Topic: Economic Devastation - page 47. (Read 504776 times)

...

cutesakura

That's quite a list, even for someone like me who is extra-cautious (paranoid) about weaknesses in our financial system.

*   *   *

David Einhorn, mentioned in your Item 12, has some bad friends.  This is long, but extremely interesting.  Every fraud in the book: ominous DTCC, Russian Mafiya, slime at wikipedia, MainStream Media liars, etc.  Everything...:

http://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/deepcapture-the-story-v1.pdf

There appears to be a LOT going on under the covers.  Economic Devastation may result.

When you try to put out the fire with gasoline (or in our case Plutonium), then don't wonder why the economy is getting worse and worse.

The globe is practically (from my perspective) in recession for 15 years, and its only getting worse every day.

Crazy stuff I even herd of things like when the collapse comes the TPTB are going to buy up assets like monuments in stuff to pay off the debt.

Like the leaning tower of Pizza lol

Anybody else ready for QE2 in europe? Looks like QE1 didnt worked... I wonder why

http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2015/sep/03/european-central-bank-gloom-suggests-qe2-horizon

The ponzi scheme is intensifying.

As we enter the second half of 2015, financial panic has gripped most of the globe. Stock prices are crashing in China, in Europe and in the United States. Greece is on the verge of a historic default, and now Puerto Rico and Ukraine are both threatening to default on their debts if they do not receive concessions from their creditors. Not since the financial crisis of 2008 has so much financial chaos been unleashed all at once. Could it be possible that the great financial crisis of 2015 has begun? The following are 16 facts about the tremendous financial devastation that is happening all over the world right now...

1. On Monday, the Dow fell by 350 points. That was the biggest one day decline that we have seen in two years.

2. In Europe, stocks got absolutely smashed. Germany's DAX index dropped 3.6 percent, and France's CAC 40 was down 3.7 percent.

3. After Greece, Italy is considered to be the most financially troubled nation in the eurozone, and on Monday Italian stocks were down more than 5 percent.

4. Greek stocks were down an astounding 18 percent on Monday.

5. As the week began, we witnessed the largest one day increase in European bond spreads that we have seen in seven years.

6. Chinese stocks have already met the official definition of being in a "bear market" - the Shanghai Composite is already down more than 20 percent from the high earlier this year.

7. Overall, this Chinese stock market crash is the worst that we have witnessed in 19 years.

8. On Monday, Standard & Poor's slashed Greece's credit rating once again and publicly stated that it believes that Greece now has a 50 percent chance of leaving the euro.

9. On Tuesday, Greece is scheduled to make a 1.6 billion euro loan repayment. One Greek official has already stated that this is not going to happen.

10. Greek banks have been totally shut down, and a daily cash withdrawal limit of 60 euros has been established. Nobody knows when this limit will be lifted.

11. Yields on 10 year Greek government bonds have shot past 15 percent.

12. U.S. investors are far more exposed to Greece than most people realize. The New York Times explains...

    But the question of what happens when the markets do open is particularly acute for the hedge fund investors — including luminaries like David Einhorn and John Paulson — who have collectively poured more than 10 billion euros, or $11 billion, into Greek government bonds, bank stocks and a slew of other investments.

    Through the weekend, Nicholas L. Papapolitis, a corporate lawyer here, was working round the clock comforting and cajoling his frantic hedge fund clients.

    "People are freaking out," said Mr. Papapolitis, 32, his eyes red and his voice hoarse. "They have made some really big bets on Greece."

13. The Governor of Puerto Rico has announced that the debts that the small island has accumulated are "not payable".

14. Overall, the government of Puerto Rico owes approximately 72 billion dollars to the rest of the world. Without debt restructuring, it is inevitable that Puerto Rico will default. In fact, CNN says that it could happen by the end of this summer.

15. Ukraine has just announced that it may "suspend debt payments" if their creditors do not agree to take a 40 percent "haircut".

16. This week the Bank for International Settlements has just come out with a new report that says that central banks around the world are "defenseless" to stop the next major global financial crisis.

Without a doubt, we are overdue for another major financial crisis. All over the planet, stocks are massively overvalued, and financial markets have become completely disconnected from economic reality. And when the next crash happens, many believe that it will be even worse than what we experienced back in 2008. For example, just consider the words of Jim Rogers...

    "In the United States, we have had economic slowdowns every four to seven years since the beginning of the Republic. It's now been six or seven years since our last stock market problem. We're overdue for another problem."

    In Rogers' view, low interest rates caused stock prices to increase significantly. He believes many assets are priced beyond their fundamentals thanks to the ultra-easy monetary policies by the Federal Reserve. Fed supporters argue such measures are good for investors, but Rogers takes a different view.

    "The Fed might tell us we don't have to worry and that a correction or crash will never happen again. That's balderdash! When this artificial sea of liquidity ends, we're going to pay a terrible price. When the next economic problem occurs, it will be much worse because the debt is so much higher."

Of course Rogers is far from alone. A recent article by Paul B. Farrell expressed similar sentiments...

    America's 95 million investors are at huge risk. Remember the $10 trillion losses in the crash and recession of 2007-2009? The $8 trillion lost after the dot-com technology crash and recession of 2000-2003? This is the third big recession of the century. Yes, America will lose trillions again.

    Especially with dead-ahead predictions like Mark Cook's 4,000-point Dow correction. And Jeremy Grantham's warning of a 50% crash around election time, with negative stock returns through the first term of the next president, beyond 2020. Starting soon.

    Why is America so vulnerable when the next recession hits? Simple: The Fed's cheap-money giveaway is killing America. When the downturn, correction, crash hits, it will compare to the 2008 crash. The Economist warns: "the world will be in a rotten position to do much about it. Rarely have so many large economies been so ill-equipped to manage a recession," whatever the trigger.

Things have been relatively quiet in the financial world for so long that many have been sucked into a false sense of security.

But the underlying imbalances were always there, and they have been getting worse over time.

I believe that we are heading into a global financial collapse that will make what happened in 2008 look like a Sunday picnic by the time it is all said and done.

Global debt levels are at all-time highs, big banks all over the planet have been behaving more recklessly than ever, and financial markets are absolutely primed for a huge crash.

Hopefully things will calm down a bit as the rest of this week unfolds, but I wouldn't count on it.

We have entered uncharted territory, and what comes next is going to shock the world

Integration in my dictionary doesn't mean to shove millions of people in 1 small place and give them welfare.

Integration means that first you teach them the language and the culture to the migrants, in their home country (via schools, media , fashion, sports, etc) to have a respect for that new culture , and only then move them , slowly to the new place, and also preparing the local people for this via the same methods.

If they dont do this, then the new migrants will feel hostile, isolated, and will start forming gangs, and then the locals will form "resistance" movements, and then violence and even genocide can happen.

---

Look at what happened in New York with the ghettos. USA was pretty much the most tolerant country on earth for migrants until the slavery was abolished, but in the minds of people it wasnt. The blacks, although free now, still feel hostile and isolated, thats why all the gang behaviour and violence is happening now.

You have to educate both cultures and the media and every social events have to reflect friendship between cultures. Anti racism laws will just put more gasoline on the fire, because they reinforce the tribalist illusion.

If you issue anti racist laws, then you reinforce in the minds of both parties that there is 2 separate tribes that are in conflict. That is not how you achieve unified culture.

To be back on news regarding economic devastation, here are some interesting points in the following video by TDV & Roger Ver discussing "all things bitcoin", chances of you being a bitcoin advisor for a big company, ecard based on bitcoin, how to have a second passport etc. Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tIOcMjuPkQ

Thanks for feedback. We are not really that far in understanding, and my time constraints me to discontinue now.

To the final comment by you, a laconic reply: "What if it is not in their intention, to do it right?"

But their flexible system was their doom eventually (since the outside invaders had the same internal system that was better and overruled them eventually).

If you unite all people on earth, there will be no outsiders to worry about. (unless some aliens come, but I doubt that's likely)

If you let everybody wander around then they will form gangs, tribes, kingdoms, and the wars and genocides start again.

You can choose for a 200-300 year periodic revolutions, or you can end the violence once and for all by removing the "animal" part from humans.

The elite are already experimenting with genetic-engineering, so that might not be as far as you think.

I dont think it will be that bad, and it will achieve our ultimate goal. If we eliminate the tribalist narrowminded genes and start our cooperative openminded genes it will be literally heaven on earth.

The 2 problems with humans today are:  they are too stupid, they are too too evil, or both.

If you solve those 2 problems, then all other problems are solved.

On reread, my own text was difficult to understand. Thought goes like this: "Governments deny anyone the option to have land in allodium, and misuse their own allodial ownership. It would be cool to skip the governments, although this would lead to the state where neighbors could actually have wars over land, the same way as governments fight each other."

So the allodium, which I kind of idealize, allows the problems you describe. In both systems, 1)land owned by government and you have fee simple or other title (current one, although exact legalese varies), and 2)allodial ownership by the user tribe of the land, eternal vigilance is required. This is not a place where people may live at peace, not for now. Those wanting peace need to be prepared for war. Those believing to have found peace on Earth will lose it, and will be robbed of everything else they have as well.



Although with the same logic (showing negative actual or imaginary examples are demanding action by a "superior") all governments should be stripped of all the power instantly since they commit the greatest errors. Corporations, tribes, families and individuals also commit errors, so they should not be able to decide on anything. But remember, the governments, banks, and global governance are liable to even larger errors and they should not be given the slightest power in this utopia.

^^Above I am describing how the individualist/family centred worldview comes into existence. Recognizing that you know best your own things and not those of the others, and taking it to the logical and optimal end.


I also make daily decisions to solve common problems, and spend all my time and money on solving them. This does not mean I welcome any interference to my job by any collective "who knows better" because if they did, they would already be so busy working on it with their very own resources that they would not have time to harass me with their non-voluntary proposals.


Not only me but you also need to practice clear writing. This passage sounds to me as: "Humans have a common conscience, which is applied towards the members of their tribe. This can be attempted to change only by fanatics, and I, RealBitcoin, am such a fanatic by my wishes and attempts to "eliminate tribalism", which is the societal equivalent to what 'being required to give money to anyone upon request instead of members of the tribe only', is economically.

I have never used guns to convert other people's morality, nor would I be willing to convert myself. So it is not correct to call it "my" problem. I understand it is a common problem, though.

The banksters know that "eliminating tribalism" is impossible. Their forced mixing of races by the manufactured refugee problems does not serve to increase tolerance (which never was a problem in the first place - people all over respected theirs and others' right to be left alone. Tolerance becomes an issue when people are 1)forced to 2)change their culture and 3)pay for it, to 4)accommodate strangers. This is no difference to military occupation.) The real intention is to cause strife and internal conflict and make previously strong tribes more easily manageable.

The problem with the Amazonian tribe's "common land" idea is, that since it's not defined, it's ruled by agression.

If 1 tribesman decides to build a hunting post at one place, but another one wants a hut to be built there, then the only way to settle their differences is to fight, sometimes even till death.

It is one way of settling the issues, but it is not good for a 21 century enlightened human.

_____________

We need a civilized way to settle the issues, and for that you need clearly defined rules, otherwise you still end up with courts and judges that will just decide from their own authority.

If the law doesnt specify one thing then the judge will just decide from his own point of view what he likes the most, and then we fall into the trap of authoritarianism too.

For something to be civilized, the rules has to be so clear that you wont even need a court to rule something out, a computer AI would be enough.

____________

We will need some form of enforcement, but it has to be more mental, rather than agressive. The rewards and risks has to be balanced in that way that only in the worst case scenario the use of force is justified, in any other case, some other form of punishment is needed.

World of peace and harmony is not in the cards anytime soon if ever. However, fundamentals may actually get us there someday as peace and harmony is a more economically efficient state.

