

Its been here for hundreds of years.   Even an accurate watch makes someone unemployed but also enables greater efficiency and common power to society, we do gain from better products and especially when they get cheaper.  This partly also explains cheap imports (and why 1933 import tariffs were wrong) and also possibly even cheap labour/immigration; beneficial yet glaringly 'job stealing'  (cheap products make people better off)

[AnonyMint]

Guys this is covered by Luddism and also Adam Smith I think.   If an invention makes a task easier, society will benefit even while some jobs become redundant.   Maybe the majority of a population were employed in agriculture at one point in time; all those jobs disappeared, yet we do well because we are wasting less time (or do more in less time at least, then waste time at leisure not work)

Technological unemployment is here.

Its been here for hundreds of years.   Even an accurate watch makes someone unemployed but also enables greater efficiency and common power to society, we do gain from better products and especially when they get cheaper.  This partly also explains cheap imports (and why 1933 import tariffs were wrong) and also possibly even cheap labour/immigration; beneficial yet glaringly 'job stealing'  (cheap products make people better off)

No shit Sherlock...but the adjustment phase is the megadeath killer every time...

I documented in the thread from which those quotes originate. You can click the link on a quote to go to thread (and post) where it comes from.

Specifically a recent Oxford study predicts 47% of all existing jobs will be lost to automation by 2033. This confirms we are in a period of radical technological unemployment. This appears to happen every 78 years. The difference is this time we are all tied together in socialism by central banks. You can re-read my quotes from the prior post to weigh the gravity of this thud of a realization.

If you are arguing that automation will lead to long-term unemployment, I think you are wrong.  Authors have written extensively on this subject since the 1900s (and perhaps earlier).  Many were worried that machines would replace men.  What we have seen is that automation simply results in higher efficiency and unforseen job opportunities on the automation side.  This seems obvious to me, so you must be arguing something else despite what I'm reading here.

I agree of course that technological advancement leads to more employment, not less, over a long enough horizon. The problem is the social adjustment process interim and the inertia that can't adjust fast enough and how the inertia can actually make it worse for a while. If this inertia is too strong, we go into a Dark Age as the collective will destroy itself by attacking all capital and knowledge, i.e. the Middle Ages after the fall of Rome:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/24/yes-in-a-mad-max-dark-age-not-even-gold-has-value/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/10/can-europe-hyperinflate/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/27/are-we-head-to-a-mad-max-scenario/
(Armstrong spent $20 million on research to construct the silver chart on that linked page above)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/a-brief-history-of-world-credit-interest-rates/3847-2/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/20/can-we-blink-before-a-dark-age/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/monetary-history-of-the-world/the-monetary-history-of-the-greek-world/chronology/
(there was even a Dark Age in the Greek period)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/01/29/8797/
(he means the 51 year private wave, vs 309 major cycle)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/
(his cycle model explained, note the computer found it by correlating the ~$100+ million of data he had collected)

And the big difference compared to the early 1900s is we now have central banks in every country which have prevented the bank runs and mini-depression corrections that were regularly seen in the 1800s. Thus the collectivism has backstopped itself and run up the debt of the world to roughly 300% of GDP, meaning all of us would have to not eat for 3 years to pay it off. There is this erroneous (linked author Michael Pettis is a widely respected economist) notion that debt doesn't have to be paid and it is an illusion.

Let me link together some puzzle pieces for you that most do not see.

Worse, the $quadrillion of derivatives kept the world's capital locked into a (going on 31 years) bond bubble.

Here is a quote from the link above...

---8<---- (snipped)

It will be a difficult adjustment for most people. They will futilely resist. As was the case for the Luddites in the Industrial Revolution. We are in the First Computer Revolution. Second will be quantum computing.

I don't think they'll resist at all.  It doesn't take long for people to embrace something that (ostensibly) makes their life easier/happier/etc.

They are resisting now. What do you think socialism and central banking is all about? Why is Obama so popular?

In addition to dwelving into the details in that quoted Mad Max thread above, read more here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg7567839#msg7567839

And here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg7528659#msg7528659

[Erdogan]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

This is misunderstanding of basic economy.  People do investments to increase productivity. But that capital has a cost, so they would not waste it.

When productivity over all increases, workers will leave the less productive firms and join the more productive. The reason is that work is the most general productive factor of all. Then the less productive firms must consider investing in more capital, calculate if it makes economical sense. If it does, they will do it, else the firm will shrink or die. This releases capital and work for more productive uses. This is the basis of growth. We sometimes see the reverse, when wages shrink, capital is consumed and held at a lower level, reducing productivity and more workers join the industry.

[AnonyMint]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

This is misunderstanding of basic economy.  People do investments to increase productivity. But that capital has a cost, so they would not waste it.

When productivity over all increases, workers will leave the less productive firms and join the more productive. The reason is that work is the most general productive factor of all. Then the less productive firms must consider investing in more capital, calculate if it makes economical sense. If it does, they will do it, else the firm will shrink or die. This releases capital and work for more productive uses. This is the basis of growth. We sometimes see the reverse, when wages shrink, capital is consumed and held at a lower level, reducing productivity and more workers join the industry.

You fail to understand the linked essays in the OP.

The repeating historical evidence of economic collapse corresponding with technological unemployment is that people don't adjust their education and skills fast enough to keep up. They especially resist by using debt to delay their adjustment.

[AnonyMint]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Armstrong's amazing economics correlation prediction models
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Fri, July 4, 2014 9:03 am
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos to Martin Armstrong (the former $1+ trillion hedge fund manager of the Japanese Postal fund-- largest fund ever) on getting back focused on his expert computerized A.I. models (and stop wasting time trying to convince socialist citizens to reform themselves or blaming everything on bureaucrats and not also on the socialist citizens)...

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/03/then-now-always-the-same/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/02/when-will-the-monetary-system-crack/

This previous 8.6 year wave that peaked in 2007.15 was just the beginning with the realization of the Sovereign Debt Crisis. The current wave that peaks in 2015.75 should start the debt crisis with more government being forced into insolvency. This is what the IMF proposal is all about and the Fed looking to impose an exit tax on the most liquid market in the world – US debt. The next wave 2024.35 will be the pulling apart of the world monetary system and the peak of this wave in 2032.95 is most likely where the tangible assets rise as a store of value in a world of uncertainty with respect to the medium of exchange.

Regarding the comparison of today to the peak and decline of the Athens empire, I note from the following chronological timeline:

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

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/democracy/qt/121009AthensTimeline.htm

So 408 B.C. for Athens should correlate to 2032 A.D. for us now. Interestingly we see that in 433-432 B.C. the Greek empire coalition fails and infighting begins. That was 24-25 years before the peak in 408 (count backwards in B.C. time) so that would correspond to 2007-8 now which is exactly when the first stage of the sovereign debt crisis exploded with Sub-Prime defaults in the USA.

Also note that infighting was due to economic decline and a fight for available resources, which is similar now to how teachers' unions in the USA are saying to raise taxes to pay their salaries and retirement plans. Raising taxes will further implode economic activity and collapse the economy. The problem is we spent more than we had, and now the defaults and decline are unavoidable.

We can see on the timeline that up until 426-425, Athens grew stronger than the peripheral regions and was defeating them. Then by 414 (which will correspond to our 2016), Athens (which corresponds to our USA) started to fall weaker than the periphery in battle.

The USA is clearly coming stronger right now as capital is fleeing the rest of the world (periphery) and into USA stocks and real estate as a safe haven. But 2016 will mark the peak of the USA.

Then you can see that by 416-415 (our 2024), Athens (the USA!) falls to massacres and total chaos.

And then by 408 (our 2032), Athens falls over a cliff economically and socially until hitting rock bottom in 404.

Then after 404, the public wave starts where even Socrates is executed by the idealistic youth government that takes over. Don't forget the generational wave research I shared previously which predicts this nasty Orwellian control aspect of the public wave which follows 2032:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=594024.msg6551625#msg6551625

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg6551755#msg6551755


So here is what we can expect. USA will grow stronger until 2016, then it will decline until finally total chaos by 2024. There could be a lot of war before 2024, probably after 2018 or so. Between 2024 and 2032 will be total chaos as the world fights capitulation, until there is finally total capitulation in 2032 and then we crash into a global economic bottom by 2036.

So 2016 is the beginning of the slide into the abyss. And it will get worse until 2036. Twenty years of worsening suffering.

But during that time, high technology (e.g. robotics, 3d printing, crypto-currency) will prosper and many in high tech will become very rich. Remember the Oxford study in 2013 predicted 47% of all existing jobs will be replaced by computer automation with the 20 years to 2032-33.

This period will be very unfamiliar to most people as the world is shifting from socialism to autonomous, decentralized sovereign high tech individuals.

The Knowledge Age is replacing the Industrial Age:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0

Collectivized society will decline and shrink economically into a bottom in 2036, while the Knowledge Age will grow all during this period.

This is my final communication.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Question: timing on the bottom for BRICs, NICs?
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Fri, July 4, 2014 1:17 pm
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay Western civilization falls off the capitulation cliff 2032 and
bottoms 2036 as the Public Wave begins.

When do the BRICs, NICs countries bottom?

