17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by John »

17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

** 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 17#e100517


Contents:
"Tensions are high as markets open on Monday"
"Palestinian / Israeli 'proximity talks' resume for a 'final agreement'"
"CNN's Fareed Zakaria admits to bubbles and to al-Qaeda in Iraq"
"Additional links"

Oakwood
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:01 am

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by Oakwood »

<<As far as I know, there is no web site or analyst or journalist in the world with anything remotely close to the predictive success of this web site, for the last 8 years. Assuming that's true (and I believe it is), then this is the only web site in the world that will tell you what's really going on in the world.>>

Well, aren't we full of ourselves? I read you web site because you often provide some interesting insights. But you seem to have a rather inflated view about how remarkable and/or unique those insights are. Sure, your theory is a unique amalgamation, but that doesn't mean that you're the only web site in the world that's will tell us what's "really going on." You provide some of the answers to a small part of the puzzle. There are a lot of other great web sites that provide a lot of great information/ideas too (e.g. The Automatic Earth, Zero Hedge). The problem with any theory, no matter how great, is that it also limits your vision. Your beginning to sound a bit grandiose, kind of like Glenn Beck, who now says God's been talking to him and has given him a hundred year plan for America.

mannfm11
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:14 pm
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by mannfm11 »

Thanks John. I read your stuff every night. Seems you post right at the turn of the day, so I can get it right after midnight. The CNN guy is blind, just like you quoted Groucho Marx. Capital was too cheap in 2004-2006 so we had a bubble. How cheap is it now that the government is guaranteeing everything and putting up seed money? When this current bubble blows, what are they going to do, blow it all up? This is all one policy originated out of a series of Ivy Leaguers from Bush to Clinton to Bush now to Obama, based on a pile of Wall Street and socialist economic untruths. The Greenspan-Rubin-Summers-Bernanke-Geithner stand has run through the entire matter. I have suspected Bush had Paulson in charge because he was supposed to know where all the loose ends were. Problem was he had his gold tied to some of them. The biggest lie is that "No one saw this coming". Just plead stupid while telling everyone you make so much money because you are so smart. Now they are rolling up the trash they didn't dump last time and selling it again. Seems the rating agencies gave some a AAA last year and it is junk again.

I will be watching Israel. Seems the Palestinian was done. Israel is going to mow down a bunch of kids it appears.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by John »

Oakwood wrote: > <As far as I know, there is no web site or analyst or journalist
> in the world with anything remotely close to the predictive
> success of this web site, for the last 8 years. Assuming that's
> true (and I believe it is), then this is the only web site in the
> world that will tell you what's really going on in the world.>>

> Well, aren't we full of ourselves? I read you web site because you
> often provide some interesting insights. But you seem to have a
> rather inflated view about how remarkable and/or unique those
> insights are. Sure, your theory is a unique amalgamation, but that
> doesn't mean that you're the only web site in the world that's
> will tell us what's "really going on." You provide some of the
> answers to a small part of the puzzle. There are a lot of other
> great web sites that provide a lot of great information/ideas too
> (e.g. The Automatic Earth, Zero Hedge). The problem with any
> theory, no matter how great, is that it also limits your
> vision. Your beginning to sound a bit grandiose, kind of like
> Glenn Beck, who now says God's been talking to him and has given
> him a hundred year plan for America.
Oakwood, there are many excellent web sites, and I depend on them
myself for information and insight. But the Generational Dynamics
forecasting methodology, which is documented on numerous places on
this web site, has no peer, and has produced one correct prediction
after another. That's why no other web site in the world, as far as I
know, has anything remotely close to the predictive success of this
web site. And I've been called a lot worse than "grandiose."

Many of these other web sites infuriate me, because the writers refuse
to draw the obvious conclusions. They'll say that debt is increasing,
the dollar's in danger, the euro's in danger, etc., etc., but instead
of biting the bullet and saying we're headed for a crash, they make
some vapid, meaningless statement like, "Unless the Bush/Obama
administration changes direction and follows my left/right ideological
path, then things are going to get worse." Many of them, like
Roubini, change their forecasts every time the weather changes. They
all brilliantly forecast the past, but this is the only web site that
goes out on a limb and successfully forecasts the future.

However, not to be entirely negative, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has
written a lot of realistic stuff, as has Wolfgang Münchau. I've
quoted both of them a number of times, as they stand out well above
most of the mainstream journalists.

John

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by John »

Dear Barry,
mannfm11 wrote: > Thanks John. I read your stuff every night. Seems you post right
> at the turn of the day, so I can get it right after midnight. The
> CNN guy is blind, just like you quoted Groucho Marx. Capital was
> too cheap in 2004-2006 so we had a bubble. How cheap is it now
> that the government is guaranteeing everything and putting up seed
> money? When this current bubble blows, what are they going to do,
> blow it all up? This is all one policy originated out of a series
> of Ivy Leaguers from Bush to Clinton to Bush now to Obama, based
> on a pile of Wall Street and socialist economic untruths. The
> Greenspan-Rubin-Summers-Bernanke-Geithner stand has run through
> the entire matter. I have suspected Bush had Paulson in charge
> because he was supposed to know where all the loose ends
> were. Problem was he had his gold tied to some of them. The
> biggest lie is that "No one saw this coming". Just plead stupid
> while telling everyone you make so much money because you are so
> smart. Now they are rolling up the trash they didn't dump last
> time and selling it again. Seems the rating agencies gave some a
> AAA last year and it is junk again.

> I will be watching Israel. Seems the Palestinian was done. Israel
> is going to mow down a bunch of kids it appears.
You're right, and it really is mind-bogglingly incredible to sit here
and watch how each new bailout is significantly and exponentially
larger than the previous one. Perhaps Obama is on the phone to Hu
Jintao right now to see if the People's Bank of China could bail out
the entire world during the next crisis. As ridiculous as that idea
sounds, it's no more ridiculous than what's actually happened.

John

Oakwood
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:01 am

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by Oakwood »

While reviewing the "accuracy" of your predictions I noticed some things. As for your financial predictions, I made some comments and posted them in the Financial Topics section. But I found something even more interesting. I suspected you had a significant right wing bias (your love of Glenn Beck, your apparent dislike of everything Obama, etc), but now I've confirmed it with some data. It seems that if you're truly an objective historian we wouldn't see these kind of biases, but alas Dear Reader, they're as plain as day.
From 2004-2008, you barely mentioned George Bush, and when you did, from what I saw, it was always positive. On 2/1/06 you made a mild criticism about something he said in his State of the Union speech, but you were careful not to criticize him directly. Which is interesting, because you so often like to call people stupid and imbeciles and idiots, etc. But not Bush, a man many consider one of the worse presidents ever.

4/17/06: "Rumsfeld is the only person in Washington, Republican or Democrat, who knows what's going on in the world and is in a position to do something about it. We should thank our lucky stars that we have the services of this highly skilled person from the Silent generation. Given the cataclysmic world war that's coming soon, Donald Rumsfeld may be uniquely able to prepare the armed forces and the country for this war, especially given today's nasty political climate. " (Even Bush eventually realized he was a dangerous loose canon and fired him. The damage he did to our country is immense. While you rushed to Rumsfeld's defense with a lengthy diatribe, you didn't present a single shred of real evidence in support of him. By the way, were you suggesting that World War III was going to break out while Bush was still President? )

6/12/07: "The Democrats don't like Alberto Gonzales because he fired some Democratic prosecutors and replaced them with Republicans -- or something like that -- I could never get up enough interest to even care what was going on. And then Gonzales bungled his explanation to Congress. " (You had no interest in this sickening episode of partisan corruption because he was Bush's man.)

Since Obama became President you've written about him frequently, and about 60% of the time you are negative and the other 40% of the time you are neutral. The only time you were at all positive was in describing his Nobel Prize speech, but then you ended your commentary with some negativity.

So tell me, John, how would you explain this bias in terms of Generational Theory?

JR

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by JR »

Love your blog, think Generational Dynamics is a powerful tool for understanding current events, and read it almost every day.

But, my dear friend, when in today's blog you claim, "Mainstream bloggers and journalists like Zakaria allow their reporting to be controlled by their ideology," I wonder if you do not perhaps do the same thing from time to time?

You discuss perspectives on the Iraq war. I will gladly acknowledge, and I thank God, that it looks like we will get our troops out of there without a debacle. And certainly the "surge," that final desperate roll of the dice, does appear to have worked - although it was accompanied by a change of strategy that tried making friends instead of enemies, which contributed to the success, and in the absence of which there might well have been continued failure.

To me, it seems clear that this war was a combination of 1) classic imperial overstretch and 2) arrogant carelessness (Boomerism?) on the part of the leaders. Many disastrous wars (US 1861, Europe 1914, etc.) have begun with one or both sides confidently expecting quick easy victory, and this fits the pattern.

There was ample expert evidence that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, just an incredible ability to bluff. That was my firm conclusion at the time, but I gave the adminstration the benefit of the doubt that it had non-public information to the contrary - because surely, no one could be so irresponsible as to start a war without absolutely clear and compelling reasons. They did not. They made up their minds first, then tailored the evidence to fit, while suppressing and ridiculing truthful evidence to the contrary.

If I understand your interpretation of generational theory, was Iraq a threat in 2002? No. It had a rogue leader, that's all. Lots of ways to handle that (see: Brazil, 1964; Chile, 1973; Nicaragua, 1979; Haiti, 1986; Romania, 1989; Belgrade, 2000; etc., etc., etc.).

Was al Qaeda in Iraq in 2002? No.
Was al Qaeda in Iraq in 2006? Yes.
Why? Foreign invaders had occupied the country and installed a puppet government.

I repeat that we are very, very lucky not to have suffered a debacle in Mesopotamia. Here is the list of famous generals I can think of who came to grief after invading Mesopotamia from the west or south: Cyrus the Younger, Alexander, Crassus, Trajan, Valerian, Julian, Hussein, Charles Townshend. There's probably lots more. Those who superficially conquered (Alexander, Trajan) nonetheless died there, and their conquests evaporated.

Here is the one I can think of who succeeded: Umar.

Good advice from Gen. Douglas MacArthur: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But some say that Boomers don't listen to advice.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by John »

Oakwood wrote: > your love of Glenn Beck
You're a total imbecile and idiot.
Oakwood wrote: > your apparent dislike of everything Obama
I was bitterly critical of President Obama during his campaign and at
the beginning of his administration, because he said and did so many
unbelievably stupid things. The world was going to change completely
on January 21, 2009, because Obama was instantly going to heal the
world. He would be guided by facts, not like President Bush, who was
guided by ideology and ignored facts. He would cure global warming,
close Guantanamo, become friendly with Iran and North Korea, bring a
two-state solution to Palestinians and Israelis, beat the Taliban in
Afghanistan, reflate the stock market bubble and, of course, provide
universal health care. He's failed at all of these objectives, so my
comments were completely justified.

I've criticized Obama a lot less in the past few months, because he's
changed, and in fact has become almost a clone of President Bush.
He's been educated by some "facts" about the world that he wasn't
previously aware of, and now he's guided by those facts, and guided
much less by loony left ideology, and that's a vast improvement.

Obama can't stop the effects of the imminent financial crisis, because
it's already baked into the cake. But if he successfully protects the
nation from terrorists and foreign enemies for the remainder of his
Presidency, then he will certainly have my respect. Beyond that, I
don't care what his ideology is.
JR wrote: > Was al Qaeda in Iraq in 2002? No.
I never said that al-Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002.

What I HAVE said is that the Iraq invasion in 2003 was the result of a
national panic over weapons of mass destruction:

** The Iraq war may be related to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 17#e080217


I've also said, over and over and over, that if Al Gore had been
President after 9/11, then we would have had exactly the same war in
Iraq. This has nothing to do with ideology.

Here's an article from the past that may help you better understand
all this:

** Obama 'refines' his Iraq position, reflecting major change
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 08#e080708


John

JR

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by JR »

Read both your articles, thank you, 58-year theory may have something to it.

I agree that people panicked in 2001-03, but that panic was deliberately stoked by an administration that was pre-disposed to go to war with Iraq. Paul O'Neill reports that Bush was determined to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his administration. Richard Clarke reports that Bush insisted within hours of the 9/11 attacks that Hussein had to be responsible, even though Clarke was telling him that it was al Qaeda. Rumsfeld infamously wrote that day: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

It is not the case that everyone thought the intelligence showed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Scott Ritter said at the time there were none, Hans Blix said he wasn't finding any, Joe Wilson said the story of African uranium was false, and Colin Powell said the intelligence he was handed was "bull***t." I don't have a personal paper trail, but thought we were making a terrible mistake, while respecting the possibility that people in authority knew more than I did. But they didn't. They either blinded themselves to the facts, or they lied.

Putting steady pressure on Iraq, as Clinton had been doing, was the right strategy. Hussein was in a box and would eventually have been overthrown. I also do not believe that a Gore administration would have been so negligent of al Qaeda as to allow the 9/11 conspiracy to ripen. There were plenty of clues and alarms, but no interest at the highest levels.

While generational attitudes do matter - they matter a great deal - leadership also matters, and when leaders are determined to act foolishly and to rely upon falsehoods to gain support for their foolishness, it makes a panic worse. One of the things I like about Obama is that he is nice and calm, and yes, he does give every appearance of paying attention to facts and not ideology.

Oakwood
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:01 am

Re: 17-May-10 News -- Markets open Monday amid high tension

Post by Oakwood »

JOHN: <<I was bitterly critical of President Obama during his campaign and at
the beginning of his administration, because he said and did so many
unbelievably stupid things. >>

Funny, I didn't see you commenting about any of the stupid things McCain said or the really stupid things Palin said. Now considering your hatred for stupid people in power, I would have thought she would have been a frequent topic for discussion. And a great source of humor. A woman who thought Africa was a country and whose foreign policy experience consisted of waving to Putin across the Bearing Straits. (You did have a commentary about how stupid Biden was before the election).

JOHN: <<I've criticized Obama a lot less in the past few months, because he's
changed, and in fact has become almost a clone of President Bush....if he successfully protects the
nation from terrorists and foreign enemies for the remainder of his
Presidency, then he will certainly have my respect.>>

I guess this supports almost everything I said in my previous post about your conservative ideology. I find absolutely no comfort in the fact that Obama has become a clone of Bush--in fact, it worries me a great deal. Do you really think that fighting an unwinable war in Afghanastan is making us any safer? If we took a fraction of the money we were spending there and used it for intelligence gathering and direct defense of our country we would be a hell of a lot safer. Instead, we are just making more enemies and creating more terrorists.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests