Here is the direct link to that Catherine Austin Fitts video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EiMUPdtFXIExcellent video to bring to my attention.
Essentially she is arguing that the Private sector is extracting itself from the Public sector, as the socialism (statism) is dying.
But she makes the mistake of not identifying which portion of the private sector is allowed to go free and which portion is being held slave to the Public sector.
Btw, Martin Armstrong's ECM Pi (8.6 years = 3145.9 days) model also has the Public sector wave ending in 1981, and the Private sector wave extending to and peaking in 2033, and 2033 is also when the 26 year down portion of the Real Estate cycle bottoms:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/Armstrong has also called for the dollar to strengthen and the developing world to crash due to being short the dollar (as they received massive dollar loans as this was only place for international capital to earn a decent return, but now the flow is reversing back to the USA as Fitts also noted).
W.r.t. to old and new economy (robotics, etc) and return to USA of more hitech manufacturing, good to see she read my emails a few months ago, as she is now repeating my theme. Well I can't assume she learned that from me
Fitts calls for long-term boom in the stock market (when asked about China becoming new reserve currency she said "impossible now, something to study 20 years out"), so her view of the USA stock market possibly rising through 2033 I guess wouldn't be an anathema to Armstrong.
However, Armstrong has called for crash in 2016 that will be worse than 2008. Fitts rather views collapse as more likely for the developing world-- not for the USA. Rather she sees a slow-burn (to 2033?) of defaulting on socialism for the USA (at least, does she include Europe and G7? I think so). She sees roving failures globally and nationally, but not one big catastrophic moment of failure globally.
She agrees with Armstrong that the G7 (in defense of the Public sector) is attacking safe havens. She mentions her estimate of $40 trillion stolen from the public sector by those in the Private sector (banks, military establishment, etc) who own the government.
She didn't acknowledge that those powers that be are not attacking safe havens that include themselves and their $40 trillion, rather the
attacking of the safe havens is to go after all the competition from the millionaires and the upper middle class. So this is power consolidation, power grab. She could refer to my recent emails about how empires die, and how they destroy themselves by destroying their tax base-- the upper middle class who create businesses.
She agrees with Armstrong that the USA (G7) empire will not go quietly into the night and they are twisting the arm of the G20, and they will use their power to attack anyone who is not playing ball in their system.
Fitts argues that the USA can reinvent itself, but she misses one very important point. Demographics. Europe even more so. The West can excel at high tech but it can't become lean overall as a society until the boomers die off (i.e. another 20 years or so, i.e. 2033 again). Whereas, the developing world can quickly grow after resetting itself with defaults. Heritage foundation data shows the developing countries have a very low level of government as share of GDP unlike the West, so they are poised to grow after the recent influx of credit is purged in a collapse coming soon (2016). Young people simply adapt more quickly and are highly motivated to do so. Old people are hanging for a "few more good years".
Armstrong thinks the rising interest rates will choke off the old economy and exacerbate the sovereign and local government fiscal positions (not to mention how this will set off derivative defaults on the interest rate swaps, and derivatives get first priority over bond holders and depositors), thus causing a collapse into deflation, i.e. austerity along with rising taxes and hunting down all capital. This is not so different than Fitt's slow burn, except for key point.
Armstrong thinks "safe haven" will come to mean any capital that is not buying a "get out of jail free card" from the government, i.e. all middle class wealth will be targeted.
So this is the difference between Fitts and Armstrong, and I am sure Armstrong is correct, because Fitts missed the point that demographics don't afford her scenario of a widespread recovery and the powers that be want a bunch of slaves with them in control (i.e. they don't want to give up control to millions of free enterprice, they want fascism).
The reality will probably end up being somewhere in between Fitt's optimism and Armstrong's pessimism, especially since yours truly is working on a better Bitcoin that can hide capital from the bastards and build the new economy under their nose.
>
http://www.bmgbullion.com/document/buzz/2013-08-07> ...and she is making some very good points. My
> big question is how many will be left behind by
> the new economy and what's going to happen to
> them? Will they let those in the new economy
> dance while they starve? How peaceful or messy
> will that be That's easily 50M-80M people that
> are "excess" and don't really fit into the new
> world because they will never get the skills to
> be useful. Will they just be plowed under or induced to mass suicide? By
the way if her scenario with a strong
> industrial America
> (oil/agro/technology/manufacturing) is true, the
> moonshot in metals will never come, and gold
> won't even reach 3000, unless there is war.
> Silver might go higher because of industrial use and shortage.
