Submitted by meg-abear on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 07:50.
This is an absolutely outstanding presentation - a MUST-READ (or really a Must-LISTEN) for anyone who wants to understand how our economic system really works. Chris Martenson has done a tremendous job of delivering, in an easily digested form, crucial infomation on how our monetary and financial system functions.
I can't wait for Chapter Sixteen.
Gold can get confiscated when times get tough.
Can't wait for the next chapter Chris, a fantastic and well documented global insight to the coming storm.
Big tax increases will just allow the government to piss away the money in more stupid ways.
All the money that you've sent to it for Social Security, for Medicaid, for education, all that - has been blown on god knows what but it's not for Social Security, Medicaid, or education.
The government has no accountability, just accept it. We did elect a bunch of Democrats in 2006 to end the war in Iraq - has it ended? We elected a president to stop nation building, to reduce the federal government, and to get the federal budget under control in 2000 - did that happen?
The solution is to let the damned government go bankrupt. They're going bankrupt anyhow, it's just a question of how much more good money you want to throw after bad. You're never going to get a return on your investment from them. They're a mafia now, not a representative government.
Submitted by LuckyFolks on Sat, 08/02/2008 - 19:38.
Chris, you bring it to the point, that is awesome, how easy to understand (even for a german guy) you describe the financial situation not only in US, but worldwide.
There is a solution for Alibear´s concern on the confiscation of Gold:
JWS Shekel range has several distinct advantages over gold savings in other forms;
* By comparision, government issued bullion coins are always the property of the issuing government; the holder is only ever the 'bearer', never the owner. Shekels are non-government issued.
This can be found on http://JWSpaidtosave.com/luckyfolks
Chris,
I have watched your series with great interest. I think that you summarize the current fiscal situation wonderfully and I have been spreading your link around.
I am a little concerned that your next chapter on peak oil may spoil the broth. The compelling “SOFT ENERGY VS. HARD FACTS,” by Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDorn speaks convincingly that, historically, mankind's ingenuity in finding cheap energy tends to outpace resource rarification (an example offered was it was not until the 80s that Venezuelan oil reserves were considered provable reserves).
I cannot wait for the final chapter to this great series. I hope that you can get it out before I have to trade in my wallet for a wheel barrow.
Best,
Paul.
Submitted by Chris Kresser on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 21:42.
I'm sorry but I'm getting so tired of the "human ingenuity" and "technology will save us" arguments. Name one source of energy (that could be implemented on a massive scale in the next 20-30 years) that can even come close to replacing oil. Renewables like wind, solar, tidal, etc. will be invaluable sources of energy in the future, but because of the storage problem they won't address transportation in the near term. 61% of oil in 2006 was used for transportation needs. Right now we have no viable alternative to replace that with.
Coal-to-liquids (CTL) is an ecological disaster, and if we go that route it's likely we'll accelerate climate change at such a rate that resource depletion will be the least of our problems. We'll be much too occupied with cataclysmic weather events, water shortages, crop failures, etc. to worry about $10 prices at the pumps.
Not to mention the fact that recent reports on global coal reserves generally point to the likelihood of supply limits appearing relatively soon—within the next two decades. So even if we foolishly embraced CTL for powering the transportation fleet that "relief" would be very short-lived.
Natural gas isn't practical for transportation because of storage and safety issues.
Peak Oil is more accurately Peak Oil-Coal-Gas, and it's here. Surely technology will play a strong role in whatever solutions we adopt, but it isn't going to save us from the impact of resource depletion. The almost religious faith that technology will save us, along with almost complete psychological denial, are the two primary obstacles towards making the changes we need to make RIGHT NOW.
Fuzzy Numbers is a great education. Thanks Chris.
I believe that none of these fuzzy numbers would be possible without the cooperation of the Main Stream Media.
- Arlen
Chris, as a European inhabitant I am learning a lot about the US economy from your crash course. Since it affects our European economy, I must say THANK YOU!
But I am really curious if the same manipulation is going on in Europe... And how to make sure I am not personally sucked into a big black hole of recession.
What do you think is the best way to organize my financial life so that all these things don;t affect me (as much as they could)? I am already saving money (which will devaluate...), only have a mortage and no other debts and don't spend all my money on things I don;t need (like an even bigger television or car). But I am in the IT industry, which is IMHO not a really stable industry come a recession...
Can you provide me/us with some tips to counter the effects of the things to come?
Thanks!
Submitted by scottkohl on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 23:18.
This video just underscores what Chris is talking about. Looks like we have about 10 years until things get really bad...
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3852
Alex Jones at InforWars.com has lots of other great info.
http://www.infowars.com/
Chris, I believe your assertion about unemployment and discouraged workers is incorrect. When I researched this issue with BLS, I found the issue was that up through the early 1960s a small number of discouraged workers had been counted as unemployed (instead of "not in the labor force" and therefore not part of the unemployment measure) based on information they volunteered in the monthly household survey. The Gordon Commission recommended that a consistent approach be taken. The resulting change in the survey had no impact on the unemployment rate, so no backward revision was required.
Kevin Phillips appears to have assumed that all discouraged workers were being counted as unemployed before the new methodology was implemented. I think Phillips got his facts wrong here.
I don't know if you did any research to verify Phillips' assertions, or just accepted them wholesale. If you have not done the research, I invite you to contact BLS. If you have information that contradicts what I've writeen above, I'd love to hear it.
This is an absolutely
Can't wait
Gold
Re: Gold
Brilliant
What To Do?
What NOT to do
Chris, you bring it to the
Peak Oil
Peak oil is real and it's not going away
Chris check this out:
Fuzzy Numbers and the MSM
How is this related to Europe?
VIDEO US Headed Toward Bankruptcy, Says Top Budget Committee Rep
Fuzzy Numbers
Fuzzy Numbers