The World in 2030

[konkon]

Here's what I think the world's economy will, to some extent, look like:

Major countries that are not strongly allied with the US: China, Pakistan, Russia. Iran was luckily softened up with social media sites long ago and their government was overthrown. Careful attention was placed on allies and non-allies as this gives some sort of a blueprint as to what a major war might look like if there is a major conflict between large competing nations.

The world has become more alike. Emerging countries have a net loss of their traditional and established way of life and a net gain of western ideals and debt.

The US is still in control-mode and has survived several stock market crashes and recessions. The norm has become to not pay a huge part of one’s perpetual debt and this goes for many individuals, companies as well as countries. In fact, the concept of ‘debt’ has been redefined to accommodate these sorts of lending practices. People ‘now’ (in the future!) see this as a normal practice and don't really question this.

One world-wide correction resulted, not from debt or the hand of the Federal Reserve, but by the development and implementation of quantum computing and its ability to in an instant decrypt, through even brute-force, classical computing encryptions. So financial companies, governments, internet etc had to reinvest heavily and reinvent themselves, which was costly. There was another mini tech boom too as next generation computing was born. But no terminators, yet!

Europe (overall) is even more heavily in debt and is going nowhere really. The ECB is just a big bank. England and Germany are the two stand-outs and have a major say in the control of world markets. Germany (becomes a stronger US ally) is more committed to market control with the US and continues to control the next generation, thinking, algorithmic trading computers, that are processing nearly all trades in different world-wide markets.

The middle east is still in turmoil. It had promising periods, but newly formed governments helped along by the west ended up doing a 180 degree turn; nothing new here.

Deliberate control and manipulation of patented next generation automotive technologies has stifled the transition from combustion engines, hydrocarbon fuels etc to next generation cleaner fuels and electric vehicles. This along with other stubborn and unyielding practices has caused shortages of commodities and traditional (hydrocarbon) forms of energy.

China has the world's largest economy but does not control the electronic markets; this (most of the asset classes around the world) is still under the US's control and the US along with Germany and England control the majority of sophisticated, intelligent, algorithmic computer trades, that control the direction of all asset classes and markets, even if it’s just indirectly.

Many of these exchanges are cloud-exchanges which makes it even harder to regulate and even locate. Collusion and market fixing is still part of the game, and those in the loop will have these sophisticated networked programs collectively fixing positions in all kinds of markets. Does anyone think that this is occurring today?

Countries like Australia may have to militarize and further protect its borders and protect non-urban regions for fear of a possible invasion by hostile and desperate nations that need its expensive and rare resources; A long shot, but still a concern even in the next 50+ years. It will become an even bigger ally of the US.

A strong alliance will continue between the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy (Europe in general), Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia (as long as we keep buying oil off of them), Thailand, parts of the old Soviet Union (too many to mention) etc. I'm not too sure about India. They pretty much will be on the opposing side of Pakistan, but may remain neutral. It's quite possible that China will not have strong ties with the US, but will remain a trading partner of course (with all countries; not much will change here). Russia will play all sides but will side with its strong (not popular in the west) trading partners. Iran is going to be a problem over the next decade, and if Glen Beck is correct, a real problem for Israel and parts of the west.

China has a real problem; the demographics are skewered and do not favour an even +4% growth anymore (yes, no longer 10%). Their cities have long become the most expensive in the world (and so have many of their products!) and there still is a problem of the ultra-rich and the mega poor, and a demographic youth that has to support a growing aged population. The west still finds it hard to do business there, and there is growing unrest by a restricted and controlled people. The west may at times latently manipulate this to their advantage. Taiwan will continue to be a strategic trading partner to the west and a strong ally.

India has a different crisis on its hands - the most overpopulated country and a real strain on their and the world’s economy; I wonder if nations will collaboratively form an agreement to kind-of ‘tax’ countries like India, via tariffs, for not making an effort to control its projected overpopulation and burdening other nations with higher costs for soft and hard commodities. Hard to believe now, but the world may be forced to make changes like these especially as it becomes a lot more desperate for rare commodities and more unified policies are agreed to, adopted and enforced by the majority.

Another competing reserve currency failed to dethrown the USD, as it was initially used, accepted but ended up being manipulated on the exchange markets by the US and their highly sophisticated trading computer networks, which still controls the markets.

Wealth will still be made from lack of supply and high demand for space/land, housing, soft and hard commodities etc and not necessarily form innovative developments and innovations. So don’t expect the world to look too dissimilar to what it does today; just more populated and more expensive. A real let-down if you ask me.

The Federal Reserve (which has recently 'made' itself unbankruptable) is still in control, however, some fundamental changes were needed. It became more transparent but still managed to overstimulate the world's (not just the US’s) economy again and again. Hey, they're too big to fail.

One of the biggest problems that countries have is an overburdening perpetuating debt crisis. Many, including the US, have no choice but to restructure their economies and even currencies. And yes, the finger was shown to countries holding and demanding payment on (unpayable) debt, more than once.

The media is pure infotainment and continually ignores high level white collar corruption. A new generation of idiotic, interactive, reality TV shows will hit the airwaves.

The United States has the most sophisticated military by far, and has opened up its doors to next generation defence and avionics (out of this world!) technologies, to some extent or to the extent they permit!

Two of the biggest risks are overpopulation and perpetual debt; no real surprises here. But will this pave the way for more conflicts?

To Be Continued…
(I just love this icon).

 

[Pepe]

Forecasting the weather out 48 hours with any degree of accuracy is still difficult even with all the super computing available.

Forecasting or predicting what the world or the Amerikan Empire will look like in 2030 is an exercise in mental masturbation.

The only thing I know for sure is that the world and its population will continue to change, evolve and that there will be wars and rumors of wars.

However, having said that, some trend lines are observable and stand within the realm of possibility.

The Age of the Amerikan Empire will come to an end in this decade.

The days of the Imperial Subjects and Imperial Mandarins "sucking up" 80% of the world's savings and using 25% of the world's resources with 4% of the total population will come to an abrupt halt.

I believe as the dollar continues to be devalued by the Federal Reserve, at some point the Oil Sheiks will move from dollar denominated sales to a basket or baskets of currencies which will have an overnight affect on the average "Sheeple's" budget.

In FY2010, total Imperial Revenue from all sources was 2.2 Trillion. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on the Debt costs were 2.2 trillion.

The arithmetic is pretty straightforward.

As the Empire moves forward, Investors will demand higher and higher yields for the "risk" incurred when lending to the dying Leviathan.

By Obama's own figures the Debt in 2020 is expected to be close to 21 Trillion.

At the moment the US must "borrow" 4.8 Billion every 24 hours and it must "roll over" approximately 25% of its Debt portfolio every year.

This is clearly unsustainable.

Six percent of 21 Trillion is 1,260 Billions.

Eight percent is 1,680 Billions.

Ten percent is 2,100 Billions.

At the Jimmy Carter rate of 18% Interest on the Debt would cost the hapless "Sheeple" 3,780 Billions.

My SWAG is that the US will begin to "balkanize" after the 2012 Election and will not remain a single geo-political entity past 2020.

 

[editec]

Here's what I think the world's economy will, to some extent, look like:

Major countries that are not strongly allied with the US: China, Pakistan, Russia. Iran was luckily softened up with social media sites long ago and their government was overthrown. Careful attention was placed on allies and non-allies as this gives some sort of a blueprint as to what a major war might look like if there is a major conflict between large competing nations.

You presume that our masters are seeking domination of the world as nationalists. I think you've been mislead into thinking that. I think that theeir real goal is the END of nationalism, and the BEGINNING of a one world government where international corporations say SHIT and the national governments ask how much and piled how high, Sir?

The world has become more alike. Emerging countries have a net loss of their traditional and established way of life and a net gain of western ideals and debt.

Agreed.

The US is still in control-mode and has survived several stock market crashes and recessions. The norm has become to not pay a huge part of one’s perpetual debt and this goes for many individuals, companies as well as countries. In fact, the concept of ‘debt’ has been redefined to accommodate these sorts of lending practices. People ‘now’ (in the future!) see this as a normal practice and don't really question this.

Didn't understand the above.

One world-wide correction resulted, not from debt or the hand of the Federal Reserve, but by the development and implementation of quantum computing and its ability to in an instant decrypt, through even brute-force, classical computing encryptions. So financial companies, governments, internet etc had to reinvest heavily and reinvent themselves, which was costly. There was another mini tech boom too as next generation computing was born. But no terminators, yet!

And what will the WORKERS do for their daily bread while they're systematically made redundant by this digital revolution?

Europe (overall) is even more heavily in debt and is going nowhere really. The ECB is just a big bank. England and Germany are the two stand-outs and have a major say in the control of world markets. Germany (becomes a stronger US ally) is more committed to market control with the US and continues to control the next generation, thinking, algorithmic trading computers, that are processing nearly all trades in different world-wide markets.

Possibly. As I said before governments will assume all debt while corporations will garner all profits.

The middle east is still in turmoil. It had promising periods, but newly formed governments helped along by the west ended up doing a 180 degree turn; nothing new here.

Yeah, who knows? You might be right. But when I think about South Africa, and realize that the thought that something like peaceful transition appeared to be completely impossible? Well...

Deliberate control and manipulation of patented next generation automotive technologies has stifled the transition from combustion engines, hydrocarbon fuels etc to next generation cleaner fuels and electric vehicles. This along with other stubborn and unyielding practices has caused shortages of commodities and traditional (hydrocarbon) forms of energy.

By 2100 the private autmobile will be recognized as one of the STUPIDEST things modern man has done.

China has the world's largest economy but does not control the electronic markets; this (most of the asset classes around the world) is still under the US's control and the US along with Germany and England control the majority of sophisticated, intelligent, algorithmic computer trades, that control the direction of all asset classes and markets, even if it’s just indirectly.

I think you're applying the paradigms of the 19th century nationalists to a world where those rules really are no longer in effect.
Hey, no problem! Everything that you and I are being told is designed to keep you in the dark.

I won't go on because I think what you're doing is imagining that the TRENDS you see today, will continue on and on and on.

That I rather doubt.

Good thread though. At least you're trying to seriously think like a FUTURIST.

 

[william the wie]

I'm with Pepe on this one.

 

[Douger]

WW3 is on the way. That's how the masters fix their fuckups.

 

[sparky]

This old rock in 19 years?

well, let's draw on what we already know....

1) resources can't keep up with population

2) a growing worldwide disparity

the effects we see now from just these two factors, given a linear course, should be enough to conject a relationship less than sanguine for the kiddies

in fact, ask any one of them who might be savey enough to be up on the current human gestalt , and i'd wager seeing they realize the broken glass we're handing them , they just express it with a tad less contempt , because they haven't quite lived the gambit of effect quite yet

of course i'm not addressing those multitudes living on less that $2 a day , maybe when there's a lull in the bombing we can send Geraldo in eh?

 

[konkon]

You presume that our masters are seeking domination of the world as nationalists. I think you've been mislead into thinking that. I think that theeir real goal is the END of nationalism, and the BEGINNING of a one world government where international corporations say SHIT and the national governments ask how much and piled how high, Sir?


Didn't understand the above.


And what will the WORKERS do for their daily bread while they're systematically made redundant by this digital revolution?


Possibly. As I said before governments will assume all debt while corporations will garner all profits.


By 2100 the private autmobile will be recognized as one of the STUPIDEST things modern man has done.


Hey, no problem! Everything that you and I are being told is designed to keep you in the dark.


Good thread though. At least you're trying to seriously think like a FUTURIST.

"Everything that you and I are being told is designed to keep you in the dark." I like this quote. A bit like the Matrix.

Yes, the automobile with a combustion engine. Sounded good for a while, but I would have thought that from the 1980s, at least, we would have developed few-moving parts electric vehicles.

"As I said before governments will assume all debt while corporations will garner all profits." This is a worrying trend. Governments (people, basically) are stuck with a perpetuating bill.

The quantum computing era will create sets of jobs. Yes, a lot would find themselves redundant and this would add to the potential correction when all of our classical computers become anchors. But eventually this will spur new work as the classical computing world becomes fazed-out. It will potentially cost businesses lots though. Profit margins will decline etc.

"Didn't understand the above." This is pretty much happening today; you have layers of debt to pay for goods and services and even more debt. Simple revenue itself cannot pay for the initial debt you started out with. This is occurring all over the world and it will continue to be an even bigger problem. However, people in general (governments etc too) will learn to live with this and this is what I meant as the whole process will be redefined or reset, to accommodate for these sorts of 'normal' practices (in the future). We had a taste of this the last decade or so.

 

[ekrem]

Germany (becomes a stronger US ally) is more committed to market control with the US and continues to control the next generation, thinking, algorithmic trading computers, that are processing nearly all trades in different world-wide markets.

By 2030, Germany will control the ECB and fiscal policy of €-members.
Russia's and Germany's economy will integrate horizontally, and there will be a clear political framework which bounds both together and which will guarantee that Europe (Germany) is preferentially supplied by Russian resources.
There will be increasing worldwide competition for resources.

 

[ekrem]

World's resources can't sustain 3-4 Billion more people (China+other merging nations) on development levels like Central-Europe.

The fish-tank will stay same size, some fishes will make diet some fishes will eat more. Not all fishes can grow indefinitely at same time in the fish-tank.
There's a limit.

 

[whitehall]

Oil will still equal power and money and unless the green revolutionary fools in the US get a brain transplant and start electing republicans with common sense America will become a 3rd world country and Obama and the Rev Wright and Van Jones and Bill Ayers revolution will be complete.

 

[sparky]

human nature won't change, but hard changes might have us contemplate them a tad more

 

[konkon]

I recently picked up Friendman's The Next 100 Years. I disagree with many of his key points. I am perplexed to read that Friedman believes (in no particular order):

1. that Poland will become a superpower, the main influence in Europe, and a real threat to Russia. pg 148.
2. Germany will lose its economic superiority and by 2040, Germany and France will lose their major power and influence in Europe. pg 151 Poland will be more of a superpower than Germany. pg 7
3. that Japan will reemerge as an aggressive nation like it did in WW11 and it will go to war with the US
4. the new great powers by 2050 will be mainly the US, Japan, Turkey and Poland.
5. that over the next decade onwards, the United States will have a huge labor shortage. pg 121 & 132
6. there will be a confrontation with Russia and the United States by 2020. pg 101
7. by 2040 US/China relations will be closer than ever, and the Japanese will find this a direct threat. pg 155
8. a global war will break-out between the US, Turkey, Poland and Japan.
9. by 2020 China will begin to fragment and it won't be a dominant nation in the geopolitical and economic world.
10. that the US war on Terror is a short lived exercise. pg 86 & 4
11. the "American Age began in December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.." pg. 31.
12. that the "act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step". pg 11
13. the Mexicans and the Turks will be two of the major economic powers in the world. pg 9

I don't believe any of the points (1 to 13) above will occur. There are other points I disagree with and might mention them later on.

I just don't see how Poland will become a major superpower, replacing the likes of Germany. I'm still baffled! Germany will continue to be a dominant force in continental Europe and around the world. Germany's influence will continue to grow economically and politically, and I believe Germany's alliance with the US will grow stronger. Sure the US and Germany will be competitors but they have strategic benefits.

Japan will not emerge as an aggressive nation at all. I think the Japanese are and will continue to be content about themselves and their economy. They have gone through some pretty bad economic times over the last twenty plus years and have handled themselves well considering. Their debt to GDP is one of the highest in the world, at over 200%. I think that the Japanese are a very sophisticated lot in more ways than one and their aggressive days are long-gone.

The new great powers in 2050 will include the US (of course) but NOT these three countries: Poland, Japan and Turkey. For me, the US and China will be the two superpowers by far. China mainly by wealth, as it will be the wealthiest nation by far. The US because it controls the seas, skies, markets and geo-political world (amongst other reasons). Friedman places too much emphasis on the US controlling the seas but I believe he forgets to note that the US controlling the skies is the biggest advantage the US has over all other nations. The same goes for controlling asset classes and markets; Friedman doesn't really mention this as playing a key role in the US's dominance in the world.

Turkey will have a major influence in its region, but not as much as Friedman believes. Turkey will not be an aggressive nation in the region to the extent Friedman suggests. But it will be a major headache for countries like Greece. Iran will be a major problem for the west. Friedman downplays the significance of US and radical Islamic tensions and that "the war between the United States and the radical Islamists will be little remembered". He's got this wrong and this will pose the biggest threat to order and stability in the world. Friedman talks about fault lines occurring between nations like the US and Mexico (really?!) but the real fault lines will be religious ones. I think Iran will be a real problem here and not necessarily Turkey. I think we saw a hint of what Iran's intentions might be when it sent its war ships in the region during the height of the Egyptian crisis, to drum-up support perhaps. There is clearly something brewing in that region. The Judeo-Christian and extreme Muslim (how far into the bell curve are we talking about?) tensions will escalate at times over the next few decades. You are dealing with two very unyielding at the core groups. I think that the actions or lack of them in Pakistan just recently suggests a tolerance, at some level, for extremism that should concern many in the east and west.

Friedman's approach to tensions is more 20th century and linear, than 21st century dynamism. He makes his revelations with a 20th century cap. "Executing the necessary and logical next step" (pg. 11) is far too linear a method when dealing with extremely complex issues and predictions.

Labor shortages will not be an issue in many parts of the world. Overpopulation and high unemployment will be an issue.

A global war WILL NOT break-out between any of the following nations: US, Japan, Poland, Turkey. The US, Japan and Poland (amongst many others) will be allies. Turkey will probably be a country that will help to negotiate with other Muslim nations, like Iran, if tensions become high. There may be some tension between Turkey and Iran but not like Friedman suggests.

The American Age began way before December 1991. It does depend on what this quantifies over, but it may even have started as early as when the Declaration of Independence was written. The US was controlling the world as early as 1919 and maybe even a few years earlier than that.

If any nation wants to @#$!%$ with the US and the US really wants to flex its muscle, the US can ultimately take-out any threat it sees systematically and thoroughly. This would nullify any real attempt by some rogue nation to become unreasonably aggressive in its region or beyond. The net effect of allying oneself with the US would be a better future in the long run. I just wish countries like Greece would do this. But they see things differently, I guess.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

As for Poland and Germany, Germany is having a problem with aging population and low growth. The aging population feeds into the low growth, as a larger and larger part of annual resources go into taking care of the elderly. What we are seeing here is the glory of compound interest, as Germany has growth around 1%, and Poland has growth around 7%

Same thing about Turkey. Ekrem no longer posts here, but he used to post statists about what was happening economically between Greece and Turkey. Turkey is a well managed economy with a consistant growth rate and sensible banking and tax system. Greece threatens to destroy the Eurozone with its mismanagement.

China is very scary. They have a huge imbalance male/female, a tremendous economic growth rate, a huge rural population that wants in on the economic growth,.... and a archaic and elderly leadership very much afraid of its population. There is a very real possibility that the place might fall apart into a really messy civil war. So far the leadership has done a good job of surfing the volcano, but they can't keep that up for too much longer. When it blows, it will blow big.

North Korea is on its way to the third generation of the Kim regime, and the third generation is scarier than the first two. Since the succession is kind of unsettled (The guy who was heir presumptive has been sort of replaced, but no one is sure the decision is final) and the two leading contenders are both pretty lame, I expect the place to have a short and brutal revolution before the whole place breaks down like Albania did when Hoaxa died.

The US population is going to get more and more minority. However, minority groups will surprise everyone by voting culture values rather than economics as time goes by. The US wil gradually move left due to disgruntlement with Republicans, but they will be on message with the concept of responsible schools, safe streets and low taxes on their incomes. Minorities that have the right cultural mores will move ahead quickly, those that don't, wont. Anti oriental will be more of an issue 10 years down the road than anti-semitisim, and 20 years down the road, antisemitism will vanish as the new target of hate progresses faster through the economic scale.

Mexico does not seem to be able to pull itself out of its morass. I don't see Mexico being an economic power unless something really drastic happens to its political culture.

Modern Japan is just not culturally in tune with new aggressiveness. It also has the problem of an elderly population and slow growth. In addition, most of the non muslim orient is growing very fast. Japan, like Germany, is going to be left in the economic dust behind its former conquests.

China is an autarchic state. As long as that remains the case, the US and China will be, at the very least, grumbly terms. China sees American ideas as threats, The US political culture, left and right both, regard China with distate. If China does not blow up like the Soviet Union did, the US and China will not be friends at all.

Why Poland would get involved in a war with the US or Japan seems weird. There is nothing to argue about.

Japan is too weak.

 

[konkon]

A friend of mine thinks there's no point to thinking about these sorts of things. I'm surprised more and more people don't have their say on such matters. Even if you don't get it right, there's probably a lot that you can get out of these sorts of discussions. I find that you can refine your own level of thinking by thinking of these issues (and more).

I've often wondered how advanced an out-of-this-world being would be. Just think of the difference between a person and their dog, for example. Dogs, I'm sure can make simple predictions like looking forward to seeing his owner again. Naturally its level of thinking, or whatever you want to call it, would be on a different and basic level. The dog would have no conception of time but it must be able to differentiate between the now and the not now (or future and even the past).

It is possible that a different form of life out there would have greater prediction abilities and far more advanced reasoning powers than us.

I'm a believer that thoughts themselves and even will-power can have some influence in certain future states of affairs or events. So events themselves just don't occur because of physical interactions. Most of the time they do but there's room for certain non physical influence.

Time as a conventional instrument is really useful but thinking about it, even subconsciously, can also hinder or restrict ideas about the future, I feel.

While the 'path' from past to present to future may appear to be linear, it isn't. The term 'path' implies a linear direction itself. Our language and our thought processes are restrictive to say the least. The 'edge of the universe' type of talk involves contradictions, based on our classical level of thinking. But we are lucky enough to be able to 'reason' with a lot more sophistication than any animal (of course) or machine. That we are aware of, at least.

 

[konkon]

Speculation on the upside on all sorts of commodities (soft and hard) is one of the biggest problems facing most people on this planet and it will be one of the biggest in the future too. I'm sure I'll get all kinds of criticism from those that like the commodity play, but there are very few people that benefit from overpriced commodities in the long run. One of the reasons why the US economy won't get better the last half of this year and even next year (even if this Friday's [8 July] employment numbers come in good!) is because of high commodity and energy prices across the board. This stifles growth prospects.

Now many might say 'but there is real demand in the world', which would explain high commodity prices. Not true! This is pure spin. The world, economically, is in worse shape than 4 years ago. The Baltic Dry Index based on actual (non speculative) shipping receipts of moved commodities from port to port around the world is at a real low point BALTIC DRY INDEX (BDIY:IND) Index Performance - Bloomberg
Click the 5 year chart too for a good visual on the problem.

The real problem (and it's a future one) is that the large and diverse numbers speculating on all types of commodities are so powerful and influential that, the way things stand today, commodity prices will continue to appreciate over the long term, based on the sheer numbers and the level of sophistication involved and the sheer lack of opposition to these moves. Add to this the algorithmic trading computers, government and private industry (banks) cornering of commodity markets, mass purchasing and price moving abilities, and you have yourself a real problem. Physical stockpiling to control supply and demand dynamics by countries is a problem too.

Sure corrections do occur but unless some adequate counter-measures are enacted commodities will keep decoupling and continue to appreciate, even if the world falls in to some type of depression. The traditional fundamental demand dynamics will not matter and prices might continue to rise over the long run. The market (speculators with so much money!) itself will control the price of soft and hard commodities and not fundamental demand dynamics. The Baltic Index itself suggests that there has to be supply available, even if it is stockpiled. Sure many commodities are inversely related to the US dollar but a future scenario like this might mean that the USD becomes decoupled to a larger extent too. We may not even notice these changes either.

One outcome for your average consumer around the world is the $50, for example, that he or she was going to spend on some item to spur on the economy, will be spent on higher energy and commodity prices indirectly. The is not a zero-sum game for the middle class either as nearly all in this class system will get very little in return.

 

[konkon]

This long piece related to one possible scenario leading up to the next decade onwards. Read the comments in bold for some of my main points if you like.

One issue in the markets that I feel needs to be addressed (and it may not be anything at all, just something that's bugging me) is if we're all getting use to high commodity/energy prices now, even with a global slowdown, then we better get use to the idea of much higher prices when things are picking up in the world economy even if this pickup is slow and distorted by only really factoring-in things like better employment numbers. So those estimates of $200 a barrel of Brent Oil, for example, might play-out. The basis of this is driven by speculation, price-cornering, stockpiling and monopolistic algorithmic trading computers that even today seem to be doing the majority of high end trades.

Any guy on Wall Street would then be able to 'justify' why all soft and hard commodities would have to keep going up in price on wholesale markets and of course the retail side too. One comment might be: "Hey, you had oil at $115 a barrel during the slowdown and now (maybe in 2013+ or even earlier) you have better employment figures, 'growth' (their idea might differ to mine on overall net growth, all things considered; USD, debt to equity etc) and therefore you must have oil at $160+. I don't think this is a justification, but it seems a likely outcome for world markets and consumers around the world; pricing-out scenarios seem likely and this has already occurred around the world. This too may be a catalyst for future (economic and not necessarily physical) conflicts.

Demand destruction may not mean very much in the future either, not like it fundamentally did in history. So the idea that prices will themselves correct to more 'normal' or lower levels, will not be the case. Hey, watch out for all the new norm talk! Demand destruction would not occur because of some of the reasons previously mentioned like "...the sheer numbers and the level of sophistication involved [in trading on the upside] and the sheer lack of opposition to these moves. Add to this the algorithmic trading computers, government and private industry (banks) cornering of commodity markets, mass purchasing and price moving abilities.....physical stockpiling to control supply and demand dynamics by countries..." my quote in an earlier post.

Now, birds of a feather tend to flock together, so in the long run expect all types of commodities to move on the upside even if there is an abundance of a set at any given time.

Under this model, if it pans-out this way, your elite and 'the' owners of a big chunk of the world's wealth will get wealthier and more powerful. I think that the middle-classes around the world (wherever they are nowdays) will have an uphill battle. I think that a majority of them will struggle to add to their net wealth or whatever is left of it. Your property and land holders overall will do better especially those that have few debts. A tricky conclusion or opinion here, but I think the US will do much better overall than nearly all other countries. Large US multinationals and banks (including the Federal Reserve) will do the best as their net positions would be at a real peak. However the biggest problem for the US will be the struggling middle classes (and lower ones too). This (the middle class) for the US is the heart of taxation with representation and the main source for all forms of public sector income.

Skip the next two paragraphs if you don't want to read about my conspiracy theory, but the last two paragraphs are worth a read I think:

Now if I put on my conspiracy theory hat and look at who might be planning to benefit the most from the GFC (I'm sure that some elite 'organizations' knew of a likely GFC! even in 2007) I would point the finger at some nameless and anonymous organization that has some level of control over certain large banks (not talking about banks/employees themselves!). There does appear, to me, to be a great deal of influence of the US economy and markets by very powerful but latent elite operating from outside (and even inside) US borders. Now, one of their intentions may have been to transfer wealth from the middle classes (and this includes creating future debt obligations for the middle classes) to an elite. This transfer of middle class (overall) net wealth has occurred and one of the reasons why simple factors like healthier jobs numbers every month only provides a patch on an overall greater problem. I think that some of this transfer of wealth was intentional. But a byproduct of all this activity means that all of your protective services institutions (the whole lot and in no particular order: military, NSA, FBI, CIA etc etc) may not get all the necessary funding it deserves and needs from the taxation with representation model of the middle classes funding all of these fundamentally important institutions that in turn represents and protects those same middle classes or all Americans. This taxation with representation model was one of the key principles that the founding fathers of the United States had in mind and it should always stand. And in no way should this system be adversely manipulated or intentionally jeopardized.

Now a big part of this transfer of wealth might just be 'Wall Street'/small and large bank recklessness, unrealistic contractual modeling and greed combined with reckless issuance of small to large unpayable debts. This was the driving force, but I still feel like this, to some extent, was engineered by a very powerful elite that stood to gain in more ways than one.

I keep reading and hearing about a need to form one currency perhaps based on a basket of currencies (not the USD) and a need to slowly develop a centralized world government. Both of these mean a transfer of wealth and power from the United States. My view is neither will have legs especially the latter (developing a centralized world government). A basket of currencies as the world's reserve currency may take off for a while, but will not work in the long run. Both of these factors pose a real threat for all forms of US government institutions (including the protective services mentioned earlier; the whole lot one again). Now if you connect the dots of the previous (conspiracy!) points raised before with the desire to create these two new world models, then you have a possible scenario of some, perhaps deliberate, attempt over a period of time being made to destabilize and even weaken US government institutions (I think this has occurred because the middle classes have been screwed and burdened with future perpetual and unpayable debt). Those same key and fundamentally important US gov institutions are a barrier to some attempt to set-up 1. an alternative reserve currency and more importantly 2. another form of world governing body, as or even more powerful than the current US one. Based on this belief and some might see it as a potential threat to the longevity and stability of the US as a whole there should never be an attempt to withdraw or limit funds from these all-important US agencies.

Another important point I think is the Obama administration looking for ways to bypass congress to lift the debt ceiling. I think that it should (even though the Republicans and Tea Party have several plausible points) especially when the US needs to continue to pay all of its protective services agencies (yes, the whole lot! and this should include all types of initiatives). A very controversial point here, but I think the Obama administration should bypass congress on a whole set of fundamentally important issues and (even though I know very little about the US constitution, but have a great deal of admiration for it) it should base these moves on crucial and fundamental issues protecting the longevity, stability and interests of the US, not to mention congresses' inability to deliver, on time, key unified fundamental changes at a key point in time. Sure these moves might and probably do go against key constitutional points, but if it's a matter of protecting everything about the US and most underlying key points in the constitution, then perhaps certain moves like these are necessary. Congress will not fulfill all of the timely and necessary obligations to preserve long-term US interests. Its infighting, yielding to special interests and delays etc is a net gain for those that might want to see the US weakened further and for their own agendas to prevail.

 

[uscitizen]

The rapture and such will be forcast to happen 10 more times by 2030.

Property will be abandoned in FL and along the gulf coast due to rising sea level.

Republicans will still be saying that tax cuts will generate jobs. eventually.

Rush LImbaugh will have had a stroke.

 

[konkon]

I just wanted to clarify some potential ambiguity with the next quote, from an earlier post. By 'it' I meant (and you will see it in brackets):

"Based on this belief and some might see it [the perhaps deliberate attempt to transfer wealth from the middle classes and away from US government services of all kinds] as a potential threat to the longevity and stability of the US as a whole there should never be an attempt to withdraw or limit funds from these all-important US agencies."

While I'm at it, here's some more elaboration on previous points:

No matter what happens, the Germans will be there and will be a powerhouse. Germany during and after both world wars was crippled, devastated, bankrupt, to say the least. It came back stronger than ever. Germany has better years ahead of it, no matter what happens to the Euro-zone and unity within Europe. I don't think Turkey will be 'allowed' and I don't think Turkey would want to progress west and into Europe, like it did in previous centuries. Now if Turkey, like many other nations in the future, need to secure more resources, then Turkey best head north, north east, east and perhaps south east. I'm not saying it should and I don't think it would be 'allowed' either. Why go to Europe?

I think that the US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany (and even the Poles) and many more countries from all over the world will form an even stronger alliance as they will see extremist threats and their (extremist) and their supporters' influence over politics, geopolitics and economies their (US backed alliances) highest priority. Those issues will be a lot more macro in size, and it may become even more clear that they (extremists) are being backed by influential and powerful-enough nations, that really don't like the western model and all that comes with it; various religions included.

I think that political commentators like Glen Beck are right when they comment about state-sponsored extremism becoming an even bigger problem in the future. I think this has to be a focal point and not necessarily old-school type tensions and conflicts between countries like England and Germany; this is one of these linear criticisms made by me - that (and I don't believe this) traditional old scores might resurface because it followed that path during the two world wars. There are definitely different macro dynamics at play here and in the future.

Another 'linear criticism' by me is that Friedman tends to see future conflicts like they were in the previous century, as one aggressive nation physically taking on other (more than one) nations. I'm not saying this is the basis of his arguments, but he does make these suggestions. Future conflicts, I think, will be more sophisticated, macro (involving many countries on both sides) and diluted in nature and the basis of many will be religious as well as resources based ones. Not just resources based conflicts and certainly not between countries that pretty much have very similar religions.

I think that very few things in the world and universe are linear. They appear to be linear, but are not. One reason is because you can always look at reasons for things in so many different ways. For example, your perception of event A might differ from my perception of the same event (ask people what they think 'caused' WW2, for example). The quantum mechanical 'assessment' of event A would also be different. Classical physics might explain it (event A) differently. A legal, geopolitical or economic interpretation of event A would or might differ too. The human-centric (restrictive) semantical world of explaining things, even event A, might differ from some higher-order way of explaining it. Using previously adhered to models of explaining conflicts, like WW1, WW2, doesn't necessarily mean that these same models are applicable in future conflicts. I just think Friedman draws too many parallels between the reasons behind previous conflicts and future ones and he sees this as moving from a step A to B to C to D... process, and (in his words) the "act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step". pg 11 But I think there are very few logical next steps in the (geo-political, economic etc) quantum world that forms the basis of all those macro events we perceive and speculate on.

 

[konkon]

A friend of mine thinks that all this talk of the US and its high-end protective services agencies (NSA, CIA, FBI, defense etc) having its funds etc cut (or potentially cut soon), is not that important an issue, as I make it out to be. He, and a journalist on TV before, seem to think that these agencies (and many more we take for granted, or don't know even exist) are somewhere on the periphery of things, with respect to the US economy, and not at its core, like I 'know' is the case.

I do strongly believe there are shadow groups (not belonging to only one country) that have control of the international banking conglomerates, that are trying to destabilize the US, through its economy (and this has been going on for perhaps a decade); add to this the number of countries that don't like the US and you have a real problem. There was more to the GFC (and we haven't left it yet) than the issuance of bad loans. Being swept with more debt than one can handle and pay-off with revenue (not more debt!) was an inevitable course. The motivation was there and the outcomes were to benefit those that can only benefit from issuing more and more debt.

Now, why is the US and all of its high-end (as mentioned before) defense agencies a hurdle or barrier for these shadowy groups and their banking cartels? Well, controlling the world's economy for one, with limitless and borderless financing of all and any nation/country on earth, no matter who they are(!) at all levels. These shadowy groups and co. probably see the US and its defense organizations as a barrier to increasing the level of investments etc 10 fold.

Now this all might sound like a good idea at first, but there is a reason why the US has to police the world to the extent it has to. If you allow free-for-all financing at an unprecedented, extreme, macro level to take place at the potential magnitude mentioned, with very little restriction, it may appear to work well for a couple of years or so, but you would have allowed all kinds of potentially irreversible scenarios to take-place. One would be the financing and refinancing of two and even more hostile countries, that have been covertly financing their own agendas, defenses and aggressive stance on geopolitical issues.

These same shadowy organizations are well aware of the fact that if you cut funding from someone, group, organization etc, then you have weakened them to some extent. A net loss is easily a net gain for these shadowy groups and co and all hostile nations to the US. Or just some nation that (short-sightedly) sees more opportunities if the US wasn't in control.

You cannot, in this world, have a cooperating world like many people believe. The void will always be there for one or more countries to stick their necks out and go for world domination; I guess we could all unite if we saw a threat form some alien attack, but that's not likely to happen.

The US will create money from thin air if it needs to in the future if it finds it is losing its control of the currencies, markets, seas, skies etc etc; just a note, it may happen gradually in this order too if many shadow groups and the international banking cartels have their way. Protecting the USD, the markets is crucial for the US if it needs to keep controlling the seas and skies etc over the long term. I just wish Congress and high end US corporations would realize this! Creating money out of thin air (or just keeping the printing presses going at a far greater rate than today) would have dire consequences for most countries outside of the US. So if you think there will be an easy transition if the US loses its grip on the reserve currency status, world markets, the seas etc, then think again! Bet on this happening and you're bound to lose sleep at night worrying about your long term investments.

One of the things that's worrying me about Wall Street these days is many indicators like the Dow, that have traditionally reflected the status of the domestic US economy, is now reflecting a general path that we may be taking, that relates to the comments about shadowy groups trying to transfer power and wealth from the US and all its markets and agencies etc. The Dow and many other indicators are reflecting a gradual transfer of power and wealth from the US, although on the surface these indicators would be suggesting better than expected forecasts and earnings. We are being disillusioned by all this pseudo euphoria and the hope that things will get better, and many don't see these indicators as a sign of transformation. This is not a sign of real wealth in the US nor is it a sign that things will get better in the US like many economists believe. Multinationals are giving up on the US and are sourcing their wealth from outside the US. Now this all doesn't seem to fit in with the taxation with representation principles that the founding fathers strongly believed in! Wealth is being distributed outside of the US and there is a real lack of representing the US domestically.

Congress must support and not only fund, but continue to boost spending on higher-end defense and protective services agencies of all kind! I think many members seem to think that these agencies don't play a central role in protecting the US in all ways and their (Congresses') asses too. I don't know much about US federal law, but I wonder if there is some way to enable defense, for example, to gain access to funds from the Treasury perhaps, as a matter of national importance of the highest level. It could be based on some indicative measurements that put the US in (potential) harms way and that those key levels need to be maintained and reinforced. And I'm not talking about Martial Law here; US citizens have nothing to do with this calamity. Now I'm bound to hear 'in a democracy we don't...', but realize this, that there may not be a democracy left the way you think it should exist, if all of those protective services agencies lose funding and their capacity to uphold and protect these principles. I guess we could always believe economists and Wall Street when they tell us the US economy will get better and the signs are there. No they are not! The only signs are the ones pointing the way to where the money is flowing - and it ain't going into the US!

Add to this that we are always in a state of conflict, although we go to sleep at night not thinking or knowing about it. It doesn't always come in the physical sense and I'm not talking about this here. It is played-out in the international markets every day, for example, and without US's (and all its allies') protection, as mentioned before, the scales will most likely tip in favor of foreign interests, heavily backed by those shadowy organizations, the international banking cartels and those that don't like the US led model! Ask yourself if you would want to live under this system and look at how your life may change for the worse in the long run. So who will protect us form all this occurring? Wall Street, bankers, multinationals, congress or the so-called 'free' markets etc? No way! It has to start from the President, his network/team and all protective services agencies.

Going back to an earlier point, Congress, and dare I say it, the courts should not be in a position to prevent and overrule any technical basis for insuring that those protective services agencies (NSA, CIA, military etc) should get all the funding they need to reinforce the US's long stance of controlling the reserve currency, markets, seas, skies, electromagnetic world etc.


Another issue that I need to get right is: don't back football games (ie. scoring over/under a given future score) on previous form, stats etc alone (especially if you don't know much about the teams etc)! The inconsistency in the AFL on the main bell curve side suggests a roulette (black or white) approach with the laws of probability thrown in as well. Yes, a different approach this weekend, indeed!

 

[konkon]

If you beat the grass, the snakes will eventually come-out! Just look at the number of countries (China and Russia being two very vocal ones in the past few days) that want the US to lose its reserve currency status. This has to mean that they would't mind seeing the US slowly loses its grip on geopolitical matters too, and I think that this is what these two countries in particular are emphasizing! I'm not surprised of this, and this is one reason why I never did see either of these two countries (and there are many more!) as supporting the US's (and its allies') long-term efforts/objectives to oversee and protect the geopolitical world from inevitable chaos, if the US (and its allies) weren't in control.

Just think of what the world would look like if the US and its true allies (some include Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, etc) didn't bother to oversee geopolitical issues and allowed the 'world' to just sort itself out! It would end up being a very unsafe world for most of us, in the east and west.

Sure you would have some countries step up the the plate, but you would have fragmented and conflicting agendas, power distributions and no referee. This is so dangerous a scenario and if we just put away our distracting cheap gadgets from China for a moment and think about this.

Media outlets just don't report on these probabilities, even in editorials.

I think that the US, in general, will have no choice in the future but to get even more militarized in nature (even if it's not obvious), even though congress, big business and very influential shadow organizations are becoming increasingly opposed to such future moves.

I text a friend last night and stated: "Those marines standing still in and out of the White House, are not for show. They are a reminder to the world that the US has always had the backing of its defense forces no matter what. So all types of non supporting countries/groups etc can go and get #$#%$%%ed! That includes the S&P rating agency!"

A time to see what some countries and organizations really think of the US and a time to see what course we might be taking, based on these and other observations.