Financial Crisis Will Come

[edgar2808]

Financial Crisis will come whether we like it or not and I predict it will be very soon. For me, it is the time for opportunities to buy and hold assets.

[newwest]

Financial crisis are inevitable, it will come. But I think it won’t be in the near future

Well in my opinion financial crisis will not come depends on how people manage their financial budget. It people know and knowledgeable about the technique of managing it properly crisis in the future wont happen.

Quite difficult to say that in coming 2019 we may have the financial crisis unless their is some biggest scam starts to take place or get exposed that it may the case else things infact should be positive and across world we might see new trades and economic growth happening in the world.

[Tres_row]

Thanks, nice stuff to read, I truly believe crypto assets could become a part of hedging strategies, because they are indifferent to politics

[inquirybanjoE]

Theoretically the finacial crisis could come in three month if Italy decides to break away. I expect it rather next year or the one after tho. It will be a ground breaking event politically.

[BobK71]

What we consider as economic crisis today has little in common with what happened in that day and age, with thousands of people literally starving to death in the streets.

IMO the reason why the effects of financial crisis were worse in those days was that the elites could get away with it.  In 1931 the Fed just did nothing and watched banks fail across the world (including the US) and the economy dive into the worst part of the Great Depression.  Ben Bernanke 'apologized for the mistake,' but the objective fact was that the massive deflation reduced the degree to which the dollar had to be devalued against gold, and helped support the system in more ways than one.

I don't think so. The Fed didn't actually do nothing. Let's not forget that it was the time that the Federal Reserve Notes came about, which are now known as the American dollar. The true dollar which was fully redeemable with gold ceased to exist soon thereafter. Let's not forget either the confiscation of both metal gold and gold certificates in 1934. In this manner, you can't say that the Fed did nothing. They may in fact have been too late to react but this is certainly not because of "the elites could get away with it". They just lacked required knowledge and understanding of the situation.

By 'doing nothing,' I meant the Fed didn't bail out or take over the banks, which is a standard part of the post-crisis medicine in the West today.  Also it was clear for a long time that reducing interest rates was not going to save the economy, and yet the elites basically did nothing and watched the economy sink into the true Great Depression.  It was only in 1934 or 1935 that the dollar was devalued against gold, and the damage had been done.

I'm not sure how the actions you mention amounted to relieving pain (which is the topic under discussion here.)  Can you explain?  If anything, they gave the elites power to impose more pain to help save their system.  (E.g. confiscating gold from Americans probably reduced the degree to which the dollar had to be devalued against gold.)

The only difference today is, democracy is stronger, and the elites can't go that far any more.  The election of nationalist populists across Europe and America just now shows that people will not take pain lying down, whether or not they understand what is really the problem.

Do you really believe in this yourself? It is kind of accepted truth that the level of democracy in the US has been declining steeply over the last few decades (since Reugan times).

I'm talking about major, fundamental changes of the political system over the long term.  Even in Britain and the US before the early 20th century, people without property and/or women were not allowed to vote.  There were no strong trade unions to protest against the imposition of pain via tight money.  The elites were thus able to tighten money after a crisis, imposing pain on the average person while protecting their system (all in the name of supporting the gold standard as a moral imperative!)

If the shit hits the fan in earnest throughout the world, cryptocurrencies will be worth next to nothing. People simply don't know what real crisis and economic meltdown means in practice as they never saw the one (in developed countries, at least).

When the shit hits the fan, most likely cryptos will be worth a lot more.  The reason is that, one way or another, the elites will have to devalue state money against non-state money to inflate away the debt, plus keep life more or less comfortable, plus keep their state money stable, at the same time.

So far it is cryptos which are going down, even without any serious financial crisis knocking on the door.

Ha ha, I guess we'll have to see!

[Pab]

There was 172 financial crosses from 1992 .Bigger or smaller.Now we have serious trade war
It looks like always there is some  financial crisis.Now there is huge financial crisis in Argentina peso is  devaluating  rapidly.There is very huge economic crisis in Italy.Italian are leaving his country to find better life
It always depends how big and real will be next financial crisis.But current trade war may cause a lot of problems
for worldwide economy

[embargo]

The financial crisis will come - it's a fact, a question only in time, when this happens. And what will be the spark, the starting point. Today's money (paper) is essentially debts, which in turn generate new debts. Financial instruments and deriatives can and solve the current needs of governments and financiers, but at the same time exacerbate the situation as a whole. Valuable metals are a value, proven by time. A bitcoin - while you can only guess how the price will behave in troubled times.

[doomloop]

Financial Crisis will come whether we like it or not and I predict it will be very soon. For me, it is the time for opportunities to buy and hold assets.

In every era, every year, every month, financial crises come in some variant forms. People become victim of this illness for long team and short time as well. Many, who didn’t have planned at right time with right measure, they always undergo this harmful time period and then lose much of their assets. But those who catered for it prier, they are mostly in safe zone and make good results.

[jcarlo]

As long central banks keep printing money as they like, inflation and crisis always following. Central banks always want economy growth but inflation always increasing and they always make excuse that its needed without transparancy using new money they print

[MiXxe]

It's actually happening already. Some of you might have not feel that yet but those people in the lower level can really feel the hardship of the financial crisis. And especially in 3rd world countries. But I think this is the best time for us to arise and stand out. This cryptocurrency is a way to help other people in crisis. The government will get an idea that this is not scam and is helpful.

[entrepmind23]

It's actually happening already. Some of you might have not feel that yet but those people in the lower level can really feel the hardship of the financial crisis. And especially in 3rd world countries. But I think this is the best time for us to arise and stand out. This cryptocurrency is a way to help other people in crisis. The government will get an idea that this is not scam and is helpful.

It may not be felt yet by those living in developed countries but for those who are living in developing countries, the financial crisis is already happening due to rising prices of basic commodities but just the same amount of income which results to a shortage that's why one should not only have a single source of income especially if one is working for a company because anytime it can go bankrupt especially in times like this when there is a financial crisis. This may be the time when cryptocurrency would be more attractive to invest in since they can already see the effects of inflation and cryptocurrency is deflationary.

Multiple source of income is ideal and it shouldn't be just about investing in traditional markets because when I observed what is happening now like in stocks, their portfolio is bleeding so an investment in business or real estate wherein one has a fixed source of income is good hedge in times of financial crisis. Perhaps, an investment in cryptocurrencies is an ideal hedge as well.

[spartaka]

We have been through so many economical difficulties, that people should have had a wake up call years ago already....

I'm convinced that the reason people don't wake up to the reality of elite-inflated bubbles is that the media is part of the story-telling machine that numbs the public.

See this thought-provoking piece about this basic reality.  Ben Hunt argues that we as a species are genetically programmed to respond to simplifying models (that he calls 'memes' and 'narratives') much more positively than we realize consciously.  And the powerful people who run this world understand this better than we do.

Government might be responsible for influencing media. If they report this accurately, it can cause huge panic and the financial crisis can happen sooner.

[BobK71]

Definitely it will come,  but not near future,  it could be thousand of years and no one knows when the exact time.  It will only starts once all resources have been gone all over the world and war could be triggered resulting of Financial crisis.  

It is absolutely true that no one will know for sure.  The nature of state-sponsored bubbles is that the elites will do everything in their (considerable) power to prop up the bubbles, until the effort is no longer worth the reward to them (ie perhaps until it would destroy the semi-free-market and semi-democratic nature of the system on which their power is ultimately based.)  So there is no way for outsiders to tell exactly when the bubble will collapse.  The average person simply doesn't know enough details about events.

That said, 'thousand years' is perhaps too long, based on the time sequence of crises in the past, in the top countries of the system, that I listed in the OP.  Again, we have to take note of the *incentives* that are inherent in this system, where the elites are encouraged to destabilize their own system, as long as crisis doesn't happen under their individual watch.

[Binauf]

Yes, and that will be in favor of bitcoin

[BobK71]

As long central banks keep printing money as they like, inflation and crisis always following. Central banks always want economy growth but inflation always increasing and they always make excuse that its needed without transparancy using new money they print

Great point, thanks.  But you know what mainstream (also known as house-pet) economists will say to that?  They will say, without central banks injecting money into the economy, there would be no growth.  Without central banks printing money to bail out the system, the crises would kill the economy completely.

