I decided to split off my postings of economic links from Jim's Thoughts, so that I can get that topic back to what it was intended to be, a place for me to post trading ideas and thoughts I had that I felt could be of interest to the readers.

This topic is where I will post links to various economic articles, for those that find them interesting. If you want to read (or post) articles about the unfolding debaucle, this is the place to look. If you are a short-term daytrader or swing trader and have zero interest in the economy, you can now just read Jim's Thoughts and not have to wade through this type of dicussion.

At best I think this material only has a direct effect on longer-term plays, the bigger swings that make up the major legs of the bull and bear markets. I follow this stuff for that reason, and because I want to have a handle on things, if that is even possible in this era of lies and deception, so that I can make decisions on life issues.

For example, as I posted in the commentary on the website and discussed with many people well in advance, this was something that wasn't hard to see coming. I saw many people who told me as late as Oct 2007 that 'this thing is about to 'break out' to the upside, and that Dow 20,000, and then much higher, was 'just around the corner' '. The type of articles I am posting discuss the type of information that helped me form the viewpoints I had back then.

If this is far from over, as I suspect, we are in a similar postion now as back then. With the rally that is unfolding right now the talk is the bull is back, the bottom is in, and we are set. I'm not so sure. So, I try to weigh up all the factors and not get too sucked in by the hype. To that end, I will post things here I find interesting.

I think this is a pretty good interview, pretty well sums it up. Let me quote one key line from this article, as I think it states my greatest fear, and the only logical course this can take, mathematically. The poor have nothing to give, the rich will always prosper, who is vulnerable? You and I.

"The insidious nature of a runaway inflation is that it bankrupts the middle class... the poor stay poor, the middle class (with savings in the banks) get wiped out, the wealthy (with productive assets) do the best."

Let me repeat part of that again:

"...the middle class (with savings in the banks) get wiped out..."

That's you and I, folks. We will lose everything and join the poor class. Sorry, but the way I see it, it is inevitable, and there really isn't anything we can do about it. Gold will be confiscated, property taxes will not be able to be paid, so all property will be lost, and so on. Yes, it's doomsday, yes, it's ugly, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm only the messenger. I didn't create this mess.

The question is, if I am right and we are in the eye of the hurricane, and we have 1-3 years, maybe 5 years, and then all this happens, if you knew that for sure, what would you do with those years? Would you worry over trivial things in your life like you do now? Would you work 60, 80, 100 hours a week to try to save up some more money for retirement, in the meantime ignoring your family? Would you keep up a family feud with someone 'on principle'? Would you tell your kid you are too busy right now for a game of catch? Would you eat all that incredible, diverse food you do and have essentially no gratitude for it, since 'you deserve it'? Would you take all that your life is at this moment for granted, as I bet you are right now?

I'm only saying, if we knew we only had a short amount of time for the world to be calm, and all of what we have to exist, would we live our lives as we are now? I know I wouldn't... Just something to give serious, serious consideration to.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-07/kyle-bass-japanese-retirees-will-lose-half-their-life-savings

The title of the article ('Cycles of war') is misguiding, as in fact the analysis showed in the chart covers both wars and political changes. If this is the case than showing Russia and China of 1989 may be justified.
1989 is perceived as a key year for the former communist countries in Europe, because events of this year started the collapse of the Soviet Union and the whole communist block. This the year of the Berlin War fall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#The_Fall) and the first (semi)democratic elections in many countries of the region (e.g. Hungary, Poland). Although it took two more years until Soviet Union finally collapsed and democratic changes took place in other countries of the block, the 1989 is considered as a staring year of great political and economic changes in this region.
Tiananmen Square (Beijing) massacre also happened in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989). Unlike in Eastern Europe, the Chinese haven't benefit in short term, but once again this event is deemed as a turning point which led to slow economic changes in China.

Anyway, Armstrong should have made a clear distinction between war and violent social unrest, especially when these events and their consequences are well known only in the countries they took place in. Besides, any date/year assigned to mark political changes that last for years is somehow arbitrary.

Originally posted by jimkane

Here's one for someone to research. I really hate when I find something I think is good stuff, from a source I trust, and find an egregious error. In the above chart, I can find nothing showing Russia & China at war in September 1989. Here's what Wikipedia lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars

The Gulf war started in 1990. Nothing big in 1989. Russia-Afghanistan ended in 1989. So, what gives? This chart came from Princeton Economic Institute? The great Martin Armstrong wrote up a post on his blog based on it, surely he vetted it big-time, right? Anyone?

Thanks, Marcin, that is the conclusion I came to. I am not knocking Armstrong, but I have noticed this type of thing in many of his posts. ZH is not immune to it, either. I really hate it, because then I realize it is possible that the content isn't being provided impartially, but with a view towards proving a point. Hence, I have to vet all the content to be sure it is accurate. Then what's the point to having a 'trusted source'?

Originally posted by MarcinO

The title of the article ('Cycles of war') is misguiding, as in fact the analysis showed in the chart covers both wars and political changes. If this is the case than showing Russia and China of 1989 may be justified.
1989 is perceived as a key year for the former communist countries in Europe, because events of this year started the collapse of the Soviet Union and the whole communist block. This the year of the Berlin War fall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#The_Fall) and the first (semi)democratic elections in many countries of the region (e.g. Hungary, Poland). Although it took two more years until Soviet Union finally collapsed and democratic changes took place in other countries of the block, the 1989 is considered as a staring year of great political and economic changes in this region.
Tiananmen Square (Beijing) massacre also happened in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989). Unlike in Eastern Europe, the Chinese haven't benefit in short term, but once again this event is deemed as a turning point which led to slow economic changes in China.

Anyway, Armstrong should have made a clear distinction between war and violent social unrest, especially when these events and their consequences are well known only in the countries they took place in. Besides, any date/year assigned to mark political changes that last for years is somehow arbitrary.

Originally posted by jimkane

Here's one for someone to research. I really hate when I find something I think is good stuff, from a source I trust, and find an egregious error. In the above chart, I can find nothing showing Russia & China at war in September 1989. Here's what Wikipedia lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars

The Gulf war started in 1990. Nothing big in 1989. Russia-Afghanistan ended in 1989. So, what gives? This chart came from Princeton Economic Institute? The great Martin Armstrong wrote up a post on his blog based on it, surely he vetted it big-time, right? Anyone?

Just an overview of the 'real' jobs situation. I know in my neck of the woods it's bad. Real bad.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-08/more-101-million-working-age-americans-do-not-have-job

The games that are being played... It would be so easy for something to happen. Anyway, I love the last two lines to this writeup.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-09/koreas-boy-who-cried-wolf-now-screaming-thermonuclear-war

These are the best cartoons I have ever seen anywhere. But, that's just because they speak out, very accurately to me, about what's wrong with our economy and society.


http://pinterest.com/anonymousarts/anonymous-cartoons/

A nice summary. Nothing new. Just stuff I wish all Amerikans knew.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-09/guest-post-good-banker-bad-banker

Here's why they don't know it:

And also because:

I forgot, I do have another hero to go with Ron Paul and David Stockman, and that's Nigel Farage. Here's his latest:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-17/farage-unleashed-you-are-common-criminals