(04-05-2017, 11:34 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Can it happen here?  Actually, I believe not, since we have
institutions that seem to have been working for 240 years, even
through a Civil War.  Obama was certainly pushing the country onto the
Socialist path, but now his Socialist regulations are being reversed.

(04-16-2017, 12:48 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers like John X frequently site Gen-X support for the MIC (military-industrial complex) and Reagan-Bush as examples of Xer "nihilism". This is delusional When reagan-Bush is the likely precursor of the crisis state. Just like teddy roosevelt/wilson was the precursor for FDR in the last saeculum, and on the german side: how Kaiser Wilhelm's war prefigured Hitler's war. The notion that John X and other boomers that Carter is the precursor is a F-ing Joke. Yeah Carter with his pathetic "human rights" and his stupid peanut farm, LOL.

(03-01-2017, 11:03 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, Warren, maybe you're right and there's a way to "thread the
needle" and devise a border adjustment tax that won't be a total
international disaster like the Smoot-Hawley tax.  But as you might
imagine, I'm way too cynical to expect success.

I really began to understand how the game was played in the 1970s.
First there was Nixon's wage-price controls, which were supposed to
reduce the inflation rate from 4% to 2%, but instead caused it to
increase to 12% and were a disaster for the economy of such
proportions that the economy didn't recover for a decade.

Then in 1976 Jimmy Carter was running for president.  He promised to
reduce the number of government agencies.  I don't recall the exact
numbers, but I think he said that of the 2,500 existing agencies, he
would eliminate 500 of them.  Which 500 would he eliminate?  He
wouldn't say.  Well, he was elected, and he didn't eliminate any
agencies.  Instead, his administration added two new cabinet-level
departments, the two DOEs -- the dept of energy and the dept of
education -- and added hundreds of new agencies.

So let's fast-forward to Barack Obama.  He was going to reduce the $8
trillion deficit by spending another $1 trillion in a stimulus package
that would stimulate growth and reduce the deficit.  The growth in the
economy would wipe out the deficity.  Instead, the economy didn't
grow, and it was a total waste of money.  The deficit today is $10
trillion higher.  Obama was also going to reduce medical costs with
Obamacare.  Instead, medical costs have exploded under Obamacare.
Obamacare is an incredibly destructive economy policy, even worse than
Nixon's wage-price controls, and it will take at least a decade for
the medical services industry to recover from the disaster.

So now let's take a side-trip to Greece.  In 2010, Greece would need a
temporary bailout to give the economy a chance to grow again.  The
growth in the economy would wipe out the deficit, and allow Greece to
repay its loans.  Instead, the economy didn't grow, and Greece has no
chance of repaying its loans.  Greece will be facing a major new
crisis by July.

So now we have a new president, Donald Trump.  He's going to cut taxes
for the middle class and spend $1 trillion on infrastructure.  And how
will this be paid for?  Why, by the Border Adjustment Tax, of course.
And his proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare will reduce medical
costs.  So, in summary, after 8 years of total economic disaster under
the Obama administration, we're facing the possibility of a new
economic disaster under the Trump administration.

That reality doesn't seem to affect investors.  Champagne corks are
popping this morning, after the Dow breached 21,000.  This is being
called the "Trump stock market rally," because the Dow is up 2,500
points since the election.  So the already huge stock market bubble is
now even more explosively huge, just waiting for the bubble to pop,
which it will with 100% certainty.

What nobody wants to talk about, the so-called "elephant in the room,"
is the velocity of money.  This indicates the rate at which people are
willing to spend money.  You can't have economic growth if people
aren't willing to spend money, which means that the velocity of money
would have to increase.  Instead, we have this:



So the reason that there's been no growth since 2008 is that the
velocity of money has been plummeting since 2008.  I posted the above
graph a year ago, but I've just checked, and the velocity of money has
continued to fall in the last year.

And so, Warren, maybe you're right that the Border Adjustment Tax,
along with a realignment of corporate taxes, will lead to great
economic growth and solve all our problems, as the Trump
administration hopes.  As for myself, I've seen too much in the past
that I can't unsee.  I would laugh, except that I'm too tired to
laugh.

(04-16-2017, 02:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 11:03 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, Warren, maybe you're right and there's a way to "thread the
needle" and devise a border adjustment tax that won't be a total
international disaster like the Smoot-Hawley tax.  But as you might
imagine, I'm way too cynical to expect success.

<snip for brevity>

And so, Warren, maybe you're right that the Border Adjustment Tax,
along with a realignment of corporate taxes, will lead to great
economic growth and solve all our problems, as the Trump
administration hopes.  As for myself, I've seen too much in the past
that I can't unsee.  I would laugh, except that I'm too tired to
laugh.

You do recognize there's a large middle range between "fix everything" and "total international disaster", right?

(04-16-2017, 01:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-05-2017, 11:34 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Can it happen here?  Actually, I believe not, since we have
institutions that seem to have been working for 240 years, even
through a Civil War.  Obama was certainly pushing the country onto the
Socialist path, but now his Socialist regulations are being reversed.

You're such an optimist, John.  We can always trust you to look at the world through rose colored glasses!

(04-15-2017, 08:36 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > What an Anti-american ideologue you are: the reason the 2001 war
> ended so quickly is because the overwhelmingly superiority of US
> air power meant that any afghan fighter who poked his head up was
> usually swiftly taken out by air strikes. The vast Majority of
> them as a result did not want to commit suicide and promptly
> switched sides. The true fanatics fought to the bitter end and
> died at places like Tora Bora or fled into Pakistan or the deep
> mountains like OBL himself and Zawahiri. You consistently refuse
> to acknowledge US military superiority.

(04-16-2017, 12:17 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > With regards to the US debt problem, Slashing medicare and social
> security would solve matters pretty quickly.

(04-16-2017, 12:21 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-15-2017, 08:36 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   What an Anti-american ideologue you are: the reason the 2001 war
>   ended so quickly is because the overwhelmingly superiority of US
>   air power meant that any afghan fighter who poked his head up was
>   usually swiftly taken out by air strikes. The vast Majority of
>   them as a result did not want to commit suicide and promptly
>   switched sides. The true fanatics fought to the bitter end and
>   died at places like Tora Bora or fled into Pakistan or the deep
>   mountains like OBL himself and Zawahiri. You consistently refuse
>   to acknowledge US military superiority.

This is truly idiotic.  First, you can't win any war with air power
alone, as pretty much everyone in the world except you seems to know.

The Afghan war was actually an ethnic war against the ethnic Pashtuns.
The vast majority of the ground forces fighting the Pashtuns were the
Northern Alliance, consisting of Tajiks, Uzbeks and the Hazaras, all
historic enemies of the Pashtuns, and backed by overwhelming coalition
air power.  The Pashtun militias collapsed fairly quickly because they
were in the early part of a generational Recovery era.

Compare the Yemen war, where the Saudis have overwhelming air power
against the Houthis, but after three years the war is still going on.

(04-16-2017, 12:17 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   With regards to the US debt problem, Slashing medicare and social
>   security would solve matters pretty quickly.  

Once again, truly idiotic.  Medicare and social security are insurance
programs backed by insurance premiums into the system.  If Medicare
and social security were slashed, then the premiums would stop as
well, resulting in financial disaster.  I assume that in college you
majored in sociology or women's studies or something like that, and
don't have the vaguest clue what insurance is.

(04-16-2017, 01:40 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The Houthis have direct backing from Iran, that support allows
> insurgents and militias to hold on. The Taliban had no such
> support, the Iraqi insurgents did not having backing either at
> first but did have backing from Iraq's neighbors who did not want
> to see a permanent US military position in Iraq from 2004 onwards,
> not suprisingly that is precisely when the insurgents became much
> more dangerous to our forces.

• Sharply divided Turkey approves referendum giving Erdogan near-dictatorial powers
  
• Turkey's referendum results will be closely scrutinized by Europe
  

• Turkey's 'shameful day for free press' as government seizes Zaman media (06-Mar-2016)
  
  
• Netherlands provokes growing crisis with Turkey by blocking ministers' entry (12-Mar-2017)
  

• Erdogan says some Greek islands should really belong to Turkey (11-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Turkey's Erdogan eliminates more opposition in quest for power (06-Nov-2016)
  
  
• A dark shadow looms over EU-Turkey refugee deal, as Turkey passes harsh anti-Kurdish law (21-May-2016)
  
  
• Turkey's Erdogan blames the EU for reneging on the refugee deal (23-Sep-2016)
  

(04-16-2017, 02:35 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-16-2017, 01:40 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   The Houthis have direct backing from Iran, that support allows
>   insurgents and militias to hold on. The Taliban had no such
>   support, the Iraqi insurgents did not having backing either at
>   first but did have backing from Iraq's neighbors who did not want
>   to see a permanent US military position in Iraq from 2004 onwards,
>   not suprisingly that is precisely when the insurgents became much
>   more dangerous to our forces.  

The Pashtuns in Afghanistan were (and are) receiving support
from the Pashtuns in Pakistan.

(04-16-2017, 11:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > John, what turning do you have North Korea in? If it comes to
> military action, how will they react?

(04-17-2017, 01:40 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > John X , how do you explain the fact that the Iraqi forces
> collapsed like a house of cards in both 1991 and in 2003? How do
> you explain the defeat of Noriega's forces in 1989? There is also
> the fact that the most difficult period of the Iraq war from (2004
> to 2007) occurred precisely because the US did not have sufficient
> forces on the ground and also the fact that the Sunnis had been
> excluded from the government. Things improved rapidly after 2007
> when more troops were added and the Sunnis were allowed into the
> government although the true fanatics among the insurgents fled
> into the desert and joined what eventually became ISIS.

(04-17-2017, 02:11 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Saddam no longer had WMDs by 2003. The fact that 200,000 Americans
> were charging straight at him and he was facing death if defeated
> and even then not a single WMD or anything that smacks of a WMD
> was used is the biggest proof one can see of the lack of an Iraqi
> WMD arsenal.

(04-17-2017, 09:03 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-16-2017, 11:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   John, what turning do you have North Korea in?  If it comes to
>   military action, how will they react?  

Korea's last crisis war was WW II, expelling the Japanese
colonists.  The 1950s Korean War was a non-crisis war.

I wrote a generational history of Korea in the following 2007 article:

** South Korean politicians are 'euphoric' over North Korea nuclear deal (16-Feb-2007)

[i]http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/xct.gd.e070216.htm#e070216[/i]

(04-17-2017, 10:11 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: On an entirely separate subject, Boomers only care about America in terms of using this country as a vehicle for world globalism. They could care less about the Nation, or the people and their virtues of foibles or maintaining the viability of the Country. The Nixon-Reagan-Bush 1 foreign policy will be the inspiration for whatever the 4T and 1T policies are. The Carter-Clinton-Bush 2 vision is destined for the dustbin of history.

(04-17-2017, 09:46 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The only viable candidate for the Korean Crisis War is the Korean
> war. During WW2 there was no fighting whatsoever on Korean
> soil. When Japan Surrendered, the Japanese military authorities
> handed over administration to the US and USSR without any
> fighting. Not to mention there were numerous massacres between
> communist and non-communists in the two years between independence
> and the start of the war. Most atrocities during the war were
> carried out by North Koreans and South Koreans against each other.
>