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

[jiimbergin]

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

Unfortunately, our present rulers are our creditors so that it isn't going to happen. In fact, I'm glad that this crisis has happened as it has shown the whole world who really pulls the strings and governs things and it ain't the politicians.

I agree with the premise of this article. It's obvious what the real solution is to anyone who thinks.

However I disagree with a few conclusions at the end to do with the world wars. I would postulate that it was the mounted machine gun that killed millions of men in the first world war. It was actually oil that gave them protected from it in the form of a tank. A LOT more men died in WWI than WWII.

Also, Germany's problem wasn't a lack of oil, but a lack of manpower as to the reason it lost. It bet on superior technology over manpower to the Russians and lost. Once it had lost all its men on the Eastern front the war was technically over.

I'm not 100% convinced on a future WWIII as I was before. One of the main reasons is that very few civilians can be brainwashed by propaganda to kill anyone in cold blood anymore (at least not in Europe). The internet has put paid to that.

If there is to be conflict it will be internally and it will be between the citizens versus the government, not between countries. For the first time I actually see a possibility of the US breaking up into states. Europe will most definitely have "marriage" issues. I am glad as I see who our real owners are and I don't like them and I don't (and never have) liked the debt system. Good riddance. We are going to see local societies make their own rules between themselves sans government... for better or worse...

Everything I see on the net says WWII had far higher total death toll than WWI!

[jk]

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

does that mean that when we see the mainstream unemployment statistic touted - its not actually clear whether unemployment went up or down because more people (99ers) could have just fallen off the count?

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for More than 99 Weeks
Gerald Mayer
Analyst in Labor Policy
December 20, 2010

yes, that's how i understand it, and why i raised the issue as a question, just to be sure. i think there is a cohort of -especially- workers over 50 years old who will never work again. they are trying to get by on their savings and their cashed-out 401k's and ira's and occasional part-time work if they can get it. they are holding out until they reach 62, when they will start collecting social security "early." and then they will try to get by on that. while the baby boomers made uneconomic promises in the name of the country to themselves re social security and medicare, a subgroup of that generation will endure decades of sharply lower living standards and poverty.

[jiimbergin]

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

yes, that's how i understand it, and why i raised the issue as a question, just to be sure. i think there is a cohort of -especially- workers over 50 years old who will never work again. they are trying to get by on their savings and their cashed-out 401k's and ira's and occasional part-time work if they can get it. they are holding out until they reach 62, when they will start collecting social security "early." and then they will try to get by on that. while the baby boomers made uneconomic promises in the name of the country to themselves re social security and medicare, a subgroup of that generation will endure decades of sharply lower living standards and poverty.

But there are also many many younger people who also are 99ers.

[cjppjc]

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

Many of them may have moved back in with their parents.

[jk]

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

and the younger people are more likely to eventually find work at some point. they also don't have the "opportunity" to hang on until they can collect social security.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

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

yes, that's how i understand it, and why i raised the issue as a question, just to be sure. i think there is a cohort of -especially- workers over 50 years old who will never work again. they are trying to get by on their savings and their cashed-out 401k's and ira's and occasional part-time work if they can get it. they are holding out until they reach 62, when they will start collecting social security "early." and then they will try to get by on that. while the baby boomers made uneconomic promises in the name of the country to themselves re social security and medicare, a subgroup of that generation will endure decades of sharply lower living standards and poverty.

Three of the groomsmen at my wedding and one brother-in-law are in that cohort. I saw a term for this recently - "NQR" - Not Quite Retired. All four are 51 to 61 years old, all masters in trades like building and paving with 30+ years of diligent hard work on their resume, all doing what you describe to get by.

[llanlad2]

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

One of the main reasons is that very few civilians can be brainwashed by propaganda to kill anyone in cold blood anymore (at least not in Europe). The internet has put paid to that.

Civilians can very quickly become uncivil. As for"" very few civilians being brainwashed etc." The problem with the weapons we have now is that only a very few willing civilians are needed to cause mayhem. I am a close acquaintance of a 30 year old woman who was a refugee from Vukovar in the serbo-croat war. Some of the stories she has told me are gobsmacking. An example how one nutter can have a big influence is Arkan. Oh and all this was in Europe by the way.