The truth is that natural market incentives would push the right amount of investments, at the right time, into the right projects, to grow the economy.  Who doesn't want to invest in a new venture with real hope for profit?  As for the crises that are severe, their existence is invariably the result of state-bank elites inflating the monetary or financial market, using state power, in the first place.

Ultimately, the question is not hard or soft money, and not whether we should have inflation or deflation, at any given time.  The question is who should have the power to decide.  Is it the free market?  Or the elites?  The system we have puts the power in the hands of the elites, for the purpose of benefiting them at the expense of everyone else, while claiming that we must give them the power and trust them that they have our best interest at heart.

[jaysabi]

As long central banks keep printing money as they like, inflation and crisis always following. Central banks always want economy growth but inflation always increasing and they always make excuse that its needed without transparancy using new money they print

Great point, thanks.  But you know what mainstream (also known as house-pet) economists will say to that?  They will say, without central banks injecting money into the economy, there would be no growth.  Without central banks printing money to bail out the system, the crises would kill the economy completely.

The truth is that natural market incentives would push the right amount of investments, at the right time, into the right projects, to grow the economy.  Who doesn't want to invest in a new venture with real hope for profit?  As for the crises that are severe, their existence is invariably the result of state-bank elites inflating the monetary or financial market, using state power, in the first place.

Ultimately, the question is not hard or soft money, and not whether we should have inflation or deflation, at any given time.  The question is who should have the power to decide.  Is it the free market?  Or the elites?  The system we have puts the power in the hands of the elites, for the purpose of benefiting them at the expense of everyone else, while claiming that we must give them the power and trust them that they have our best interest at heart.

I don't know that anyone would say that because it doesn't at all seem to be true. Economic growth comes from a production base that produces more goods/services than previously existed, and more consumption of those goods/services, not from more money in the system. If you print a trillion extra dollars and release it into the economy, the only thing you've done is created inflation, you haven't grown the economy at all. The only way inflation doesn't occur is when the rate of monetary expansion matches the rate of natural economic expansion. Because that is practically impossible to achieve, the Fed's stated goal is inflation of 2%, which offers a predictable range to strive for. By phrasing the argument as you have, you've constructed a strawman for the purpose of creating a rebuttal, but neither the premise or the rebuttal tracks very closely with what actually happens.

[BobK71]

As long central banks keep printing money as they like, inflation and crisis always following. Central banks always want economy growth but inflation always increasing and they always make excuse that its needed without transparancy using new money they print

Great point, thanks.  But you know what mainstream (also known as house-pet) economists will say to that?  They will say, without central banks injecting money into the economy, there would be no growth.  Without central banks printing money to bail out the system, the crises would kill the economy completely.

The truth is that natural market incentives would push the right amount of investments, at the right time, into the right projects, to grow the economy.  Who doesn't want to invest in a new venture with real hope for profit?  As for the crises that are severe, their existence is invariably the result of state-bank elites inflating the monetary or financial market, using state power, in the first place.

Ultimately, the question is not hard or soft money, and not whether we should have inflation or deflation, at any given time.  The question is who should have the power to decide.  Is it the free market?  Or the elites?  The system we have puts the power in the hands of the elites, for the purpose of benefiting them at the expense of everyone else, while claiming that we must give them the power and trust them that they have our best interest at heart.

I don't know that anyone would say that because it doesn't at all seem to be true. Economic growth comes from a production base that produces more goods/services than previously existed, and more consumption of those goods/services, not from more money in the system. If you print a trillion extra dollars and release it into the economy, the only thing you've done is created inflation, you haven't grown the economy at all. The only way inflation doesn't occur is when the rate of monetary expansion matches the rate of natural economic expansion. Because that is practically impossible to achieve, the Fed's stated goal is inflation of 2%, which offers a predictable range to strive for. By phrasing the argument as you have, you've constructed a strawman for the purpose of creating a rebuttal, but neither the premise or the rebuttal tracks very closely with what actually happens.

