Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

[bart]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

I'm starting to get the impression that either you folks are flirting with the dark side deflationists, or everyone including iTulip, Doug Casey, Mish, Rick Ackerman and Bob Prechter will be able to claim victory by pointing to the part of the country/economy that supports their case... :rolleyes:

Yawn...


Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension): attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."


Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

[GRG55]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Yawn...


Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension): attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."


Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

I still think a "victory for all" party is in the works (Mish isn't going to give up that easily). Sort of a Red States, Blue States thing.

Good thing internet bandwidth keeps going up...we're gonna need it to handle the onslaught.

[bart]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

I still think a "victory for all" party is in the works (Mish isn't going to give up that easily). Sort of a Red States, Blue States thing.

Perhaps, but the bottom line is whose actual positions and recommendations out perform over the months and years.

Mish has recommended gold since almost day one so he'll at least do better than the Wall St. shills and many/most US citizens.

[GRG55]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Perhaps, but the bottom line is whose actual positions and recommendations out perform over the months and years.

Mish has recommended gold since almost day one so he'll at least do better than the Wall St. shills and many/most US citizens.

That's because, unlike most US citizens, he's paying attention and trying (like we all are) to understand the implications of what is going on... :p

[metalman]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Perhaps, but the bottom line is whose actual positions and recommendations out perform over the months and years.

Mish has recommended gold since almost day one so he'll at least do better than the Wall St. shills and many/most US citizens.

i've followed all these guys, read prubear and prechter and mish and ackerman, been reading itulip since 1999. itulip recommended gold in 2001 and has been stubbornly on the inflation trail since 2000 as i recall. mish has been 100% in the deflation camp since he started out... when was that, anyway? 2002 or something? it was easier to recommend gold after the price had already been rising. itulip recommended it in 2001 when everyone still hated it. mish's and prechter's recommendations on gold and calls for deflation don't make sense to me. my sense is that itulip does as well as it has on these bubble calls because it's been around for nearly 10 years and they have a better handle on how the world works than most out there... they rely too much on analytics, charts, and academic type thinking.

[GRG55]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Perhaps, but the bottom line is whose actual positions and recommendations out perform over the months and years.

Mish has recommended gold since almost day one so he'll at least do better than the Wall St. shills and many/most US citizens.

Just so there's no confusion I have a good deal of respect for the Mish's work, and try to keep an open mind on the possible outcomes we are facing bart:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...17661#poststop

[EJ]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Just so there's no confusion I have a good deal of respect for the Mish's work, and try to keep an open mind on the possible outcomes we are facing bart:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...17661#poststop

The source of confusion here is that in Mish's world, a debt deflation means commodity price deflation ala 1930s. In the iTulip world, since day one, a debt deflation means dollar depreciation and commodity price inflation.

I recently offered Mike the opportunity to debate me again on this topic. He turned me down, stating that his position and mine on deflation are close.

I disagree. Our positions on deflation, in fact, could not be more at odds and have always been so.

Mike has been very clear on his expectations of commodity price deflation, as in this piece that turns up in a google search on Mish and deflation: Deflation is in the Cards

You have never seen in nearly 10 years nor will you ever see on iTulip a prediction of commodity price deflation because it's never, ever going to happen.

The only choices we have offered our readers over the years is from the following menu:

A) Fed succeeds in managing the post-credit bubble debt deflation: gradual dollar depreciation with a controlled commodity price inflation.

B) Fed fails to manage the post-credit bubble debt deflation: rapid and uncontrolled dollar depreciation with spiking commodity price inflation and interest rates.

Readers see the word "deflation" in the term "debt deflation" and immediately associate it with commodity price deflation. But we are talking about asset price deflation within the FIRE Economy, not commodity price deflation within the Production/Consumption Economy.

This is a common area of confusion in this debate, but since the US went off the gold standard, and especially since the US became a net debtor versus a creditor, the possibility of a commodity price deflation in the US has been zero.

At this point in the debt deflation process, the remaining policy tool available to fight debt deflation is dollar depreciation. It is being used with "good results" so far. The US has so far avoided recession, at the price of making oil and other imports expensive. However, dollar depreciation as a policy tool even has Larry Kudlow worried, who recently wrote:

Sometime in the latter half of the 1990s I coined the phrase “King Dollar.” This was back in the post-Soviet collapse period when the U.S. greenback ruled the world currency roost. As the Berlin Wall came down, taking totalitarian socialism with it, global investors and businesses sought the U.S. dollar as their currency of choice. They also chose the American model of free-market capitalism — including supply-side reductions in marginal tax rates — as their economic reform of choice...

However, there comes a point in this transition when the U.S. must begin to stabilize the dollar. I believe we are at that point now. It is time to think about reviving King Dollar. If we don’t, there may well be negative consequences for U.S. inflation, the stock market, and economic growth. I’m not worried about too much foreign investment, but I am concerned about too little foreign investment. I do not want to see a collapse of the worldwide demand for dollars.

Note to Larry: The hog is in the tunnel. We are over the top of major credit and economic cycles. Anything we do to try to restore the dollar now risks sending the US economy into an uncontrolled debt deflation. Such a move will cause capital flight a dollar crash. It's lose or lose big, and we are betting that our trade partners, by continuing to buy agency and other capital goods from us, will allow us to merely lose versus lose big. If that fails, next step is to start selling domestic assets directly.

[bart]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Just so there's no confusion I have a good deal of respect for the Mish's work, and try to keep an open mind on the possible outcomes we are facing bart:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...17661#poststop

That's pretty much my take too, and Mish & I do disagree on the eventual outcome and many other aspects. I don't think we'll see actual deflation for any significant period of time in the US, and do believe that the Fed and other central banks, etc., will succeed in reflating.

Ka-poom and the FIRE economy concepts of iTulip are quite close to my basic views. The differences are basically quibbles in the big picture.

[Guest]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Commodity deflation? 1930's redux?

I am surprised someone as erudite as Mish gets taken in year after year on this. The real trend in natural resources in the early 2000's is profoundly, structurally inflationary - whether due only to monetary aggregates or not - it IS inflationary.

This should be apparent to anyone not blinded by the fearsome light of the "1930's deflationist's" argument.

Mish's insight on this topic seems a bit of a "wavering candle" in the dark.

CRBGold-01.jpg

_________________

What is necessary, particularly for Americans, and for anyone else overwhelmed by the gruesome analysis of unsustainable debt within the US, is to be very wary, and to avoid America-centric thinking, as it's now invalid for the new century. An America centric global economy is by no means an axiom in 2007, and won't be true at all in another 5-10 years, with a good degree of probability.

Whenever these industrious but obtuse, apparently erudite "commodities down" market watchers (global deflationists) conclude the "US and with it the industrialised world must collapse from debt into a massive deflation", they are employing an unpardonably fuzzy global focus for so-called "market pundits" that increasingly appears at odds with the global reality.

This "global deflationary collapse" conclusion is something they've apparently derived from years of observations which have been totally engrossed in the gruesome details of the US economic decline alone. All other global growth trends are assumed to be tethered to the US locomotive - and this assumption lazily employs the same paradigm which held for the past 40 years. It does not hold any more - if not completely, then this trend is emerging at lightning speed (five more years of 10% - 15% annual growth in a bloc of 3++ billion people will effectively complete the transition).

The US will shortly be free to fail, without fully HALF the global economy, let alone the commodity consumption fueling the build out of that 3 billion person economic bloc, compliantly being required to fail right alongside the US.

The crime here, for an investment advisor who purports to provide actionable long term signals, is to be far too complacent - complacent that the flagging of US consumption will lock up global growth. This is a canard. There will be a resulting recession - and equities markets will certainly amplify that correction even harshly, but the decade long trend for commodities is tethered to the largest global build-out in 300 years (now well past the startup phase), and any investment analyst who misses this concept, no matter how sophisticated the rest of their analysis may sound, should be fired, for having missed the biggest actionable trend to appear in at least a century.

Jim Rogers = 100%
Mish et. al. = 0%

For these "specialist" market watchers to provide such exquisite detail regarding all aspects of American financial bloat, but who fail miserably to connect this with an incresingly powerful growth trend throughout Asia where the demographic size of this trend and it's unbelievably bullish mid term fundamentals, exceeds the 19th Century industrial demographic by a factor of 20, displays an analytic ability which ends up merely floundering.

It appears increasingly implausible that fully ONE HALF of the world presently industrialising (3 billion people = almost half the entire globe's population) will simply fold up it's furious pace of growth, as the US slides into asset deflation, and meekly deflate their real economies right alongside the US FIRE economy.

This deflationist view is therefore trapped within a naivete about the massive global shift. Deflationists will nominally recognise it, but they don't "get it" in the sense that it's changed the ground rules of US led global growth right out from under their 20th Century conclusions.

This is the primary error - to be US centric in thinking this all through. This is the largest wave of global industrialisation in 150 years - equivalent in global significance to the industrialisation which transformed the global economy in the late 19th Century, but 10 to 15 times larger. To be an economist / market analyst who's very job consists of scouring the world for clear global trends, and to miss that entirely by becoming ensnared in the conceit that the US's collapse into insolvency will cause global commodities to collapse under the strain of the US's demise is a quite astonishing bit of America-centric delusion.

iTulip's position on the commodity boom is that this remains most significantly a monetarily driven phenomenon. I don't buy it's the sole cause, and I absolutely don't buy that monetary abuse will remain the primary cause, ten years out from now. However, apart from this small difference with iTulip's position, I think iTulip certainly has got the call right. The deflationists arguments on commodities and global deflation truly are all wet.

[GRG55]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Commodity deflation? 1930's redux?

I am surprised someone as erudite as Mish gets taken in year after year on this. The real trend in natural resources in the early 2000's is profoundly, structurally inflationary - whether due only to monetary aggregates or not - it IS inflationary.

This should be apparent to anyone not blinded by the fearsome light of the "1930's deflationist's" argument.

Mish's insight on this topic seems a bit of a "wavering candle" in the dark!

[ATTACH]89[/ATTACH]

On the topic of commodity deflation Mish isn't alone. About mid-2006 as oil rolled over and started down there were quite a few commentators talking about the end of the "commodity bubble" including, as just one influential example, Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's then Chief Economist.

My wife kept reading his stuff and asking when I was going to sell the oil stocks, but everywhere I travelled I couldn't see anybody using less energy...;)

[metalman]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Commodity deflation? 1930's redux?

I am surprised someone as erudite as Mish gets taken in year after year on this. The real trend in natural resources in the early 2000's is profoundly, structurally inflationary - whether due only to monetary aggregates or not - it IS inflationary.

This should be apparent to anyone not blinded by the fearsome light of the "1930's deflationist's" argument.

Mish's insight on this topic seems a bit of a "wavering candle" in the dark.

[ATTACH]89[/ATTACH]

_________________

What is necessary, particularly for Americans, and for anyone else overwhelmed by the gruesome analysis of unsustainable debt within the US, is to be very wary, and to avoid America-centric thinking, as it's now invalid for the new century. An America centric global economy is by no means an axiom in 2007, and won't be true at all in another 5-10 years, with a good degree of probability.

Whenever these industrious but obtuse, apparently erudite "commodities down" market watchers (global deflationists) conclude the "US and with it the industrialised world must collapse from debt into a massive deflation", they are employing an unpardonably fuzzy global focus for so-called "market pundits" that increasingly appears at odds with the global reality.

This "global deflationary collapse" conclusion is something they've apparently derived from years of observations which have been totally engrossed in the gruesome details of the US economic decline alone. All other global growth trends are assumed to be tethered to the US locomotive - and this assumption lazily employs the same paradigm which held for the past 40 years. It does not hold any more - if not completely, then this trend is emerging at lightning speed (five more years of 10% - 15% annual growth in a bloc of 3++ billion people will effectively complete the transition).

The US will shortly be free to fail, without fully HALF the global economy, let alone the commodity consumption fueling the build out of that 3 billion person economic bloc, compliantly being required to fail right alongside the US.

The crime here, for an investment advisor who purports to provide actionable long term signals, is to be far too complacent - complacent that the flagging of US consumption will lock up global growth. This is a canard. There will be a resulting recession - and equities markets will certainly amplify that correction even harshly, but the decade long trend for commodities is tethered to the largest global build-out in 300 years (now well past the startup phase), and any investment analyst who misses this concept, no matter how sophisticated the rest of their analysis may sound, should be fired, for having missed the biggest actionable trend to appear in at least a century.

Jim Rogers = 100%
Mish et. al. = 0%

For these "specialist" market watchers to provide such exquisite detail regarding all aspects of American financial bloat, but who fail miserably to connect this with an incresingly powerful growth trend throughout Asia where the demographic size of this trend and it's unbelievably bullish mid term fundamentals, exceeds the 19th Century industrial demographic by a factor of 20, displays an analytic ability which ends up merely floundering.

It appears increasingly implausible that fully ONE HALF of the world presently industrialising (3 billion people = almost half the entire globe's population) will simply fold up it's furious pace of growth, as the US slides into asset deflation, and meekly deflate their real economies right alongside the US FIRE economy.

This deflationist view is therefore trapped within a naivete about the massive global shift. Deflationists will nominally recognise it, but they don't "get it" in the sense that it's changed the ground rules of US led global growth right out from under their 20th Century conclusions.

This is the primary error - to be US centric in thinking this all through. This is the largest wave of global industrialisation in 150 years - equivalent in global significance to the industrialisation which transformed the global economy in the late 19th Century, but 10 to 15 times larger. To be an economist / market analyst who's very job consists of scouring the world for clear global trends, and to miss that entirely by becoming ensnared in the conceit that the US's collapse into insolvency will cause global commodities to collapse under the strain of the US's demise is a quite astonishing bit of America-centric delusion.

iTulip's position on the commodity boom is that this remains most significantly a monetarily driven phenomenon. I don't buy it's the sole cause, and I absolutely don't buy that monetary abuse will remain the primary cause, ten years out from now. However, apart from this small difference with iTulip's position, I think iTulip certainly has got the call right. The deflationists arguments on commodities and global deflation truly are all wet.

well that's what these asia and european pols get for strapping their merchantile economies to our financial economy.

and you guys are more polite than i am re the guys who have been warning about deflation. gimme a break. the worry isn't that the dollar may get too valuable, is it? anyone who thinks that needs to get on a plane and see europe and asia. sure, they got problems. we got problems. question is, whose problems are bigger and who will handle them better.

confidence in china is waaaaay overstated. that place is a few giant show cities spotting a humungus 3rd world nation. usa won't lose all our friends the way germany did in the 1930s and the dollar going to zero. that's more likely to happen to russia (like in that little bbc video over on the other forum) and watch what they do then! and when china shits a hairball watch what they do.

inflation is monetary and hyperinflation is political. will all this if it happens at once make everyone long for dollars for a while? hell yes. but the usa has problems of its own that these events will make worse. and what can the fed do?

the next round of bail, print, bail, print, bail will be global like since 2001 but not only to save the usa's ass and a few european allies', but china's ass, and russia's, and latvia's, and so on. maybe instead of 2001 - 2004 with usa printing dollars and the rest following to support the dollar maybe it happens the other way around, with a rush to dollars followed by dollar printing. depends on who shits the hairball first and how the pols react. either way it happens, remember hudson's ratchet? CLICK. it takes another turn and then 1 oz gold = 2000 vs 750 proxy world currency units.

as for your comments on itulip seeing monetary causes only to the rise in asset prices, i recommend you look at bart's charts where he shows all these commodities going up at once... nickel, copper, silver, oil, etc. since 2004. so, what, coincidentally supply/demand for all of these became the same all at once starting in 2004? or maybe they all became correlated to the same thing when the global printed press started to crank?

now where's my mish pic. here it is...

[Guest]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Metalman -

I could swear this "No U-Turn" sign you've posted is a 50% larger image than last time it got posted. Seems to be ... expanding ...

Actually seems 100% larger or more. It's definitely growing ...

[metalman]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

Metalman -

I could swear this "No U-Turn" sign you've posted is a 50% larger image than last time it got posted. Seems to be ... expanding ...

Actually seems 100% larger or more. It's definitely growing ...

really??? i'm not sure what you mean...

[Guest]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

See, it did it again! I could swear Mish's "no U-Turn" sign just got a bit bigger ...

[metalman]

Re: Powers Vow in 2007 as in 1932

See, it did it again! I could swear Mish's "no U-Turn" sign just got a bit bigger ...

ok lukester this is as far as i'm gonna take this joke!!!