How far back do they collapse? 1992 level? 1999 level? 2007 level?

[taylortyler]

So much info...so much possibility for disinfo...where do I even begin.

[STT]

adjustment phase is the megadeath killer every time...

If there is a gain from the technology then some will see unemployment but society is gaining all that time of change so in net total it is a positive not a disaster.      There is no good reason why USA would have to fail dramatically, that only occurs if events are totally unyielding.    As failure occurs, adjustment will happen.    As above, as some find their jobs are not useful or redundant they will transition elsewhere and it is reasonable to consider that some who lose jobs to new technology are richer in their new work.
    If this gov screws up the debt (further) and refuses to give way, it could end up in war but that is an absolute extreme.  It might also be that gov debt fails, they default or haircut the value and then we move on.   Some loss occurs, some are worse off but overall it is possible to benefit from failure and this is irony that is missed but perfectly possible.   When gov or failure occurs it could be the negatives from their current behaviour is no longer there and society benefits; this is the base line to capitalism .
  Ironically this struggle, and loss, win to business and constant competition is still a positive for all involved overall and that includes those who lose business, or lose money or in the case of an entire country losing their reserve currency.  It results in mutual benefit to discontinue inefficient practise

Devastation is a myth

Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire
http://mises.org/daily/3663

[Erdogan]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

This is misunderstanding of basic economy.  People do investments to increase productivity. But that capital has a cost, so they would not waste it.

When productivity over all increases, workers will leave the less productive firms and join the more productive. The reason is that work is the most general productive factor of all. Then the less productive firms must consider investing in more capital, calculate if it makes economical sense. If it does, they will do it, else the firm will shrink or die. This releases capital and work for more productive uses. This is the basis of growth. We sometimes see the reverse, when wages shrink, capital is consumed and held at a lower level, reducing productivity and more workers join the industry.

You fail to understand the linked essays in the OP.

The repeating historical evidence of economic collapse corresponding with technological unemployment is that people don't adjust their education and skills fast enough to keep up. They especially resist by using debt to delay their adjustment.

I  understand the importance of knowledge, inventions and automation, but I propose that it does not fundamentally change the economic system. The appearant problem of automation has been the focus of people who do not understand the fundamentals of a free market since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They where called Luddites.

The point is that in reality, the machines are not the driving force. It is the scarcity of human labour that is the motivation to invest in labour saving equipment. If there is no scarcity of labour, there is no need to invest.

Then, every economic change, meaning every economic change, for whatever reason that change come by, will produce winners and losers. That is inevitable. Persons losing their job is obviously the immediate losers. That is all the Luddites see. But persons keeping the job in a factory with outdated machines are also losers, their wages will fall back compared to the general labour market. Eventually, shed workers will find new jobs, the lower paid workers mentioned above will move to better paid jobs, and the economy again runs smoothly on a higher production level, favoring all.

[twiifm]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

This is misunderstanding of basic economy.  People do investments to increase productivity. But that capital has a cost, so they would not waste it.

When productivity over all increases, workers will leave the less productive firms and join the more productive. The reason is that work is the most general productive factor of all. Then the less productive firms must consider investing in more capital, calculate if it makes economical sense. If it does, they will do it, else the firm will shrink or die. This releases capital and work for more productive uses. This is the basis of growth. We sometimes see the reverse, when wages shrink, capital is consumed and held at a lower level, reducing productivity and more workers join the industry.

You fail to understand the linked essays in the OP.

The repeating historical evidence of economic collapse corresponding with technological unemployment is that people don't adjust their education and skills fast enough to keep up. They especially resist by using debt to delay their adjustment.

I  understand the importance of knowledge, inventions and automation, but I propose that it does not fundamentally change the economic system. The appearant problem of automation has been the focus of people who do not understand the fundamentals of a free market since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They where called Luddites.

The point is that in reality, the machines are not the driving force. It is the scarcity of human labour that is the motivation to invest in labour saving equipment. If there is no scarcity of labour, there is no need to invest.

Then, every economic change, meaning every economic change, for whatever reason that change come by, will produce winners and losers. That is inevitable. Persons losing their job is obviously the immediate losers. That is all the Luddites see. But persons keeping the job in a factory with outdated machines are also losers, their wages will fall back compared to the general labour market. Eventually, shed workers will find new jobs, the lower paid workers mentioned above will move to better paid jobs, and the economy again runs smoothly on a higher production level, favoring all.

What you are describing precedes globalization.  What happens today is that labour gets off shored to cheaper labor markets.  Within the US you start to see a division between classes

[bigtimespaghetti]

A big problem is labour being over valued by governments enforcing minimum wage - creating conflicts of interest as public unions do. Not to mention warping markets and increasing demand for cheaper automation exacerbating the employment issue.

Minimum wage is mainly required due to the arbitrary boom and bust manufactured by central banking though.

Try and explain that to someone scraping by and not sound like an asshole though!

Technology could create such great progress, it's baffling to imagine how much further society could be along without the retardation of collectivism, could be that employment wouldn't be such an issue.

[Erdogan]

A big problem is labour being over valued by governments enforcing minimum wage - creating conflicts of interest as public unions do. Not to mention warping markets and increasing demand for cheaper automation exacerbating the employment issue.

Minimum wage is mainly required due to the arbitrary boom and bust manufactured by central banking though.

Try and explain that to someone scraping by and not sound like an asshole though!

Technology could create such great progress, it's baffling to imagine how much further society could be along without the retardation of collectivism, could be that employment wouldn't be such an issue.

Minimum wage... it is forbidden to pay less...some jobs are forbidden.

It is there, practically in the words used. Minimum wage is a regulation to remove a part of the job supply.

[bigtimespaghetti]

A big problem is labour being over valued by governments enforcing minimum wage - creating conflicts of interest as public unions do. Not to mention warping markets and increasing demand for cheaper automation exacerbating the employment issue.

Minimum wage is mainly required due to the arbitrary boom and bust manufactured by central banking though.

Try and explain that to someone scraping by and not sound like an asshole though!

Technology could create such great progress, it's baffling to imagine how much further society could be along without the retardation of collectivism, could be that employment wouldn't be such an issue.

Minimum wage... it is forbidden to pay less...some jobs are forbidden.

It is there, practically in the words used. Minimum wage is a regulation to remove a part of the job supply.

When we go cashless, cryptos will play an important role for those cash in hand jobs that go on under the radar.

[AnonyMint]

adjustment phase is the megadeath killer every time...

If there is a gain from the technology then some will see unemployment but society is gaining all that time of change so in net total it is a positive not a disaster.      There is no good reason why USA would have to fail dramatically, that only occurs if events are totally unyielding.    As failure occurs, adjustment will happen.    As above, as some find their jobs are not useful or redundant they will transition elsewhere and it is reasonable to consider that some who lose jobs to new technology are richer in their new work.
    If this gov screws up the debt (further) and refuses to give way, it could end up in war but that is an absolute extreme.  It might also be that gov debt fails, they default or haircut the value and then we move on.   Some loss occurs, some are worse off but overall it is possible to benefit from failure and this is irony that is missed but perfectly possible.   When gov or failure occurs it could be the negatives from their current behaviour is no longer there and society benefits; this is the base line to capitalism .
  Ironically this struggle, and loss, win to business and constant competition is still a positive for all involved overall and that includes those who lose business, or lose money or in the case of an entire country losing their reserve currency.  It results in mutual benefit to discontinue inefficient practise

Devastation is a myth

Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire
http://mises.org/daily/3663

Western Rome fell into a 600 year Dark Age and the population of Rome plummeted from 1+ million to 30,000. I call that Devastation. The peripheral markets boomed such as Byzantine, where there wasn't this inertia preventing adjustment.

So AnonyMint, you don't think that Bitcoin has what it takes to succeed because it's not anonymous and is too centralized through large mining pools? Are there any alt currencies that you think have to potential to succeed?

Keep you eye on the alts.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: An example of the fledging Knowledge Age the world is entering
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Sun, July 6, 2014 8:19 am
To:      "Armstrong Economics" <armstrongeconomics@gmail.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I terminate my communications, a concrete example of the more autonomous, decentralized Knowledge Age in action...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/914635363/lace-anchors-20-a-simple-design-for-simple-people

The frontiers are where the free thinkers are headed, as is always the case and always the only solution to dying socialism.

Also Armstrong seems to have realized it...but I hope he realizes is it not just tangible assets, rather intellectual property that is the most significant frontier...

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/06/getting-off-the-grid-cars-as-well/

Government just do not get it. They are in serious trouble and the top 10% (free thinkers not richest) are moving be it stamps, coins, cars, art, real estate, whatever.

[aminorex]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

Just what IS it with all these robots? They're putting people out of work--if a robot is doing a job, a person isn't. Also, they're used militarily to KILL people. But the real stupidity of it all is, why are we building these machines to our detriment?

If you kill someone, they don't need a job, so it all works out.  Good good right?

[aminorex]

Technological unemployment is here...

http://www.infowars.com/google-to-start-selling-humanoid-robot/

This is misunderstanding of basic economy.  People do investments to increase productivity. But that capital has a cost, so they would not waste it.

When you eliminate workers entirely the productivity of your workforce becomes infinite, so you out compete everyone else.