Topic: One-world reserve currency inevitable and will enslave all nations? - page 8. (Read 19811 times)
March 17, 2015, 10:01:43 AM
March 17, 2015, 07:00:10 AM
In a situation where there are multiple sovereign defaults, no one has the balance sheet to provide another, bigger, bailout. Except the IMF. Concerning the bolded text above, wouldn't it be possible that no consensus would be needed; everyone is so interconnected (read:screwed) that an SDR might just be the 'fairest' option?
In theory, I think SDRs could be used successfully; however, the problem is with the economic size of the nations involved and pre-existing debts. For instance, The US is part of the IMF's SDR program. The US wants China on board. China wants no part because of the debt it holds of the US'. If all nations (hypothetically) were to transition into SDRs, existing debt obligations would be buried.
Countries in heavy debt want this, countries with no global debt don't.
Conversely, countries with "lots of money" (countries in debt like the US) are expected to buy SDRs in a larger portion to help smaller countries get loans from the IMF or a more favorable exchange rate for their currency. Countries with no money (who want cheap credit) are expected to go to the IMF for loans. De facto they are under the control of the IMF and wealthy nation participants (not really different from today).
The current SDR system in place through the IMF is having the same problems the US is having now regarding being the world's reserve. Nobody wants to give up the power associated with having reserve status. All the solutions are the same (currently). If it's not a nation, it's a bank. If it's not a bank, it's an entity. If not an entity, it's a government.
Nations in heavy debt are screwed (i.e. the US), but the US can self sustain with it's political power and military might in the world. Europe is partially screwed, but has a socialist net that will keep default states afloat because it's in the interest of all intertwined.
The fairest solution of all (IMO) would be to let nations form agreements for their global trades. No need for a reserve to set the standard. There is no standard, only what nations negotiate. I do understand this may bring "unwelcome" bargaining in the dark areas of the markets for arms and such, but this happens anyway. The world isn't fair, it's survival of the fittest.
March 17, 2015, 05:51:52 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 17: Idiotic goldbugs think gold is a reserve currency!
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 9:36 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers don't read, or lack reading comprehension.
Why don't you try again to read the thread. The national currencies will float against the reserve currency.
I've understood the subject.
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
Tsk, tsk. Small minds.
Gold isn't a reserve currency, because A) central banks and moreover investors don't choose to hold most of their reserves in it; B) because the supply of gold can't expand rapidly enough to pay back the annual interest in the usury based economy (and don't forget the public demands fractional reserve banking because they love debt); C) there is no authority that can backstop and insure the fractional reserve banking system that the public clamors for by printing more gold; and D) governments hate gold because they can't print it in order to fund their ever increasing fiscal deficits and citizenry love unlimited government spending.
You goldbugs are so clueless and blinded by the tinfoil hats drooping down over your eyes.
As for why the nations will accept the new one-world reserve currency, it is because they much prefer a central bank that is a power sharing agreement and orthogonal to any one nation, than the situation now with the USA at helm.
And this is political-economics, with as much emphasis on the economics as the political, as I demonstrated above with the point about money supply must expanded at the compounded average usury rate in the debt-based economy.
Get off my lawn kiddies!
Subject: Mar 17: Idiotic goldbugs think gold is a reserve currency!
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 9:36 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A singe currency is as feasible as world peace.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.
Readers don't read, or lack reading comprehension.
Why don't you try again to read the thread. The national currencies will float against the reserve currency.
I've understood the subject.
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
Tsk, tsk. Small minds.
Gold isn't a reserve currency, because A) central banks and moreover investors don't choose to hold most of their reserves in it; B) because the supply of gold can't expand rapidly enough to pay back the annual interest in the usury based economy (and don't forget the public demands fractional reserve banking because they love debt); C) there is no authority that can backstop and insure the fractional reserve banking system that the public clamors for by printing more gold; and D) governments hate gold because they can't print it in order to fund their ever increasing fiscal deficits and citizenry love unlimited government spending.
You goldbugs are so clueless and blinded by the tinfoil hats drooping down over your eyes.