"I don't know that anyone would say that":

It's always a bit of a hazard to argue what your opponent's actual view point is, of course.  That said, my 'strawman' was based on the standard establishment-economist argument that hard money is deflationary by nature, since people will hoard money and destroy spending and investment, if prices don't go up.  This is a standard economic argument against such assets as gold and Bitcoin.  The implication, of course, is that there would be no growth without central bank printed money, since growth is ultimately what we want.

I of course agree with your discussion on printing money vs. growing the economy.  The problem, again, is that you forget to ask 'who decides what is the best way to grow the production base, the markets or the elites?'  Now, this is not to say the elite-controlled 'market economy' we have never produces growth, but I submit that this growth is unnaturally fast and ultimately counter-productive as it pollutes many other areas of life, even if it's successfully pulled off.

As the recurring crises (even at the top countries of the system) show, 'pulled off' can also have highly relative meanings, depending on what time period you use!

[cherrymobile]

Establishment commentators tend to blame every financial crisis on the "bad luck" of a whole host of factors coming together to create a "perfect storm."  What they "forget" is that the incentives of the modern system always drive the elites themselves to destabilize their own system.  Not sometimes.  Not most of the time.  Always.

They will say that the 2007-8 crisis was a combination of the US banking deregulation of the 90s, the US political agenda of moving poor people into home ownership, the poor financial oversight by the George W. Bush administration, the 'global savings glut,' the existence of a shadow banking system in the US, the loose monetary policy in the aftermath of the dot com bust, etc. etc.  All true.  What they forget to mention is that, if it were not these factors, there would be others (stock buybacks anyone?)  If it hadn't happened in 2007-8, it would have been later.

Only looking at the top of the world system, ie Britain in the 19th century and the US later, we can see that:

- There was a financial crisis in Britain roughly every 10 years from 1810 to the 1860s.

- The British Empire bought itself a couple decades by making gold the only money, and not silver.  (Thereby making itself rich at the expense of silver countries -- not unlike what the US might be doing with crypto-currencies today.)  But in 1890 a financial crisis in London made it necessary for the Bank of England to be bailed out by gold from other central banks, the first time in history.

- Soon after world-leader status was moved to the US, in 1929-31, the Great Depression started with a series of financial crises.

- Though the bloodshed of World War II bought a few decades of stability under the US, it was forced to renounce its promise to allow foreign governments to redeem every $35 for an ounce of gold, in 1971.

- The 1970s global crisis of confidence in the dollar forced the US to pay 20% interest on 30-year Treasuries by about 1980.

- The US stock market crashed in 2000.  By 2002, the NASDAQ had lost 78% of its value at the peak.

- The entire world system teetered on the brink of collapse in 2008.

Remember that, we're only talking about the top of the world system, which is the most stable, by design.  (Paper pound sterling in the 19th century and dollars in the 20th were the world's top reserve currencies of their day.  Every effort is made to make other countries fail first -- e.g. the emerging markets crisis of today helps protect the value of US money and debt.)  Further down the ladder, there were many more crises, plus conflicts and wars.

So the long view reveals the truth.  And the truth is that you can't escape the perverse incentives that make individual members of the elites want to profit or prop up the system today by storing up even more trouble for future elites.  These incentives come directly from the system's core nature of theft and deception.

If we listen to mainstream economists, the reason for recurring crises is that, for some reason, people just want to keep losing money.  They keep chasing risky assets whose high values have nothing to do with being propped up by state-bank-elites.  Right.

This system also punishes prudent people who put the most trust in its promises and its official narratives.  But we have a long-term defense: buy gold, silver, and Bitcoin!

The first thing that could be wise, the future type, a great. Cause bitcoin is not a bubble cause we are so they will ready to be true. The real question, a great. I think we can do it will be risen by more than a new cryptocurrency that you are respectable in this way, the right to become rich internet

[lelangsabun]

financial crisis will happen in the future adn we can't doubt about that, at least all of that every goverment or people itself need to prevent the crisis by themself it called survive in the modern day

[btc-facebook]

IMO, gold is the most stable investment tool compare bitcoin.

Yes ,bitcoin will give you more profit but it can also give you more losses than gold. But if you keep insist to use bitcoin as main investment, just make sure that you've prepare the worst !