[cjppjc]

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

Civilians can very quickly become uncivil. As for"" very few civilians being brainwashed etc." The problem with the weapons we have now is that only a very few willing civilians are needed to cause mayhem. I am a close acquaintance of a 30 year old woman who was a refugee from Vukovar in the serbo-croat war. Some of the stories she has told me are gobsmacking. An example how one nutter can have a big influence is Arkan. Oh and all this was in Europe by the way.

Thank you for that link. I had never heard of Arkan, and I am not well informed of the bloodshed in that part of the world. It does help to prove a point, that man has not evolved into some kind of gentler species.

[Chris Coles]

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

For what it is worth, we "oldies" have more to fear from the younger generation who see us as the reason for the high taxes and the impediment to their ongoing survival. If they, as a group, ever decide we are "expendable"; we might have a very difficult time surviving. They live on a different planet, always plugged into their stereo ear-pads etc.. We need to keep in their minds a reason for their support, perhaps by providing some leadership in our local communities that sets us out as supportive of them as a group. Food for thought.

[Alvaro Spain]

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

For what it is worth, we "oldies" have more to fear from the younger generation who see us as the reason for the high taxes and the impediment to their ongoing survival. If they, as a group, ever decide we are "expendable"; we might have a very difficult time surviving. They live on a different planet, always plugged into their stereo ear-pads etc.. We need to keep in their minds a reason for their support, perhaps by providing some leadership in our local communities that sets us out as supportive of them as a group. Food for thought.

You raise an important issue. From my point of view, the most important thing you can do (with respect to the problem you are talking about) is to raise your children in respect and love. If your children love and support you in your older years you shouldn't care about the rest of the younger population.

[jiimbergin]

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

You raise an important issue. From my point of view, the most important thing you can do (with respect to the problem you are talking about) is to raise your children in respect and love. If your children love and support you in your older years you shouldn't care about the rest of the younger population.

I agree, and I would add grandchildren, nieces and nephews etc.

[Chris D.]

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

the war ends in a way that was not foreseen at the outset with a scale of casualties beyond imagination

Seems like most of the losses would come as a result of famine and disease. You could see significant parts of the third world have their tentative economic gains since WW2 erased by factional proxy wars sponsored by the US and China (e.g., Afghanistan). Large parts of Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South America could be decimated much like Europe was during the 30 Years War. These regions are where the most tentative major population centers and relatively untapped resource wealth lie. Seems like a showdown over Taiwan would be the inevitable test case for nuclear brinksmanship.

[c1ue]

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

Originally Posted by c1ue
...a US-China war being one which both will lose.

But why is that an argument that it will not happen?

The one scenario I can see which would result in a WW III type eruption is where China's economic miracle ends and the Chinese government then uses patriotic sentiment to fuel a conflict with the United States to distract the population.

However, the gigantic caveat in this scenario is that both sides are then essentially in it for the distraction: control is maintained such that significant infrastructure damage, much less nuclear war, is prevented.

If the government of China were a bunch of feckless idiots like in the US, I'd be more in agreement with you.

However, the government in China is still more or less the last of China's equivalent of the 'Silent Generation' - they know firsthand the suffering from and fundamental impossibility of control in an open conflict situation.

My view is that said government is far more likely to wuwei: sway with the wind and permit the US to do things like Libya, relying instead on time and inertia to permit their opponent to destroy himself.

After all, China needs to do nothing in order for the situation in the US to come to a head.

[ST]

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

That is correct. If you stay unemployed long enough, you're not unemployed anymore and don't show up in either the mean or the median rates.

I asked the fellow who's report I cited. He said that is not true - he's says that those unemployed longer than 99 weeks are in fact included in the mean and that until January no matter how long they have been unemployed they were listed as 2 yrs but since there are so many people now the BLS has changed that 2 year cap to a five 5 year cap so it doesn't skew the data. I couldn't find anything to confirm or deny on the BLS site for the inclusion/exclsion. Here's a link on the cap change:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/duration.htm

and here is the author I contacted:

The Trend in Long-Term Unemployment and Characteristics of Workers Unemployed for More than 99 Weeks
Gerald Mayer GMAYER@crs.loc.gov
Analyst in Labor Policy
December 20, 2010

[jk]

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

i think they have to be looking for work within the past month to count as unemployed. if they are discouraged in fact as in name, they've stopped looking and they've stopped being counted.