As for why the nations will accept the new one-world reserve currency, it is because they much prefer a central bank that is a power sharing agreement and orthogonal to any one nation, than the situation now with the USA at helm.
And this is political-economics, with as much emphasis on the economics as the political, as I demonstrated above with the point about money supply must expanded at the compounded average usury rate in the debt-based economy.
Get off my lawn kiddies!
In a situation where there are multiple sovereign defaults, no one has the balance sheet to provide another, bigger, bailout. Except the IMF. Concerning the bolded text above, wouldn't it be possible that no consensus would be needed; everyone is so interconnected (read:screwed) that an SDR might just be the 'fairest' option?
March 16, 2015, 09:09:02 PM
...
OROBTC: Proud member of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade since 2011 (when they chucked bin Laden's body into the Indian Ocean)
Unit: Lunatic Fringe Battalion
Rank: Private Second Class (promotions are slow in my battalion)
Commanding Officer: Col. Cognitive Dissonance
Remark 1: It's loud around here, screams. Lots of people don't make any sense... Not very orderly. Smells funny too.
Remark 2: Should have signed up for the Goldfoil Hat Brigade...
OROBTC: Proud member of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade since 2011 (when they chucked bin Laden's body into the Indian Ocean)
Unit: Lunatic Fringe Battalion
Rank: Private Second Class (promotions are slow in my battalion)
Commanding Officer: Col. Cognitive Dissonance
Remark 1: It's loud around here, screams. Lots of people don't make any sense... Not very orderly. Smells funny too.
Remark 2: Should have signed up for the Goldfoil Hat Brigade...
March 16, 2015, 08:32:18 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 17: Idiotic goldbugs think gold is a reserve currency!
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 9:36 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers don't read, or lack reading comprehension.
Why don't you try again to read the thread. The national currencies will float against the reserve currency.
I've understood the subject.
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
Tsk, tsk. Small minds.
Gold isn't a reserve currency, because A) central banks and moreover investors don't choose to hold most of their reserves in it; B) because the supply of gold can't expand rapidly enough to pay back the annual interest in the usury based economy (and don't forget the public demands fractional reserve banking because they love debt); C) there is no authority that can backstop and insure the fractional reserve banking system that the public clamors for by printing more gold; and D) governments hate gold because they can't print it in order to fund their ever increasing fiscal deficits and citizenry love unlimited government spending.
You goldbugs are so clueless and blinded [and deafened] by the tinfoil hats drooping down over your eyes [and ears].
As for why the nations will accept the new one-world reserve currency, it is because they much prefer a central bank that is a power sharing agreement and orthogonal to any one nation, than the situation now with the USA at helm.
And this is political-economics, with as much emphasis on the economics as the political, as I demonstrated above with the point about money supply must expanded at the compounded average usury rate in the debt-based economy.
Get off my lawn kiddies!
Subject: Mar 17: Idiotic goldbugs think gold is a reserve currency!
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 9:36 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A singe currency is as feasible as world peace.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.
Readers don't read, or lack reading comprehension.
Why don't you try again to read the thread. The national currencies will float against the reserve currency.
I've understood the subject.
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
Tsk, tsk. Small minds.
Gold isn't a reserve currency, because A) central banks and moreover investors don't choose to hold most of their reserves in it; B) because the supply of gold can't expand rapidly enough to pay back the annual interest in the usury based economy (and don't forget the public demands fractional reserve banking because they love debt); C) there is no authority that can backstop and insure the fractional reserve banking system that the public clamors for by printing more gold; and D) governments hate gold because they can't print it in order to fund their ever increasing fiscal deficits and citizenry love unlimited government spending.
You goldbugs are so clueless and blinded [and deafened] by the tinfoil hats drooping down over your eyes [and ears].
As for why the nations will accept the new one-world reserve currency, it is because they much prefer a central bank that is a power sharing agreement and orthogonal to any one nation, than the situation now with the USA at helm.
And this is political-economics, with as much emphasis on the economics as the political, as I demonstrated above with the point about money supply must expanded at the compounded average usury rate in the debt-based economy.
