The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

...
Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military?
...

There's another side too:


"We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens [and to aid] populations in need of our assistance and our civilization." For such a cause, he and his comrades had willingly offered to "shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes."
"Make haste to reassure us that you at home support and love us as we obey and love you, for if we find that you have sent us to leave our bleached bones in these desert sands for nothing, beware the fury of the legions."
-- Marcus Flavius, a Roman centurion of the 4th Century

(emphasis mine)

[gnk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I don't know about the US, but China is definitely going to add at least 150 million cars over the next 10 years or so. An additional 10 million barrels a day is needed. Assuming that oil production can rise 5 million barrels - to hell with peak oil, then the other 5 million barrels must come from elsewhere.

H regarding China's future energy needs, here's an excellent presentation (it's long, but it is broken up in parts/topics) by David Fridley - who has consulted in China and has worked for current Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

http://fora.tv/2009/06/23/Energy_Mar..._Pacific_Basin

More direct link to Fridley's presentation:

http://fora.tv/2009/06/23/Energy_Mar...in#fullprogram note: focuses more so on coal

[c1ue]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military? What would it take to get people to vote in significantly different political leaders?

I have yet to see any examples of mass repression of US citizens by the US military.

It is one thing to shoot up a bunch of Pashtuns, another to fire on your fellow citizens.

As for what it would take - the reality is that we aren't that far in yet.

My long term forecast has always been for a minimum 30% drop in average American standard of living.

By my calculations, we're only 20% (6% drop or so average) of the way there. The second half will occur pretty much overnight, if history is any indication.

My view is we'll start seeing some serious action at the 20% level - that was when in the '70s you started seeing things like the SLA, as well as the series of attempted assassinations of Presidents from Ford through to Reagan.

[LazyBoy]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

"Revolution" in the US will be due to economic tensions: the blue collar worker feeling (and rightly so) betrayed by the white collar management. The technical white collar workers feeling betrayed by the white collar banksters. The general populace feeling betrayed by its regulatory captured politicians. The heavily indebted and unemployed youth feeling betrayed by the entire system. etc etc.

There weren't many distractions in 1848. I imagine that after a long day's work, the only thing to talk about at the pub was the state of the state. Today, I almost never have a serious political discussion except on the internet.

I think we're too fat and happy in the US for a revolution. I feel "betrayed", but not enough to do much except worry. As long as the middle class has enough TV, they won't get off their butts. At most we get riled up enough to vote for "change" -- from one of the two remarkably similar political parties. As long as various social programs keep handing out dollars -- even increasingly worthless ones -- the poor can be managed. Then we can all blame the economy (or those damn teachers!!) instead of the government. I can see a carefully managed lowering of US standards without any significant "revolution".

Seriously, what would it take to get a % of US citizens to stand up to the US military? What would it take to get people to vote in significantly different political leaders?

[KGW]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Barely off topic, but a few days ago I found a book that I had ordered some time ago. I think it was recommended by E.J. as a basic source. . ."A Bubble That Broke The World," by Garet Garrett, Cosimo Classics, 2005. Originally published in 1932, it examines the egregious selling of bonds that lead to the Great Depression and WW2.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I don't think it's about democracy. It's about maintaining economic growth to support a debt-based ever-expanding monetary system. The US has just over 300 million people that consume over 20% of the world's energy. China? They have about 300 million people living an industrialized lifestyle, and another 1 BILLION waiting in line to get their taste of the modern lifestyle.

Not enough energy to go around... someone's economy is going to take a hit. The question is, how will that choice be made? Who loses, or more likely, we all "lose?"

I don't know about the US, but China is definitely going to add at least 150 million cars over the next 10 years or so. An additional 10 million barrels a day is needed. Assuming that oil production can rise 5 million barrels - to hell with peak oil, then the other 5 million barrels must come from elsewhere.

[gnk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I don't think it's about democracy. It's about maintaining economic growth to support a debt-based ever-expanding monetary system. The US has just over 300 million people that consume over 20% of the world's energy. China? They have about 300 million people living an industrialized lifestyle, and another 1 BILLION waiting in line to get their taste of the modern lifestyle.

Not enough energy to go around... someone's economy is going to take a hit. The question is, how will that choice be made? Who loses, or more likely, we all "lose?"

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I'm not necessarily in the WWIII camp either. At least not in the traditional sense. But the proxy wars will heat up for sure, something we are already seeing. But way down the line, sure, it could happen.

WWIII can be avoided this century if China becomes a democracy. This will ensure that the interest of the people and the government are fully aligned.

Although democracy didn't help post-Meiji rising Japan avoid war, China doesn't have a warrior or veteran culture, no one wants to be a soldier, everyone wants to be a millionaire businessman.

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Bart, fantastic chart and apropos

Thanks Jay, much appreciated.

I forgot to add in my post that EJ's work is indeed truly epic - probably in the top 3 of all time on iTulip, serious stones enabled too.

I very generally agree with it all, although my guesstimate involves a shorter time line and a few nuances.

THE sector to invest if there is a major war, in my opinion, is anti-depressants.

[flintlock]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I'm not necessarily in the WWIII camp either. At least not in the traditional sense. But the proxy wars will heat up for sure, something we are already seeing. But way down the line, sure, it could happen.

[flintlock]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Such low expectations!

I think it can traced to three articles by EJ. His first one about the 2008 election, in which he pointed out every candidate but two (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) were FIREmen.....A short time later, he shocked the world and 'endorsed' Obama....And when Scott Brown won in January 2010 he thought that it was a sign of a political awakening. Here we are some 16 months later and how can you come to any other conclusion than that we're fucked?