The evolution of the social contract appears to be a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. I suspect that in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will evolve into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into a shared consensus among individuals with limited or no government.

Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. To borrow from the links in the opening post each iteration increases the amount of entropy the system can sustainably support.

This is not to say we cannot revert to a lower energy state. A world war could set us back to tribalism or worse. Even in that event, however, the survivors would simply start the slow climb all over again. Progress is always a terrifying proposition. As the old saying goes the higher you climb the harder you fall.

I know this is not the proper thread but I can't help but think that somehow this guy reads us, as much as we read him! 

How to Create A Fairer System

QUESTION: Mr Armstrong,

I am an avid fan of your site and thoroughly enjoy your posts.
As much as I am against tax, would you not agree it’s rather sick that a company the size of Facebook paid out less tax than I did last year?

[...]

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38438

Only 2 rules are needed, 3&4 obviously included in 2.

Private property cannot be held in allodium, making it easy to justify that my watch is mine, but hard to justify that all the lands of the Duchess of Alba who does not use them, and has received them because the King of Navarra killed the previous owners in the 1500s, are hers.

If we uphold that allodial title belongs to the government, there we go and nobody's property is any more free than it has been. If we uphold that "by my shotgun I am sovereign in my land" it is problematic either.

And the native tribes who held land as part of Mother Nature are anyway slaughtered and land taken away. That system of society works fine until others have a different system with more guns.

Nobody may ever be raped (rape is defined as done without permission). The whole notion "that 1000000 would be saved" is ridiculous and further decreases my evaluation about the level of your thinking. This "greater good" thing belongs wholly to the domain of collectivism, and not here. The basic thing to understand in liberty talk is that freedoms/liberties/rights, if they exist, they are uninfringeable. It is the definition.

What (you) collectivists also lose when you start to force people is individual responsibility. Surely if in a practical example million people will be slaughtered unless one is raped, someone will sacrifice himself. If not, the whole bunch is either not fitting to live based on lack of sacrifice, or is glorious martyrs based on stauch determination to not give in. They decide.

Are you from Europe?

I don't mean to be a contrarian here, but there's fundamental difference between the definition of "property" in a society like ours and (let's say) a tribe in Amazonian Jungle. Property there has a vague definition and the land is collectively considered to be "everybody's". Also, aggression there is a prerequisite in order to find food to feed your children, so it's a noble thing among what is considered "family".

That's why I specifically noted that morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

On a modern society rules 1/2/3/4 are being punished and enforced by the police. Don't we need enforcement?

Well there are 4 main rules to morality.

1) Dont aggress against private property
2) Dont aggress against a person
3) Don't murder
4) Don't rape

These are the 4 main rules, and from this we can expand. But even these need to be carefully defined not to fall into the traps mentioned above.

If these 4 rules are respected then, you have nothing to worry about in a society.

May I propose that those two are rarities within the world we're living. I'd say (without being fully wrong) that the majority of the people are incapable of thinking via the so called "common sense". I don't want to mention "moral" because morality is based on one's personal preference, the way of thinking, the way he's/she's raised, educated, etc.

You know, sometimes asking for the obvious is the most difficult part of all...

Ok but these freedoms are so broad that its impossible to universalize them.

The rapist and the serial killer also wants his right to do these things. And by stopping them from doing so you are interfering in their right.

Ok that is a clear example, if we overrule specific rights with morality, but what about this:

By breating air, you are violating the right of 10000000000x other bacteria and living creatures to breath that air, and many of them will die, because you breath it from them.

So it's really hard to define and universalize these rights.



If you setup 1 rule, that nobody ever is allowed to be raped. But what if by letting somebody raped you prevent 100000x people from being murdered?

So you see, these things are too broad and undefinable.


So we need a clear rule-set, that is not just brute force, because that will effectively destroy civilization. But also a set of laws that use morality, and common sense in a balanced mixture.


The current laws are too irrational, and mostly made from sensationalism or from emotions, the lack the common sense part, and most of them are old anyways. They are based on 300-400 year old law books.