Get off my lawn kiddies!
March 16, 2015, 06:25:48 PM
I've understood the subject.
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
I agree. No world authorities are going to agree to such a thing; it's in nobody's interest to do so. The IMF has been trying to push SDRs for years now with the biggest problem being that countries have to deal with the IMF and become a member. The stipulations are way to grand for it to work.
The next reserve currency (if there is another one) would do best to be backed by something infinite, easily obtainable and liquid. Finite commodities like gold or oil end up one-sided and serve the good of those who hold the most.
March 16, 2015, 05:57:04 PM
A singe currency is as feasible as world peace.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.
Readers don't read, or lack reading comprehension.
Why don't you try again to read the thread. The national currencies will float against the reserve currency.
I've understood the subject.
So that new reserve currency would be pretty much like gold. But no currency is pegged to gold any longer, and you may say that all national currencies are currently floating against gold, or that gold floats against each national currency, but few countries will accept that this new reserve currency shall be the standard against which all the others should be measured. Setting a reserve currency requires a consensus to begin with, but that doesn't exist at this time. Questions to ask is what authority could say this is the new world reserve currency, and why should countries accept it as such.
This topic should not be in "Economics", but in "Politics".
March 16, 2015, 03:43:31 PM
I think the title should say one-nation controlled one-world reserve currency. The idea of a reserve currency is not rooted in ease of global commerce. It is rooted in control of political and economic world power.
March 16, 2015, 03:41:18 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 17: China's central bank emulated Japan's
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 4:42 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
China tried to emulate Japan's model but did so at the tail end of the Industrial Age and ended up with centrally planned overcapacity. China is now at 0% real GDP growth. The 7% GDP figure from the government is a "production target" (similar to how Japan top-down financed their economy) not a real GDP calculus (c.f. 12:30 in the linked video for explanation).
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article49808.html
Subject: Mar 17: China's central bank emulated Japan's
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 4:42 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Central Bank became the entire economy in Japan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is the brave new world we are headed into with a single central bank that controls the world.
Knowledge Age innovation is incompatible with that top-down micromanagement. Thus we much break free from Armstrong's "solutions".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is the brave new world we are headed into with a single central bank that controls the world.
Knowledge Age innovation is incompatible with that top-down micromanagement. Thus we much break free from Armstrong's "solutions".
China tried to emulate Japan's model but did so at the tail end of the Industrial Age and ended up with centrally planned overcapacity. China is now at 0% real GDP growth. The 7% GDP figure from the government is a "production target" (similar to how Japan top-down financed their economy) not a real GDP calculus (c.f. 12:30 in the linked video for explanation).
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article49808.html
March 16, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 17: abomination of one-size-fits-all central banking
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 4:21 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/03/virtues-of-germany-vs-vices-of-greece.html
Subject: Mar 17: abomination of one-size-fits-all central banking
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 4:21 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/03/virtues-of-germany-vs-vices-of-greece.html
Quote from: Michael Pettis via Mish Shedlock
Pettis answers ...
Blaming Nations
Not really. Pettis explains ...
Pro-Cyclical Feedback Loops
Spain could not stop these pro-cyclical feedback loops of massive proportion because Spain did not have control over its own interest rate policy or currency.
Instead, the ECB had an interest rate policy best described in my opinion as "one size fits Germany".
The bubble-blowing feedback loop fed on itself until it blew up. Who is really to blame for that?
Blaming Nations
Quote
Because German capital flows to Spain ensured that Spanish inflation exceeded German inflation, lending rates that may have been "reasonable" in Germany were extremely low in Spain, perhaps even negative in real terms. With German, Spanish, and other banks offering nearly unlimited amounts of extremely cheap credit to all takers in Spain, the fact that some of these borrowers were terribly irresponsible was not a Spanish "choice".
Couldn't Spain have refused to accept the cheap credit, and so would not have suffered from speculative market excesses, poor investment, and the collapse in the savings rate?
Couldn't Spain have refused to accept the cheap credit, and so would not have suffered from speculative market excesses, poor investment, and the collapse in the savings rate?
Not really. Pettis explains ...
Quote
"There is no such a decision-maker as 'Spain'. As long as a country has a large number of individuals, households, and business entities, it does not require uniform irresponsibility, or even majority irresponsibility, for the economy to misuse unlimited credit at excessively low interest rates. The experience of Germany after 1871 suggests that it is nearly impossible to prevent a massive capital inflow form destabilizing domestic markets."
As German money poured into Spain, with Spain importing capital equal to 10% of GDP at its peak, the massive capital inflows and declining interest rates ignited asset price bubbles.
As German money poured into Spain, with Spain importing capital equal to 10% of GDP at its peak, the massive capital inflows and declining interest rates ignited asset price bubbles.
Pro-Cyclical Feedback Loops
Spain could not stop these pro-cyclical feedback loops of massive proportion because Spain did not have control over its own interest rate policy or currency.
Instead, the ECB had an interest rate policy best described in my opinion as "one size fits Germany".
The bubble-blowing feedback loop fed on itself until it blew up. Who is really to blame for that?
March 16, 2015, 03:13:11 PM
I'm not that familiar with economics, but it's usual that something has it's pros and cons. This is a very much possible scenario, which I do not prefer.
Look what happened with ruble, dollar and the swiss franc in a very short period of time. Things haven't really been stable, and some countries are having problems because of credits that were in those currencies.
The real question is if we are ever really going to be our own banks, something that cryptocurrencies have enabled us?
Look what happened with ruble, dollar and the swiss franc in a very short period of time. Things haven't really been stable, and some countries are having problems because of credits that were in those currencies.
The real question is if we are ever really going to be our own banks, something that cryptocurrencies have enabled us?
March 16, 2015, 02:50:39 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 17: Warren Buffet is the perfect poster boy for why Knowledge Age doesn't need the one-world central bank
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 3:55 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we know why Buffet supported the TARP and QE:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article49800.html
The Knowledge Age has no use for Buffet. He doesn't add any expertise, that can't be automated with a computer as the Asness team has shown. This is an example of the impending demise of the one-world reserve currency and central banking (pooling risk to insurance against inevitable defaults of fractional reserve banking).
Subject: Mar 17: Warren Buffet is the perfect poster boy for why Knowledge Age doesn't need the one-world central bank
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 3:55 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we know why Buffet supported the TARP and QE:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article49800.html
Quote from: Porter Stansberry
This greatly amplified his returns and greatly increased the volatility of his portfolio. It nearly wiped him out in the 1974 bear market.
The Asness team saw the same kind of volatility in Berkshire's shares. Berkshire fell 51% from peak to trough in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. It saw a 49% decline in the bear market of 2000. It fell 37% during the "Black Monday" stock meltdown in 1987.
The Asness team saw the same kind of volatility in Berkshire's shares. Berkshire fell 51% from peak to trough in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. It saw a 49% decline in the bear market of 2000. It fell 37% during the "Black Monday" stock meltdown in 1987.
Quote
We find that the secret to Buffett's success is his preference for cheap, safe, high-quality stocks combined with his consistent use of leverage to magnify returns while surviving the inevitable large absolute and relative drawdowns this entails. Indeed, we find that stocks with the characteristics favored by Buffett have done well in general, that Buffett applies about 1.6-to-1 leverage financed partly using insurance float with a low financing rate, and that leveraging safe stocks can largely explain Buffett's performance.
The Knowledge Age has no use for Buffet. He doesn't add any expertise, that can't be automated with a computer as the Asness team has shown. This is an example of the impending demise of the one-world reserve currency and central banking (pooling risk to insurance against inevitable defaults of fractional reserve banking).
March 16, 2015, 09:31:44 AM
Japan's Central Bank became the entire economy in Japan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is the brave new world we are headed into with a single central bank that controls the world.
Knowledge Age innovation is incompatible with that top-down micromanagement. Thus we much break free from Armstrong's "solutions".
Indeed this is where we are headed and they will use cryptocurrencies for it (closed source and controlled), this is why Bitcoin is so important and this is why you are insane if you haven't got a good chunk of your wealth in BTC already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is the brave new world we are headed into with a single central bank that controls the world.
Knowledge Age innovation is incompatible with that top-down micromanagement. Thus we much break free from Armstrong's "solutions".
March 16, 2015, 08:39:13 AM
Japan's Central Bank became the entire economy in Japan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is the brave new world we are headed into with a single central bank that controls the world.
Knowledge Age innovation is incompatible with that top-down micromanagement. Thus we much break free from Armstrong's "solutions".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is the brave new world we are headed into with a single central bank that controls the world.
Knowledge Age innovation is incompatible with that top-down micromanagement. Thus we much break free from Armstrong's "solutions".
March 16, 2015, 07:42:42 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 16: banksters benefit from the BIS Basel enforcement
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 8:47 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
True hope (as opposed to abject failure) is recognizing reality and making the adjustments needed to be prosperous.
If no one adjusts, then the abyss will be much worse.
All (or most) of Europe's banking and sovereign debt is a house of cards with insignificant actual solvent Tier 1 capital. The insolvent sovereign bonds are used as the Tier 1 capital for the banks' reserves (even in Germany). The banks are not forced to mark-to-market until Greece (et al) actually default. Thus the entire extent of the collapse is hidden from the accounting. The defaults will spread like dominoes due to mark-to-market rules of the BIS Basel rounds (and hmmm the banksters created a Basel system to cause the collapse and usher in their one-world reserve currency "solution") once the first defaults get underway. Armstrong had correctly predicted Austria to be the location of the first defaults. And now we see it has started. Draghi's QE will buy a few months hiatus only (and line the pockets of the banksters under the ruse of "domestic policy objectives" bullshit).
The entire thing is going to collapse horrifically.
Subject: Mar 16: banksters benefit from the BIS Basel enforcement
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 8:47 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
True hope (as opposed to abject failure) is recognizing reality and making the adjustments needed to be prosperous.
If no one adjusts, then the abyss will be much worse.
All (or most) of Europe's banking and sovereign debt is a house of cards with insignificant actual solvent Tier 1 capital. The insolvent sovereign bonds are used as the Tier 1 capital for the banks' reserves (even in Germany). The banks are not forced to mark-to-market until Greece (et al) actually default. Thus the entire extent of the collapse is hidden from the accounting. The defaults will spread like dominoes due to mark-to-market rules of the BIS Basel rounds (and hmmm the banksters created a Basel system to cause the collapse and usher in their one-world reserve currency "solution") once the first defaults get underway. Armstrong had correctly predicted Austria to be the location of the first defaults. And now we see it has started. Draghi's QE will buy a few months hiatus only (and line the pockets of the banksters under the ruse of "domestic policy objectives" bullshit).
The entire thing is going to collapse horrifically.
March 16, 2015, 06:51:44 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 16: Armstrong is a central bank apologist & will fail to restructure before we crash & burn
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 7:37 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone else is interested a complete (I think) collection of them can be found here.
https://www.scribd.com/kzuur58
Thanks for this CC. Hopefully can start deciphering Armstrong extensive writings. Need to up my speed reading.
Careful with following everything Armstrong says. He is a central bank apologist and he wishes for a restructuring hoping the coming abyss will be avoided. But he will fail.
His computer model timings are correct. His interpretation of his computer model timings is sometimes flawed. For example him advising you that a mortgage will protect you from a housing collapse or egregious taxation. He can't be sure of that! He is hoping for a Solutions Conference, but remember the Petri dish model in my "Understand Everything Fundamentally" in my essay linked from the opening post of this thread.
The cancer doesn't slow down until the host is dead (food supply is exhausted).
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 16: Armstrong lacks understanding of the importance of bottom up, leaderless paradigms
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 7:49 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Armstrong's historical knowledge is impressive, but his interpretations are flawed by his top-down organization world view. Armstrong's computer model is (in theory) not subjective nor colored with human emotions and thus giving a purely statistical correlation of historical cycles with present data.
Armstrong is valuable source of information, but one has to understand the subjective bias he brings to the table. Armstrong believes central banking and fractional reserve debt is good for mankind. He doesn't seem to understand that is a scourge of mankind (and it is also synergistic with collectivized corruption, e.g. government).
Armstrong lacks understanding (or appreciation) of the importance of bottom up, leaderless paradigms.
If we only had the top-down paradigms, the human race would have destroyed itself long ago.
Subject: Mar 16: Armstrong is a central bank apologist & will fail to restructure before we crash & burn
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 7:37 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone else is interested a complete (I think) collection of them can be found here.
https://www.scribd.com/kzuur58
Thanks for this CC. Hopefully can start deciphering Armstrong extensive writings. Need to up my speed reading.
Careful with following everything Armstrong says. He is a central bank apologist and he wishes for a restructuring hoping the coming abyss will be avoided. But he will fail.
His computer model timings are correct. His interpretation of his computer model timings is sometimes flawed. For example him advising you that a mortgage will protect you from a housing collapse or egregious taxation. He can't be sure of that! He is hoping for a Solutions Conference, but remember the Petri dish model in my "Understand Everything Fundamentally" in my essay linked from the opening post of this thread.
The cancer doesn't slow down until the host is dead (food supply is exhausted).
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 16: Armstrong lacks understanding of the importance of bottom up, leaderless paradigms
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 7:49 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the warning. I'm just trying to get a comprehensive understanding of his thought process quickly. I'm already extremely impressed with his historical knowledge. I understand why (in general) gold bugs dislike him so much, it's silly how personally they seem to take it.
Yes Armstrong's historical knowledge is impressive, but his interpretations are flawed by his top-down organization world view. Armstrong's computer model is (in theory) not subjective nor colored with human emotions and thus giving a purely statistical correlation of historical cycles with present data.
Armstrong is valuable source of information, but one has to understand the subjective bias he brings to the table. Armstrong believes central banking and fractional reserve debt is good for mankind. He doesn't seem to understand that is a scourge of mankind (and it is also synergistic with collectivized corruption, e.g. government).
Armstrong lacks understanding (or appreciation) of the importance of bottom up, leaderless paradigms.
If we only had the top-down paradigms, the human race would have destroyed itself long ago.
March 16, 2015, 06:48:02 AM
March 16, 2015, 06:25:40 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 16: Euro is not an example that nations won't want a one-world reserve currency
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 7:27 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Euro was not a reserve currency. It replaced the national currencies and it was a partial attempt at a European Community political union too with the Troika or at least the European Commission and EC Parliament.
Clearly the Euro + EC failure will be used to support the concept of a one-world reserve currency that is orthogonal to the domestic politics and currencies of nations. Because for example, Euro is toast because the banks were required to buy sovereign bonds of for example Greece, but Greece borrowed in Euros when there was an ingress of capital surge, but now have to pay it back while there is an egress of capital exodus, and Greece has no policy tools because they don't control the Euro central bank.
The nations of the world will agree to a one-world RESERVE currency (not a political union!) because they resent the free ride the USA has gotten by being in control of the world's reserve currency.
But please realize this is all just a ruse for the global banksters to have even more control and do even greater corruption in the future by cleverly hiding their central banking manipulation in "international policy objectives" just as the Fed is hiding their funding of the banksters in "domestic policy objectives".
It is one big charade that even Armstrong is gullible about.
The only way the powers-that-be will allow Bitcoin to become the one-world reserve currency is if they control it. As I said, Bitcoin is controlled by 1 - 4 mining peers (i.e. they have greater than 50% of Bitcoin's network hash rate), thus the powers-that-be will be able to easily control Bitcoin when they are ready to take over control.
Perhaps you don't understand that you could have 20 mining pools all secretly owned by the same entity. In proof-of-work, the variance of earnings is inversely related to the percentage of the network hash rate the mining pool has, thus users will always favor mining pools that have double digit percentage of the Bitcoin network hash rate.
Bitcoin will never be decentralized. I already quoted upthread my other thread that explains how to get true decentralization by having multiple competing currencies each pegged with an options market to thedomaindominant unit-of-account. This will be the future of crypto-currency. But this will not be a dominant unit-of-account. The dominant unit-of-account will always be what is regulated, because fractional reserve banking (i.e. debt-based booms and busts) is demanded by the public that loves debt financiing and it is inherently a bankrupt financial system paradigm.
Subject: Mar 16: Euro is not an example that nations won't want a one-world reserve currency
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 7:27 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
One world currency? Look at what has happened with Euro. The thing is that there will never be a consensus when it comes to block of nations adopting a common currency which differ culturally, politically, different economic strength and stance, historical background, foreign policy and the list goes on and on. I don't think that is possible unless bitcoin becomes a reserve currency to backup each nation's currency.
The Euro was not a reserve currency. It replaced the national currencies and it was a partial attempt at a European Community political union too with the Troika or at least the European Commission and EC Parliament.
Clearly the Euro + EC failure will be used to support the concept of a one-world reserve currency that is orthogonal to the domestic politics and currencies of nations. Because for example, Euro is toast because the banks were required to buy sovereign bonds of for example Greece, but Greece borrowed in Euros when there was an ingress of capital surge, but now have to pay it back while there is an egress of capital exodus, and Greece has no policy tools because they don't control the Euro central bank.
The nations of the world will agree to a one-world RESERVE currency (not a political union!) because they resent the free ride the USA has gotten by being in control of the world's reserve currency.
But please realize this is all just a ruse for the global banksters to have even more control and do even greater corruption in the future by cleverly hiding their central banking manipulation in "international policy objectives" just as the Fed is hiding their funding of the banksters in "domestic policy objectives".
It is one big charade that even Armstrong is gullible about.
The only way the powers-that-be will allow Bitcoin to become the one-world reserve currency is if they control it. As I said, Bitcoin is controlled by 1 - 4 mining peers (i.e. they have greater than 50% of Bitcoin's network hash rate), thus the powers-that-be will be able to easily control Bitcoin when they are ready to take over control.
Perhaps you don't understand that you could have 20 mining pools all secretly owned by the same entity. In proof-of-work, the variance of earnings is inversely related to the percentage of the network hash rate the mining pool has, thus users will always favor mining pools that have double digit percentage of the Bitcoin network hash rate.
Bitcoin will never be decentralized. I already quoted upthread my other thread that explains how to get true decentralization by having multiple competing currencies each pegged with an options market to the
March 16, 2015, 05:47:20 AM
One world currency? Look at what has happened with Euro. The thing is that there will never be a consensus when it comes to block of nations adopting a common currency which differ culturally, politically, different economic strength and stance, historical background, foreign policy and the list goes on and on. I don't think that is possible unless bitcoin becomes a reserve currency to backup each nation's currency.
March 16, 2015, 03:28:46 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 16: Fed achieved which domestic policy objectives?
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 4:30 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me expound on my prior post a bit.
What domestic policy objectives were achieved by the Fed? They bailed out the banksters. They did not help the Mainstreet economy, because velocity of money is down by more than -50%. Why will this one world reserve currency be different? There are banksters in every nation on earth. For now, they just happen to be concentrated in New York (and lingering in London) for the moment, because that is where the seat of financial (and military) power is held because the USA (and formerly England) holds the world's reserve currency [i.e. they are the current financial capitals of the world].
Subject: Mar 16: Fed achieved which domestic policy objectives?
From: iamback
Date: Mon, March 16, 2015 4:30 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me expound on my prior post a bit.
What domestic policy objectives were achieved by the Fed? They bailed out the banksters. They did not help the Mainstreet economy, because velocity of money is down by more than -50%. Why will this one world reserve currency be different? There are banksters in every nation on earth. For now, they just happen to be concentrated in New York (and lingering in London) for the moment, because that is where the seat of financial (and military) power is held because the USA (and formerly England) holds the world's reserve currency [i.e. they are the current financial capitals of the world].
Jump to: