Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

[Slimprofits]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

great charts thanks for posting them.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

So here are a few more charts I finished tonight from various CAP-U sectors. As you might imagine, food and energy are doing OK but several other more specific sectors are faring much worse. If any readers still have some doubt with regard to the iTulip depression thesis, review these charts and try to explain them in another light than a 'transformational depression'.

The chart below shows that we are producing at 1999 levels. This is hardly the right direction if we're moving toward a more productive economy. Clearly we're still unwinding.

The next four charts show consumer durable goods and then various areas of consumer goods, household appliances, consumer vehicles and apparel. If you're not sitting down, you should. When the homeowners ATM shut off in 2006, so did the consumer.

What we see is a result of an apparent minor change of rules regarding the investment of savings made some decades ago. Yes, it is my pet subject, but these graphs demonstrate my thesis better than anything I have seen before now. What has happened is that what I call the savings institutions, anywhere that a citizens savings were collected together to form any sort of fund, were, very effectively, barred from placing any of the savings back into direct equity investment at the grass roots of society. Ostensibly to prevent the loss of the savings. In reality taking all that investment potential into inter institutional trading and forcing the savings institutions to instead, keep by far the majority of that investment "in house" and out of the regular grass roots economy.

The law of unintended consequences has produced a result. In fact, this is going to become a prime example of that law.

The flow of new investment stopped. But the process is so very slow, as all businesses live full lives and die and as with any population, in this case, all those Mom and Pop shops and businesses were, on the face of it; irrelevant. Totally inconsequential to a top line economist or manager of a billion dollar fund......... who needs them.....

Right at this moment, while the FIRE economy lies on its deathbed, and all efforts continue to revive it, no one is going to do anything. But the facts are so clear, sooner or later, everyone is going to wake up to the fact that the economies foundations are not built from multi billion dollar businesses, but all those tiny, inconsequential, irrelevant, embryo businesses.

[lurker]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

Maybe one "solution" is war after all. Trade war. De-globalization, or at least very limited trade (for things we simply cannot produce enough of, like oil) If the US is currently a trade debtor nation, would the net result of isolationism be

1. decreased capacity
2. increased demand due to having external sources for goods cut off
3. increased employment (required to produce all that stuff)

It would be disruptive and painful, but is it feasible?

A decent trade war and retreat to isolationism would at least force all trade blocks to become a little more balanced. No more US consumer-of-last-resort, and no more mercantilist export based economies.

As to how painful it would be ... that would depend on the food and fuel self-sufficiency of the trading block you live in.

The difficulty would be to have an all-out trade war (to correct the massive imbalances) without producing an all-out military war (over resources).

[AD]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

About that whacked-out Imperialist culture in 1930s Japan: note they attacked Pearl Harbor largely over oil. By the end of the war, the Japanese were trying to make avgas and etc with pine needles.

Pretty desperate stuff, eh? And back in those days, the role of oil in the economy was comparatively minimal. Japanese consumption was centred on naval vessels.

Another reason to move towards cheap (externalities all in) and sustainable energy. It's certainly good to know that people like John Doerr and Jeffrey Immelt on on Obama's economic recovery advisory team.

AD

[jswap]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

I haven't read all the replies to this post, so I apologize if I am repeating someone else, but I wanted to address this:
"WWII grew all Allied and Axis economies except Italy's"

I think this is erroneous. The following article makes a convincing argument (to me, at least) that WW2 did not grow the economy:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138

My favorite quote from the article:

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."

[johnw106]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

Those who think that a nuclear war is out of the question are mistaken. There have been several studies over the years that show that not only are they winnable, but they are in fact a viable option. The key is a two-pronged attack. One conventional, one bio-thermal-nuclear.

I will use the USA as an example.
First you invade Mexico and/or Canada on whatever pretext you wish to secure a base for the chosen survivors. At the same time you launch a first strike on China and Russia. You hit the military targets with hard nukes ( hydrogen bombs ) and the population centers with biological and neutron weapons. This has the net effect of leaving fertile farmlands and natural resources intact which can be captured at a later date.
Surviving the counterstrike is a simple matter of math. Losing up to two thirds of the population is acceptable as long as the third who are safeguarded are loyal citizens who have been pre-screened to weed out those with criminal backgrounds, genetic defects, etcetera.

It is absolutely vital that the first strike be overwhelmingly massive and thorough. No sizable population can be allowed to survive which will negate the possibility of insurgent activity's when ground forces are sent in later to secure resources such as farmland and oil fields. With 1/4 of the worlds population vaporized and two of the worlds powers destroyed the USA will reign supreme. Natural resources will be abundant and in our control.