Yes, give any wise man enough time, he'll see it. The biggest obstacle for most , smart or not, is having a mind open to the possibilities. Some refuse to let their minds go down that path. Like my Dad for instance, he seems to think that if nothing of the sort has happened so far in his lifetime, that it probably won't. 78 years is a lot of life experience, sure, but it pales when compared to history in general. Nothing wrong with being optimistic, but the writing is on the wall. The real question now is just how fucked we are. And how soon.

[Jay]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I submit that government bond price fixing has been going on for years, although it has grown substantially since about 2007, via the Fed's Securities Lending Operation ( http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/seclend/sec_lendop.cfm ).


Something of mine from 2007: Securities Lending, tinfoil hat mode




The portion applying to the 10 year Treasury, last 10 months:

Bart, fantastic chart and apropos!! Then again, what else should we expect?

EJ, I must confess, it has secretly annoyed me that you weren't a "three" years ago, but I always ascribed that to public face necessities (and the fact that I felt that you are a bit more optimistic than me) and gave you a pass because your stuff is so damn original and solid. This article is finally a bit more realistic. In fact, now that you are "here", I wonder if it is a contrarian signal and that we are going to get a bump for the next few years!

I still feel that your statement that the US middle class will look a lot like the Mexican middle class is very accurate. I just read, Murder City, which is about drug murders and what is left of civil life in Juarez, Mexico, and I hope to god you are wrong on the fate of the American middle class, because Juarez is a "one" on the doomer scale. That book drips with blood and feels like it will light on fire at times (in fact, I recommend no one read it, even as well as it is written. It is like reading Treblinka before WWII in some ways, yikes!) Unfortunately, I bought that sentiment then, and I buy it just as much now. I wonder if I made a mistake not focusing on moving to New Zealand instead of staying put with my family in the US.

Lastly, I will just say that building a war machine is a tremendous inflation sink. Think about it.

Thanks for the article as always.

[c1ue]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

What about Israel? Or North Korea? Or India vs. Pakistan? All of which are now nuclear armed. What will happen when Iran has nukes?

Israel and North Korea are far too small to generate a World War.

While you might say Israel has the US behind it - who is behind Israel's opponents? Where is the opposing industrial might? Can Israel in turn conquer even more territory in the ME?

North Korea: no friends. China uses NK but NK can't rely on anyone except ironically its own partitioned off southern portion.

Pakistan and India: more credible - but again who is helping who? Where are the alliances by which Pakistan and India will draw the rest of the world into a greater conflict? And how can a greater conflict occur with nuclear weapons available to all participants - thus threatening force projection such as an outsider like the US (carrier fleets) or China (Himalayan logistics/traverse routes)?

As for Iran: again where are the other participants? Do you think Iran can conquer the ex-Soviet Central Asian States given Russia's re-extension of influence there? Can Iran attack Iraq or Saudi Arabia again without explicit permission from other powers? Can Iran successful invade Afghanistan or march on through to Pakistan despite historical ethnic and cultural differences?

The reality is that while there are plenty of places where ethnic tensions exist - there aren't any places where gigantic opposing forces are engaged in a tug of war as could be seen pre WW I or WW II.

The primary aggressor today is the United States. Barring an invasion of Mexico or Canada - neither of which is economically useful, only 3rd world nations can be safely attacked.

Hardly the recipe for massive world wide conflict.

Unless, of course, the US is able to re-institute the draft.

If China ever makes a move militarily, Taiwan seems like a possible target/goal -- perhaps preceded by some other territorial issue. Historically, China has made it clear that it does not accept Taiwan as a separate, independent entity.

China has no interest whatsoever in invading Taiwan. Taiwan is a red flag issue to distract its youth; China is already reaping most of the benefits of Taiwanese capital and technology.

The issue of the Islamic occupation of Europe is also interesting. If there's a big flare-up in the Mideast, the consequences in Europe would likely be significant.

This is more amusing fantasy. The entire Middle East and North Africa has less than the population of the EU, and this population is far poorer and poorly armed. This ignores the impossibility of combining Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, Syria, etc into a single political entity: a mixture of fantastically different ethnicities, cultures, politics, and even religious sects.

Food is another area of possible conflict. A large-scale famine by a nuclear armed country could easily provoke desperate measures. Nuclear blackmail only works when there's enough resources to go around.

Right - so how exactly does a nation fight a ground war and acquire lands on which it is able to grow lots of food?

If pipelines are vulnerable, how much more vulnerable are fields of wheat, silos, feed lots, etc?

Unless you can demonstrate that some nation - any nation - is willing and able to exterminate the entire population of a large region, the idea of fighting a war for food is ridiculous.

Wars are fought for many reasons - I cannot offhand recall a single instance where one was fought for food. Why didn't the Irish attack England during the potato famine? Why didn't China successfully invade Vietnam during its 1958-1961 famine? (The Sino-Vietnamese war wasn't until 1979)

Wars can bring famine, but not the other way around.

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

So the military-industrial complex would be one of the "investment sectors"? Welcome back Daddy Warbucks -- if you ever indeed left.....

Certainly if we see any serious mobilization, we are on the cusp. I can not recall a situation when there has been a mass mobilization and those forces have *not* been used.

THE sector to invest if there is a major war, in my opinion, is anti-depressants.

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

...
Proposed emergency policies included buying long dated government bonds to “shape the yield curve,” known as government bond price fixing in less polite circles.
...

I submit that government bond price fixing has been going on for years, although it has grown substantially since about 2007, via the Fed's Securities Lending Operation ( http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/seclend/sec_lendop.cfm ).


Something of mine from 2007: Securities Lending, tinfoil hat mode




The portion applying to the 10 year Treasury, last 10 months: