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

[xakzen]

It seems to me that every person has a point of view shaped by their experience of the world and no one is unbiased. I don't expect anyone to be unbiased.

Reading many varying viewpoints is important to me -- including the Generational Dynamics website by John Xenakis, which is on my “must read every day” list.

I want to hear what John Xenakis thinks, because of the way he thinks and because of his willingness to spend time gathering information and, thankfully, for explaining what he sees.

Back a few years ago when I first started hearing about credit default swaps on CNBC I wanted to really understand what they were. I did a Google search, and discovered Generational Dynamics by John Xenakis. Immediately I discovered how John makes complicated subjects comprehensible to me. Over the past few years I have seen that John has an incredibly wide and deep knowledge about economics, world history, and what's going on in the world today.

Unlike coverage I see on blogs/websites/TV, John Xenakis doesn't just give his high-level summary point of view, he provides knowledge about the subject matter. If it weren't for this website I would not have a clue about credit default swaps, money flow, inflation vs. deflation, how the carry trade makes a difference in the dollar, about the civil war which just ended in Sri Lanka and countless other insights on China, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course, the US. It is well worth the time to search through and read the information in John's book, in the weblogs, and in this forum.

I acknowledge you, John Xenakis, for your immense knowledge and eye-opening analysis/commentary, and I
thank you for sharing your extremely-valuable-to-me point of view on a daily basis.

I could not agree more with everything you said. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to John that there are powerful forces who do not want this information widely distributed. And of course they will attack and try to discredit, dissuade and disparage Mr Xenakis and his excellent work here. I view these attacks as a measure of your success in reaching so many of people. It is the depth of knowledge material here that also allowed me to stumble on to this site via a web search. I can't remember what exactly it was because I have learned some much more over the years. Keep up the good fight, John.

[Oakwood]

Xaxzen wrote: I'm sure it comes as no surprise to John that there are powerful forces who do not want this information widely distributed. And of course they will attack and try to discredit, dissuade and disparage Mr Xenakis and his excellent work here. I view these attacks as a measure of your success in reaching so many of people.

I sure hope you're not including me as part of those "powerful forces" trying to discredit John. First of all, your statement sounds a bit paranoid. What John is saying is not that revolutionary or that much a threat to the current world order. As he points out, all he is doing is illuminating the way the world works. Theoretically, he is not advocating any political position and he is not proposing rebellion or disruption of society as it is. However, he is predicting that society will inevitably change. This is hardly unique or earth-shattering and unlikely to attract the wrath of powerful forces that will want to suppress him because they fear him. I myself am just trying to keep him honest. I bristle when I hear statements like this:

John 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.

So I went through the evidence and found the above statement was not true (at least when it came to his financial predictions (see the financial topics forum where I carefully documented his record). If you had followed his advice you would have lost money. Also, while reviewing his financial predictions I happened to notice that there was a complete lack of criticism of President Bush during his Presidency but piles of criticism of Obama. In addition, during the election cycle he had no criticism of McCain or Palin (despite his contempt for stupid people--Palin being the stupidest politician in the public eye). It's clear that John has a political bias that prevents him from seeing some of "what's really going on in the world." He's never addressed my comments about his inaccurate financial predictions or his political bias.

[John]

Oakwood -

1. It's ridiculous to say that I have a conservative bias. For
example, the entire neo-con philosophy of democracy through invasion
is completely wrong in a generational Crisis era.

2. It's also ridiculous to claim to judge my political views based on
counting and comparing the number of times I criticize some
politician. By your logic, I must really be in love with José
Ramos-Horta, president of East Timor, since I've never criticized him
a single time.

3. There are literally hundreds of topics that I might write about
each day. I select the topics that I believe are most important to my
readers. I do not attempt to satisfy trolls like yourself who are
only here to rant and complain.

4. If McCain says something incredibly stupid, then it's covered
exhaustively by the mainstream media, so I have nothing to add to the
discussion. If Obama says something incredibly stupid, it's treated
as the words of God by the mainstream media, so I have a great deal to
add to the discussion. That's why I'm more likely to write about dumb
things that Obama says than about the dumb things that McCain says.

5. Even in those cases, you don't appear to have any idea what's going
on. The major feature of Obama's campaign was that he made so many
incredibly ridiculous claims and promises, that he would heal the
world when he took office for example, and the public and mainstream
media go wild over them. Generational Dynamics focuses on the
attitudes and behaviors of large masses of people. The meteoric rise
of Obama, and the countervailing rise of the Tea Party movement, are
highly relevant to Generational Dynamics, while some statement made by
McCain is almost completely irrelevant.

6. You seem to have difficulty understanding my biases. I guess
that's my fault, since I've listed my biases in a place that's really
obscure and hard to find -- the top of the home page of this web site!
Here they are, in case you can't find them: "This site provides
analysis and forecasts of international news, politics, culture and
finance. We apply the Generational Dynamics methodology ruthlessly,
without any biases: We take no sides in any political battles (such as
Republicans vs Democrats) or in any international conflicts (such as
Israelis vs Palestinians), and we don't use any religious
interpretations. If we have any bias at all, it's that we're
pro-American."

7. I couldn't care less if some anti-American left-wing loon is
offended by something I've written. They deserve all the criticism
they get.

8. However, there are people that I'm very careful not to offend. You
may have noticed that I talk about a lot of "third rail" issues on
this web site -- religion, ethnicity, skin color, etc. Thus, for
example, I want to be highly critical of Islamist terrorists, but I
don't want to offend decent, hard-working Muslims who are just as
appalled as I am over Islamist terrorism. Or I reported on China's
preparations and plans for world war, and of the CCP's exploitation of
the peasants, but I don't want to offend the people who are exploited.

9. Despite all your tirades and rants, you still have not named any
web site in the world with anything close to the predictive success of
this web site. The following is still true: 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. 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

I've now pretty much answered all your questions. I'll make one final
comment.

I'm amused by your remark "Palin being the stupidest politician in the
public eye." Palin was a VP candidate, a successful state governor,
currently earns millions of dollars in books and speaking fees, and
even her daughter Bristol is pulling $10,000+ speaking fees. To me,
that makes her far from stupid. Have you ever done anything like
that? I don't know anything about you, except that you're a troll,
but I'd be willing to bet that you're WAAAAAY stupider than Sarah
Palin, and many of your posted comments support that view.

John

[shoshin]

Jon, I never thought you'd come down on the side of "if you're rich, you must be smart," sort of the corollary of the old query, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" Sure, Palin took wondrous advantage of the chance fate threw at her, exploiting the populous and the media to the fullest, but she's not someone I'd like to sit down with and chat. She's not someone with whom you might exchange ideas and debate policies.

[JR]

Goodness! What a lively debate.

Oakwood, friend, we are in Mr. Xenakis's house and, as he is our host, we should show him friendliness and respect. (Although, +1 on the idiot/imbecile riposte - that was funny.) I think it could seem disrespectful if we speculate about someone's upbringing, psychological biases, etc., although I do agree that it is frustrating when the ridiculous sins of the Bushes, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, and (you should only forgive the expression) Palins of the world seem to get a pass. Arrogant, narcicisstic Boomers all - unless Palin is a nihilistic Xer?

And don't even get me started on the denial of global warming.

John, I think your blog is great. I appreciate the detail and breadth, and have learned a great deal. Today, in fact (Dow down more than 300 points, all other global stock markets down, gold and silver down, goods prices down, possible panic), your predictions have helped give me a very calming perspective on events. No surprises here.

As I claimed a few items above, I believe that the true value of Generational Dynamics, if it has any, is beyond its ability to prepare for disaster, but possibly to overcome or even avoid it. It might, perhaps, provide us with a perspective that allows us to resolve inevitable crises without disastrous genocidal wars because we understand people's hopes, fears, and dreams more deeply.

Again as mentioned above, let's see how this Korea torpedo thing works out. My prediction: within 12 months (May 20, 2011), the Dear Leader retires or dies, his son and assistants go away with amnesties and pensions, and the Korean peninsula reunites as Germany did.

[xakzen]

I sure hope you're not including me as part of those "powerful forces" trying to discredit John. First of all, your statement sounds a bit paranoid. What John is saying is not that revolutionary or that much a threat to the current world order. As he points out, all he is doing is illuminating the way the world works. Theoretically, he is not advocating any political position and he is not proposing rebellion or disruption of society as it is. However, he is predicting that society will inevitably change. This is hardly unique or earth-shattering and unlikely to attract the wrath of powerful forces that will want to suppress him because they fear him. I myself am just trying to keep him honest. ...

What John is saying is counter productive to what the gov & Wall Street banksters want which is to re-inflate the bubble so that they can keep their standard of living while foisting their colossal losses on to the taxpayers. It is not paranoid to recognize the obvious when gov & corporate officials are paraded out spewing unrealistic projections of a recovery when everyone can see that the economy continues to contract because all the bad behavior goes unpunished and rewarded while the savers are penalized with 0% ROI. Bond holders in Europe are demonized as "speculators" when they demand that their return more accurately reflects the actual risk they are taking. As an example of the manipulation of gov statistics take the unemployment rate which grudgingly was reported as having gone up even though the BLS reported 290k jobs created. To paraphrase Rush: "Only a highly educated person would believe something that stupid!" Everyone else recognizes that the truth is that the gov lied about the number of people who "voluntarily" left the workforce and are "coming back"! And as for media complicity in this lie, I have never seen this statistic report except in these exact words:

The U.S. unemployment rate, though, rose to 9.9 percent as hundreds of thousands of job hunters — feeling more confident about their prospects — resumed or started searches.

The insertion of the lie in the parenthetical to distract the reader from the clear contradiction.

As to your motivations I cannot say except that you are clearly here to disrupt and discredit John. Mr Xenakis is not here to give investment advise and anyone who would listen to a single source for investing is that greater fool anyway. If people have lost equity in the last 10 years, it is because they are not among the gov privileged class for whom all losses are made public and all profits paid in bonuses & fees for the brokerage rather than returned to the investors.

[Oakwood]

John wrote: It's ridiculous to say that I have a conservative bias. For
example, the entire neo-con philosophy of democracy through invasion
is completely wrong in a generational Crisis era.

All that proves is that you may disagree with them in one area. You've said you feel less critical of Obama since he has become a clone of Bush. That means you see Bush as having done the right things for America. Bush's foreign policy was neo-conservative. By the properties of logic...

John wrote: It's also ridiculous to claim to judge my political views based on
counting and comparing the number of times I criticize some
politician. By your logic, I must really be in love with José
Ramos-Horta, president of East Timor, since I've never criticized him
a single time.

That's one of the lamest debating tactics in the world. Obama has never publicly criticized your work so he must secretly agree with everything you say. I just found it remarkable that in five years of your blog you didn't have one negative thing to say about Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. In fact, everything you said was positive. Even though now you just tell us that "democracy through invasion is completely wrong in a generational Crisis era." This is a key component of the Bush Doctrine! Did I miss this statement somewhere in your blog about this? Please show me where you said it.

John wrote:The meteoric rise of Obama, and the countervailing rise of the Tea Party movement, are
highly relevant to Generational Dynamics, while some statement made by McCain is almost completely irrelevant.

What about the meteoric rise of Palin? There's a woman who's very involved in the Tea Party movement and in issues relevant to GD.

John wrote: I'm amused by your remark "Palin being the stupidest politician in the
public eye." Palin was a VP candidate, a successful state governor,
currently earns millions of dollars in books and speaking fees, and
even her daughter Bristol is pulling $10,000+ speaking fees. To me,
that makes her far from stupid.

As shoshin said, being rich doesn't make you smart. Bristol looks even dumber than her mother and she's getting paid to give speeches about being an unwed mother-- the struggles of getting knocked up as a teenager. That took a lot of brains and ability. Do you really think she'd get a cent if her mother wasn't who she was? Palin Obviously has some type of charisma, physical attractiveness, and speaking skills, but an IQ above 95? NO. You, who love to have stupid people, and here you are defending her, tells me that you can only be doing it out of ideological reasons. Here's a segment from Fox News about Sarah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsr4Yb2ot-A

One more thing, John. Unlike you, I think the Tea Party Movement is destined to fail. Why? It's not really a coherent grass roots movement with a "common enemy." From best I can tell it was actually started by Fox News and has been goaded and cajoled by them. The majority of supporters are Boomers and Silents, not the most energetic crowd to power a movement at that point in their lives. Although Tea Partiers claim to be independents most are wealthy disaffected Republicans, and in the end will shift the political status quo to the right. It won't cause a revolution; these people want their entitlements and be able to eat them too. Real revolution will only occur after the next Depression, after it's forced on America. The Tea Party is just a distraction.

[John]

> John, I never thought you'd come down on the side of "if you're
> rich, you must be smart," sort of the corollary of the old query,
> "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" Sure, Palin took
> wondrous advantage of the chance fate threw at her, exploiting the
> populous and the media to the fullest, but she's not someone I'd
> like to sit down with and chat. She's not someone with whom you
> might exchange ideas and debate policies.

I wasn't saying that she's smart because she's rich. There are plenty
of people who inherit money, for example, who aren't smart. I was
referring to her skill in governing, and her skill in turning
unbelievable visceral hatred directed at her by the mainstream media
into a lot of money.

> All that proves is that you may disagree with them in one
> area. You've said you feel less critical of Obama since he has
> become a clone of Bush. That means you see Bush as having done the
> right things for America. Bush's foreign policy was
> neo-conservative. By the properties of logic...

Of course I didn't object to the "surge" the way the loony left did.
And the surge proved the loony left were completely wrong -- it turned
out to be a great success, and the ones who were humiliated, and
deservedly so, were the loony left.

I wrote the following analysis in April, 2007:

** Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... iraq070401

In my opinion, that was the best analysis available at the time.
There was so much unbelievable crap coming out of the loony left that
I'm glad I was able to provide this piece of analysis that told what
was really going on.

As for other policies, remember that Obama made unbelievably
ridiculous statements, but by contrast I found Bush's foreign policy
in places like Iran and North Korea to be largely credible. I also
believed that Rumsfeld, as a member of the Silent generation, had a
far more credible attitude toward foreign policy than Gen-Xers in
either party. But Obama has been learning from his elders, and he's
becoming more credible.

> Even though now you just tell us that "democracy through invasion
> is completely wrong in a generational Crisis era." This is a key
> component of the Bush Doctrine! Did I miss this statement
> somewhere in your blog about this? Please show me where you said
> it.

I mentioned it briefly now and then, including in a sentence in the
following.

** The nihilism and self-destructiveness of Generation X
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... c#e080121c

My point in mentioning it at all is that was just another ridiculous
policy of Gen-Xers. But as I've said, I believe that the 2003
invasion was caused by national panic over WMDs, not by some neocon
policy.

> What about the meteoric rise of Palin? There's a woman who's very
> involved in the Tea Party movement and in issues relevant to GD.

As I've said before with regard to McCain, when Palin says something
stupid, then it's all over the news, so I really have nothing to add.
But when Obama says something stupid, it's treated as the words of
God, and so I have a great deal to add.

But I think there's a more important point.

Today the left has become almost a personality cult of people who
adore anything that Obama says and does. The Tea Party is a real
hodge-podge of issues, but one thing that unites them is that they
dislike Obama. So Palin isn't the point in either case. In both
cases, the point is Obama.

> Unlike you, I think the Tea Party Movement is destined to fail.

You keep making ridiculous statements about me. Even trolls should
have more intellectual honesty.

I don't even know what "succeed" or "fail" would mean for the Tea
Party movement. What I have said, and what I do believe, is that a
major political realignment is occurring, affecting both Republicans
and Democrats, and that the Tea Party movement will play an important
role. And I'm sure you're aware that recent Tea Party victories in
primaries are considered to be "anti-incumbent," which is what I'd
expect, rather than "anti-Democrat."

John