ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +

JANUARY 2010.  First year of the "TENNIES" Decade.


Just been reading Steve Keenes blog.  He might be right about the "Debt Trap".   I am also a reader of evans-pritchard and news from1930 which all uniformly predict that things will get worse.  On the other hand, the mass media and most economists (Keynesians, post K and the rest) are uniformly upbeat.  The Dow is going sideways, and future interest rates are equivocal.  Who to believe?

Some economists are looking at patterns (aka chartists) some at theories of money dynamics.  The Chartists are a bit flummoxed because our "1930's style" recession/depression seems to be halted in it's tracks.  The money dynamicists are having to change their ground frequently, because every time they identify a "crucial" number (employment statistic, housing sales, etc) that is a sure fire predictor of the depression getting worse, lo and behold, it gets changed.

What we are seeing might well be a truckload of treasury economists who are reading and spending money to change all those indicators.  Because those chartists and dynamicists are reading entrails.  So the guys with the money power (treasury economists) are maybe turning taps and providing data (entrails) that seem to predict a rosy future.  They are possibly doing it in the hope that the reverse of the psychology that causes a run on a bank, or the panic when someone calls "FIRE!" will cause the recession to end.

But there is a thread of economists who explain that increasing debt has been providing that growth.  And that debt binge is planned to stop in 2010.  The question now is:

Is the current (debt fueled) growth going to sustain itself, or will it need more government debt?


Let us make a parable.  The world economy is a motor car.  The economic engine stalled October 2008 (the crash).  The governments of the world cranked the engine (using cash injections).  We (the innocents) hear the engine turning over, and assume everything is OK again (2009).  However the drivers have not yet stopped utilizing the crank. (Cash injections stop early in 2010).  The engine is not yet running smoothly and may again stall.

Of course if the engine splutters to a stop again, the drivers can crank again.  However the battery is flattening (cash is running out).


Barvennon speculates that the cause of the recession is the psychology of bubble.  The 3% of people who are clever about money things (Bankers, money managers, captains of industry) are firmly fastened on the teat of treasury.  They rely on the bubble optimism (and blindness) of those less gifted in monetary matters (like most financial journalists) for their schemes to function, and on the bounty of scared (or perhaps scheming?) politicians manipulating the various instruments of government to "make it happen" so that minority interests make huge profits.

For instance the "homes bubble" in Australia results from the state governments' "milking" of housing development companies for political slush funds.  Banking profits derive from defective government legislation that allowed monopoly managers of currency to make risky loans using demand deposits (otherwise M1 money, exchequer accounts, savings accounts) as source of funds.  The 97% buy those bubble houses, re-elect those corrupt politicians, demand their M1 accounts be protected.  Unionists make obscene amounts of money in legislatively protected jobs for driving a truck.  (Just try and get a job as a union miner.)

This manipulation could continue for some time.  While the debt trap continues to expand, the issue will not go away.  We are heading for inflation, or maybe into the "Japanese Trap" or national bankruptcy.

Barvennon believes that the only final cure for the debt trap is the pain of a recession.  That will help the mass of people to understand that there are no short cuts to wealth.  Our legislators must be reined in.  We probably need direct democracy.


Something that I remember about the Serb war when I was blogging it.  An English academic said words to the effect that "Liberals think it is OK to tell lies as long as it's in a good cause".

The media is in a frenzy today (7 January) because a whaling protest boat was in a collision with part of the Japanese whaling fleet.  The protesters are claiming it was a deliberate ramming, and that their vessel was stationary in the water, refueling.  Oh.  HaHa.  Good one.

The protest boat was a smallish trimaran, about 20 feet long.  The whale fleet boat massed at least 100 tons (about 120 feet long).  Probably less than 1% of people have not got any sort of boat license, but the rules are, small boats have to keep out of the way of big boats.  Big boats are just not able to stop or maneuver with anything like the facility of small boats.  Some of the really large boats take 20 kilometers to stop.

The story is in the newspaper.  The promised investigations by NZ and Australia will almost certainly exonerate the Japanese, and (if honest) will condemn the skipper of the protest boat, possibly even fine him.  Of course that will be labeled a "conspiracy" by the protest organizers, who are making a very nice income thank you very much for all this publicity, the donations are pouring in.

And a few minutes after repeating that news item favoring the protesters, the ABC had an expose' of some complicated politico scheme with the explanation "people are much cleverer than the media credit them with being".

Oh. Really?


Back in 2005 I wrote predictions on Climate change.  I then speculated that many of the things that have happened since then would happen (e.g. that the weather patterns would move towards the poles.  I predicted that weather patterns would become more energetic.)

Doesn't that make me an alarmist?  Well not to my thinking.  Alarmists take the additional step that all good populist politicians (like Hitler) and alarmist fundamentalist preachers (like John Wesley) take, which is to preach the "doom of hell" if we do not immediately rectify the disastrous situation they so vividly describe.

Then in 2007 I reviewed the various instrumentalities that have made the climate predictions.  Even then the IPCC was being accused of rigging the outcomes by not allowing eminent scientists who opposed the global warming scenario to have their say in the final documents.  Stern also had his detractors.  Stern's critics claimed that Stern had selected the worst possible scenarios, and then not been peer reviewed.

Last year the Copenhagen conference was preceded by a scandal when emails from the East Anglia university server were outed.  East Anglia is an important node of the IPCC data collection network.  It appears that those in charge have been actively promoting the cause of the alarmists, and actively suppressing the flow of vital climate data to those that they call "climate change deniers".  That scandal may have been responsible for the failure of Copenhagen.

Now it appears that this sickness in the IPCC is widespread.  Previously confirmed tales of "melting glaciers" in the Himalayas have been found to be false, or at least wildly exaggerated.  Other cracks are appearing in the mosaic of disaster predictions that the alarmists have been promulgating.

The last line of my comment on the East Anglia scandal was
I fear that our western culture is in decline, and that an important indication of this is that social issues are considered of more importance than scientific integrity.

The recently reported events have reduced those fears.

MAIL comments