Of course this scenario can be played out in several ways. It could be China nuking the USA and Russia while invading the middle east. Or it could be Russia nuking China and the USA while invading Europe.

Make no mistake. As long as there are humans on this planet a nuclear war is on the table and in the play books of all the major powers. The only deterrent to this is MAD. And with the USA's aging arsenal and the idiots who are against modernizing our nukes, or who want to dismantle all of the nuclear weapons the US has, the Chinese and Russians are edging closer to the winnable scenario parameters.

[*T*]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

Those who think that a nuclear war is out of the question are mistaken. There have been several studies over the years that show that not only are they winnable, but they are in fact a viable option. The key is a two-pronged attack. One conventional, one bio-thermal-nuclear.

I will use the USA as an example.
First you invade Mexico and/or Canada on whatever pretext you wish to secure a base for the chosen survivors. At the same time you launch a first strike on China and Russia. You hit the military targets with hard nukes ( hydrogen bombs ) and the population centers with biological and neutron weapons. This has the net effect of leaving fertile farmlands and natural resources intact which can be captured at a later date.
Surviving the counterstrike is a simple matter of math. Losing up to two thirds of the population is acceptable as long as the third who are safeguarded are loyal citizens who have been pre-screened to weed out those with criminal backgrounds, genetic defects, etcetera.

It is absolutely vital that the first strike be overwhelmingly massive and thorough. No sizable population can be allowed to survive which will negate the possibility of insurgent activity's when ground forces are sent in later to secure resources such as farmland and oil fields. With 1/4 of the worlds population vaporized and two of the worlds powers destroyed the USA will reign supreme. Natural resources will be abundant and in our control.

Of course this scenario can be played out in several ways. It could be China nuking the USA and Russia while invading the middle east. Or it could be Russia nuking China and the USA while invading Europe.

Make no mistake. As long as there are humans on this planet a nuclear war is on the table and in the play books of all the major powers. The only deterrent to this is MAD. And with the USA's aging arsenal and the idiots who are against modernizing our nukes, or who want to dismantle all of the nuclear weapons the US has, the Chinese and Russians are edging closer to the winnable scenario parameters.

First thought: You are sick in the head

Second thought: You are possibly less sick in the head than those with their finger on the button

Third thought: Oh dear

[D-Mack]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

First thought: You are sick in the head

Second thought: You are possibly less sick in the head than those with their finger on the button

Third thought: Oh dear

They are thinking about a first strike for a long time, it's like a wet dream.
Those missiles in Poland are stationed for a reason, and it's not really that defensive.

The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.

But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051400071.html

[johnw106]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

First thought: You are sick in the head

Second thought: You are possibly less sick in the head than those with their finger on the button

Third thought: Oh dear

In the 1970's and early 1980's I was perma-stationed in what was then Western Germany. During major war games ( you may have heard of the Reforger Series of war games? Where US and Allied troops stage a invasion of Europe?) the unit I was in was a forward support unit. We were on the front lines with the infantry and artillery units. Our mission? Save the equipment. All of our tactical nuclear warfare training revolved around decontaminating tanks, artillery, small arms and so forth.

I remember one exercise in particular. We were on a mountain not far from the Colmar pass. At the the time the gateway to Chek and Poland. It is a bottleneck where several mountains converge and makes an excellent ambush point. On the second day we were informed by an umpire that our unit had been annihilated by a nuclear strike. Friendly fire nuclear strikes.
It seems that the enemy had launched a large offensive to secure the pass. HQ decided to sacrifice not only my support company ( roughly 150 people ) but three infantry divisions. The loss of life was deemed a fair price to pay to keep from losing the pass. A day or so later decontamination units went in to save the equipment.

The top brass of the worlds military are more than willing to toss young men and women into the volcano to please the gods of war. They are much more reluctant to lose million dollar tanks and planes. Its a numbers game. Warm bodies can be replaced easily. Hardware is harder to come by.
I would pay anything and give up all I have to end the chances of war. It is an ugly, brutal business. But I am also a realist. I hope and pray that the nuclear option is never used. Yet I know first hand and have seen the war manuals with my own eyes. The tactical nuke option is high on the list.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

At the same time you launch a first strike on China and Russia. You hit the military targets with hard nukes ( hydrogen bombs ) and the population centers with biological and neutron weapons.

What about the subs with nukes?

What about the risk of spys leaking out plans ahead of time ... only a fool would expect the United States to be able to carry out a plan this size without China and Russia leaning of it ahead of time.

Looking back through history, I don't see national leaders intentionally risking the bulk of their nation in a suicidal attack. They launch a first strike only when they "believe" they can win a major victory, with the substantial majority of their own nation surviving.

[johnw106]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

It will end in one of two ways. We continue as slaves to the debt/credit machine and little will change. Or a revolution will break out resulting in a civil/class/race war that engulfs the world.
The power of the military-industrial complex that control the central banks of the world has to be broken. Until the common people face the fact that these self proclaimed Kings control us through the manipulation of worthless fiat money and credit/debt we will remain indentured servants, serfs enthralled to the super rich, pawns in a game we are not allowed to play.

The first step to freedom is doing away with the Federal Reserve and central banks along with fractional reserve lending. What do you think the chances are of that happening without some type of revolution? I give the odds at slim to none.

[touchring]

It's confirmed, China is now the largest car market in the world (quantity).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...8iA4PrctmxnrfA

China auto sales up nearly 25 pct in Feb: state media
Mar 10, 2009


BEIJING (AFP) — Chinese auto sales rose nearly 25 percent last month from a year earlier, buoyed by government policies to boost the sector, state media reported Tuesday.


The figures from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers appeared to show that the Asian giant beat the United States as the world's largest market for a second consecutive month.


February sales of domestically made autos -- which make up the vast majority of the Chinese market -- hit 827,600, up 24.7 percent from a year earlier, the Xinhua news agency reported, citing the association.
However, China's claim on the top spot was due also in part to plummeting US auto sales amid the economic crisis, with US light vehicle sales coming in at 688,909 units in February, industry tracker Autodata said recently.

[rjwjr]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

It will end in one of two ways. We continue as slaves to the debt/credit machine and little will change. Or a revolution will break out resulting in a civil/class/race war that engulfs the world.
The power of the military-industrial complex that control the central banks of the world has to be broken. Until the common people face the fact that these self proclaimed Kings control us through the manipulation of worthless fiat money and credit/debt we will remain indentured servants, serfs enthralled to the super rich, pawns in a game we are not allowed to play.

The first step to freedom is doing away with the Federal Reserve and central banks along with fractional reserve lending. What do you think the chances are of that happening without some type of revolution? I give the odds at slim to none.

The "revolution" may very well be the effect of Smith's concept of the "invisible hand". This invisible hand revolution may simply be the average American refusing to play the game any longer. Millions of devasted consumers are already being forced out of the game (the game of keeping-up with the Jones', ad-distorted American dream consumerism) and may choose not to return, and millions more may choose to take themselves out of the game on their own terms, all in a return toward more self-sufficiency, skills-barter, family-helping-family, neighbor-helping-neighbor, post-Great Depression-style return to caution, risk-avoidance, simplification of lifestyles. Maybe the Amish model is the best model for the average citizen.

What I'm saying is, I don't expect an angry-mob type revolution like you're infering here and like we've discussed in other threads. I think the average Joe may just say "F-k it" and put all of their remaining resources into a little, self-sufficient cabin in the woods or in a small farming community with some well-stockes natural lakes and rivers. The sheeple may be too disenchanted to continue to play and feel too apathetic to assemble. They'll simply, and unknowingly bring down the FIRE economy by choosing not to participate. Now that's a revolution, invisible hand style.

[cjppjc]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

What I'm saying is, I don't expect an angry-mob type revolution like you're infering here and like we've discussed in other threads. I think the average Joe may just say "F-k it" and put all of their remaining resources into a little, self-sufficient cabin in the woods or in a small farming community with some well-stockes natural lakes and rivers. The sheeple may be too disenchanted to continue to play and feel too apathetic to assemble. They'll simply, and unknowingly bring down the FIRE economy by choosing not to participate. Now that's a revolution, invisible hand style.

The average Joe is not going to drop out and buy a cabin in the woods, or live in a small farming community. Now does his spending habits change. Sure that I could see.

[rjwjr]

Re: Who stole my cheesy economy? - Eric Janszen

The average Joe is not going to drop out and buy a cabin in the woods, or live in a small farming community. Now does his spending habits change. Sure that I could see.

Yeah, I may have been caught-up in the moment, on the other hand, there are a handful of active itulip-ers that are already knee-deep in self-sufficiency and hunkering down for a potential financial and societal s%&t-storm. With each passing day. it's sounding more and more attractive to me, too.