This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Deflation vs Hyperinflation Debate On Steroids, Or Mish vs Gonzalo Lira In The Octagon
A recent guest post by Gonzalo Lira on Zero Hedge, providing a theoretical framework for the arrival of hyperinflation, went viral, generating over 75k views and over 1,000 comments, further confirming that the biggest and most confounding debate in all of finance is what will the final outcome of the Fed's market manipulative actions be: deflation, inflation or, and not really comparable, hyperinflation (which is a distinctly different phenomenon from either of the above). The post infuriated some hard core deflationists who continue to refuse to acknowledge the possibility that in its attempt to inspire inflation at all costs, the Fed may just push beyond the tipping point of monetary imprudence away from mere target 2-3% inflation, and create an outright debasement of the world's reserve currency. One among these was none other than Mish himself, who a week ago recorded a podcast on Global Edge with Eric Townsend and Michael Hampton (link here), in which his conclusion was that Hyperinflation is the endgame, "so it is unlikely." Of course, the very premise of this statement argues that even in a monetary collapse the Fed will retain control over the flow of money, which of course is unlikely, and thus makes us very skeptical that such a simplistic and solipsistic argument is enough to resolve the debate. Since one of the items covered in the Mish podcast was Lira's argument, it was only fair that Gonzalo himself should be heard.
So a few days ago Global Edge ran a follow up podcast with just Gonzalo Lira, in which the Chilean was given the opportunity to defend himself and to further validate his argument. In a very lively and heated discussion, which teaches the amateurs at CNBC just how one should run a financial debate, Lira and host Hamtpon agree that hyperinflation may play out differently than
many expect. Among the questions probed are whether property will be a good investment in a
hyperinflation scenario, and what may happen to all other key asset classes once the Fed finally loses control of everything. Still, the best outcome would be to give Lira and Mish a one to one venue in which the two can battle it out: surely it would have no actual impact as the deflationists and hyperinflationists of the world tend to be among some of the most dogmatic individuals in the world, but it sure makes for much more entertaining theater than watching those idiots in Congress pretend they are in control of the financial destruction currently going on in America.
45 minutes of excellent financial debate follow after the jump (and the original Mish interview can be found here).
- 30216 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


ZH 9/11 guest post is deleted?
why?
I can understand why a lot of people are interested in the prospects of hyperinflation, and surely we are heading towards some kind of fiscal/monetary crisis, and I don't rule out hyperinflation. But this Gonzalo guy makes the weakest possible case. Despite his own country's experience with hyperinflation, he failed to understand the common driver of all hyperinflationary episodes, including Chile's: large-scale money-supply expansion. Instead, he thinks US hyperinflation will be triggered by sudden, gargantuan financial buying of oil futures. He doesn't understand the limited influence of futures on real prices.
http://keynesianfailure.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/delayed-deleveraging-meets-the-keynesian-endpoint/
I would like to chat with Gonzalo.
This month I was able to interview Austrian and former Economic Advisor to Carter and Reagan, Paul Prentice. He spoke to the end game.
link to the interveiew:
http://thevictoryreport.org/2010/09/10/paul-prentice-9-10-10-culture-and...
~MV
Gonzalo is a pretty smart cat, but he's not all that experienced in markets. For one, he tends to base his predictions onexperiences and historical references with which he is familiar. (and gets quite far with this methodology). But his lack of real world market experience leads him to make a few mistakes. In Gonzalo's view, there is some scenario on the horizon In which foreign nations stop buying US debt, and the US (for some as yet, unclarified reason) witnesses this happening and does nothing. This makes no sense. Why wouldn't the US just raise rates? This is a fundamental problem with the inflationist point of view. The bond market is what sets US rates - not policy, contrary to propaganda. In many cases, policy follows markets and does not lead. Yes, the US will try to inflate. But at the Shazam moment, the US will raise in order to keep borrowing. Higher rates will curtail inflation. This is what Michael Pento was trying to say when they booted him. The powers that be know that deflation is possible ...but they don't want you knowing that.
But at the Shazam moment, the US will raise in order to keep borrowing. Higher rates will curtail inflation.
Ok, so the US raises rates to keep borrowing... Now take your argument, which is valid, one step further, what happens? The first sentence is correct, the second is incorrect when you step back and recognize why the first statement is correct.
You just reinforced the hyperinflation argument without knowing it! thanks.
Mish does suffer from solipsism and is wildly uninformed and is an ideologue with huge blind spots in his thinking but so is the author of this article. His primary premise of what will cause hyperinflation is absolutely ridiculous and shows his ignorance. It simply is not possible as he describes it. His lengthy bloviating is akin to the Johnny Cochran defense of OJ. Pull shit out of your ass if it sounds good. Unfortunately, the courts were not supposed to allow such a defense. And in this case, it is no different. The zombie banks are all primary dealers of the Federal Reserve of the United States of America. They MUST eat the garbage the Fed offers to the market. It is law. That is why they were not nationalized. So the Fed could continue to ease and be guaranteed a buyer. All of the other hogwash following his thesis that they will tilt the balance unknowingly one day is asinine. He doesn't even understand basic concepts of central banking.
Aphorism #3
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/06/aphorisms.html
GL
That's it? That is your defense of what I point out? You have no defense? I appreciate free speech but you are now publicly supposing a position and now that means you need to defend it. It's called peer review. Address the point I made. And when you do that I have a dozen more.
#6 works too, Gonzalo. ;)
Thanks for the articles.
In this case, you're right: Aphorism #6 applies very nicely.
Thank you for your kind words.
GL
y
o
u
g
u
y
s
a
r
e
g
o
i
n
g
G
A
Y
on me.
By the way, I just finished reading the entire article by Lira. What we have here is a case of ignorance writing what appears to be plausible or intelligent to the uninformed. He compares the U.S. to Greece. That is absurd. The US financial firms caused the Greek crisis. And they most likely did it to scare money out of Greece and into dollar denominated assets. It's called financial terrorism. Or financial warefare. Take your pick. American financial firms rule the world. Literally. That isn't because they are brilliant. It's because that is how the game is set up. Lira understands none of that. A very ridiculous article.
No, fuck that.
Who has the most capital rules the world. That is China. China could easily just start the run on treasuries and make sure the dollar went to ZERO and then just say, Hey USA, we know you owe us allot, cant remeber the exact amount, so why don't you just hand over all of your gold and we will call it good.
The U.S. has no foreign debt. That is the benefit of a reserve currency. That means China's a servant of the dollar and the Federal Reserve. So you comprehend that dynamic? You might educate yourself on basic principals before you write such a ridiculous response. This is not Wiemar Germany. The U.S. has no foreign debts. The U.S. could write China a check tomorrow for its dollar holdings. You just don't get it.
The U.S. has no foreign debt. That is the benefit of a reserve currency. That means China's a servant of the dollar and the Federal Reserve
Times is changing, mon frere. The USD has been bleeding its precious world reserve status for some time now, and one of the reasons is the hubris you/your ilk so arrogantly project. China is the US' creditor; the servant in that 'dynamic' is always the debtor, reserve currency or noes, comprends tu?
Speaking of ignorance, "The U.S. could write China a check tomorrow for its dollar holdings" is in a category all its own...
Regards
Goinfawr, I insist you apply Aphorism #3 to this guy EQ.
If the guy is dumb enough to say that, quote,
then there's really no point in arguing with him.
GL
GL: I smell a "The Pragmatic Capitalist" acolyte lighting candles for the USD...
Ad hominem attacks are used when there is no valid defense of an argument. You cannot argue your thesis because it is full of holes and you honestly don't know what you are talking about. And I'd drive a huge Mack truck right through this ridiculous post as well.
All U.S. debt is dollar denominated. It is all domestic debt. This compares to Chile and other countries which hold debt denominated in a currency other than the domestic currency. Foreign countries or foreign individuals may own domestic debt but the U.S. has zero foreign debt.
Talking to you is like a cat toying with a mouse. You have no idea what you don't know. And that is why your entire thesis is completely wrong.
If you are so sure, in your arrogance, of your thesis, answer my questions in a public forum. We shall let the world decide who is citing fact and who is citing ignorance. I wish you no ill will but you speak so arrogantly of how things will be yet you argue from a hollow position. It's like trying to defend math from someone who refuses to acknowledge 2+2=4.
semantics...
DD : Domestic debt = debt owed to residents
FD : Foreign debt = debt owed to non residents
Both DD and FD can be denominated in domestic currencies or foreign currencies
In the case of the US Govt, both DD and FD are denominated in domestic currency only ($), unlike for instance those of some Latin American countries' governments.
Outstanding $ denominated Govt debt owed to Chinese residents (Foreign Debt owed to China) = $ 843.7 billion
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
(ie the outstanding amount of those actual current liabilities that require payment(s) of principal and/or interest by the US treasury at some point(s) in the future to Chinese creditors, institutional or not, is $ 843.7 billion).
I'm not here to argue opinions or semantics. Any debts owed under the framework of a domestic currency is a domestic debt. You can call it whatever you want to call it.
It's a foreign debt, denominated in domestic currency.
Correct me if I'm wrong : the fact that the US is a sovereign nation and is the issuer of said currency and therefore can always pay the principal outstanding of said foreign debt by issuing more of said currency, is correct. But if it did that, pay chinese holders with a check ($843 billion freshly printed $), the $ would loose value when exchanged for other commodities (foreign currencies and other commodities) and interest rates on outstanding treasuries would rise, which could be sufficient to cause a run on treasuries and the dollar...
Semantics is precisely what you are arguing. A foreign debt is a foreign debt is a foreign debt, regardless of whether that debt is denominated in foreign or domestic currency. If the United States destroys its currency and/or racks up an unsustainable debt load, eventually foreign creditors (under your framework there are no "foreign" creditors since there is no "foreign" debt) will refuse to buy anymore debt, which would have a major negative impact on the American economy. Either no more foreign debt could be accumulated or any further debt would have to be denominated in a foreign currency. Right now we can import goods with IOUs. Once no one accepts the IOUS, imports will have to be paid with exports and/or with foreign currency. And all the dollars the Chinese have are claims on American goods and assets, and should the United States "write a check tomorrow" for all its debts, it would cause hyperinflation as all those dollars came flooding back. You have too much EQ and not enough IQ.
Not sure how this looks in IE, but formatting is terrible in FireFox...
What other countries won't buy of our sov debt, the Fed could, but that would accelerate destruction of our fiat; another match for the hyperinflation conflagration.
Buahaha...you froth up and down about this 'defense' or that, and then crawl into an, "I'm not here to argue..." sea-cucumber with its entrails out pose?!
LMAO
Ad hominem attacks are used when there is no valid defense of an argument
Sometimes, but not necessarily. Eg. In this case they are being employed alongside a perfectly cogent line of reasoning contrary to yours. I suggest that the point of the insults in this particular thread are there to mock your apparent oblivion to the irony inherent in some (not all) of your suppositions.
Oh, and misnoming 'black' 'white' can hardly be viewed as an argument of semantics.
Regards
EQ is right U.S. doesnt have FOREIGN DEBT !! all its obligations are denominated in local currency which is US Dollar , that is the guy's point .IN theory U.S. can write a check for all the trillions of its debt , putting aside geopolitical , economic implications of such a move. Dont call the guy a fool . cause he's got the point!!!
These people want to argue their ideology and won't let go of it because their belief system on how the world works and all of the lies they fed themselves on what the outcomes of this environment are, is jeopardized when someone points out an obvious truth. So, instead, we'll get a string of ridiculous opinions so they don't lose face rather than just acknowledgement of the facts. They are ideologically-driven just like the status quo. I'm done posting on here. I have made my point. That is, Lira has no idea what he is talking about and his suppositions embraced by tens of thousands of people who have no idea what they are talking about, is wrong. Enjoy the chatter as they try to rationalize their positions rather than just admit they are wrong. The ego is a wonderful thing.
Good, so you run away before I can prove to you that your an idiot.
I have heard this stuff before, you live in a world where there is no gold. The only reason the dollar became the world reserve currency was because it was backed by gold. Not because the US rulez the world. Gold rules the world.
So you believe that Vladimir Putin is a puppet of the Federal Reserve ? the x KGB agent ? with nukes ? Trust me, he wants to get paid.
Now stop watching those videos made by anarchists on LSD.
Now stop watching those videos made by anarchists on LSD.
I prefer the anarchists on LRC.
Why would China start a run on US treasuries when most of its reserves are in US treasuries (ie potentially worthless pieces of paper)? China only has the most capital in the world as long as US treasuries can be used to buy things, not if they become worthless pieces of paper.
Also, assuming they would be so stupid as to start a run on US treasuries, why would they demand that the US hand over its Gold? Where did you dream that treasuries, and FRNs, are redeemable in Gold? China would just receive an essentially worthless piece of paper, a newly printed cheque in dollars, with which it could go and buy Gold. It might even be able to get one troy ounce.... Or maybe a hamburger at McDonald's...
They could start the run on treasuries by buying other gold. Remeber, the first one out profits the most. Then while the run happens, make sure that the dollar is at zero.
At that point, the dollar is worthless and the gold is priceless. That is when China says "hand over the Fort Knox gold".
"They could start the run on treasuries by buying other gold."
Would China sell all of its $843billion worth of treasuries at once, or one chunk at the time? What amount in $ do they get ? What does the price of Gold in $ do while they are using the $ proceeds of the sale of treasuries to buy Gold?
"Then while the run happens, make sure that the dollar is at zero."
At zero what? China doesn't determine the rate at which the dollar is exchanged against other commodities, the market does.
"That is when China says "hand over the Fort Knox gold"."
And why so? Does China still have treasuries or did it sell them all? And why would the US hand over its Gold, against what, for what reason?
I don't know, it doesn't matter. They are the first ones out and thats the bottom line.
I don't know, maybe some but thats all history. They would hand over the gold because Chinese people don't work for free. Who has more balls, the commi Chinese or Obama ? What is Obama going to do if he gets a threatning call to hand over the gold ? Start a war ? I doubt it, Obama is a pussy. He would hand over the FNX gold plus his wedding ring.
"They are the first ones out and thats the bottom line."
Not going to happen (not in China's interest) for the next 6 to 10 years. In the meantime they are going to slowly reduce their treasury holdings.
Might not take nearly that long--China's not the only sucker holding our paper. They don't control the price floor unless they're willing to double down on Treasuries.
China's sneaking out the door and buying gold as fast as they can without goosing it to the moon...they'll misrepresent they're holding ga-billions of Treasuries up til the day they sell the last one.
Because eventually China would realize that it has to cut its losses. Your question is like asking "Why would anyone bail out of a Ponzi scheme?" Because as the scheme approaches collapse, an investor who is considering bailing could potentially lose his entire investment (and anything further that he invests in the hopes of continuing the scheme), so it might dawn on him that his best chance is to recover some of his funds now, rather than risk losing all of them later. And he never said Treasuries or anything else were redeemable in gold, and you know this. Stop making stupid shit up.
But China gains much more by reducing slowly its treasury holdings and instead buying Gold, farmland in Africa, commodties, mining companies etc... than by dumping all its treasuries at once and causing a run on the dollar.
Not only do they get a far larger quantity of hard assets but also they can maintain their #1 zombie customer alive while developing their domestic market (and military arsenal) with the proceeds of such business.
Which doesn't mean that eventually (maybe 6 to 10 years down the road) once they have built sufficient reserves in hard assets, developped their domestic market, increased their military arsenal and that their Zombie customer isn't profitable enough, they just dump what they have left and cause a run on the dollar.
I completely agree with Gonzalo when he says that a run on the dollar (hyperinflation) is likely to happen, as a consequence of a protracted period of debt deflation in the US and Europe, but I just think this will happen much further down the road... not in 2011 but more like 2016 to 2020.
In physics, self-organized criticality (SOC) is a property of (classes of) dynamical systems which have a critical point as an attractor. Their macroscopic behaviour thus displays the spatial and/or temporal scale-invariance characteristic of the critical point of a phase transition, but without the need to tune control parameters to precise values.
The concept was put forward by Per Bak, Chao Tang and Kurt Wiesenfeld ("BTW") in a paper[1] published in 1987 in Physical Review Letters, and is considered to be one of the mechanisms by which complexity [2] arises in nature. Its concepts have been enthusiastically applied across fields as diverse as geophysics, physical cosmology, evolutionary biology and ecology, economics, quantum gravity, sociology, solar physics, plasma physics, neurobiology [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and others.
SOC is typically observed in slowly-driven non-equilibrium systems with extended degrees of freedom and a high level of nonlinearity. Many individual examples have been identified since BTW's original paper, but to date there is no known set of general characteristics that guarantee a system will display SOC.
I really believe that Mish knows what is going on, BUT he has an investment business that operates in the USA and its attractive under a strong dollar, so he keeps up-playing the deflationist camp that makes his investment company more attractive. Mish has said that the end result of all this is inflationary, but he stresses and promotes the deflationary pressures because its in his personal interest. Thats all.
There is no doubt that there are deflationary influences, and that even right now we are going into another deflationary correction. But also there is no doubt that a government with a central bank can prevent prices from falling (it can not solve the crisis, just prevent prices from falling). So stressing so much the deflationary pressures makes no sense... UNLESS your company becomes attractive if people believes that deflation is coming, like Mish company.
Good point! Always look at the motivations of whoever is talking and ask "cui bono?"
When Warren Buffett looks at the camera and recommends something while talking to you like he's your grandfather, he's talking up his own book.
++
Just saw Axelrod on Face the Nation...
The sickness of this administration aptly displayed!!!
True to character as the propaganda machine continues to beat the living shit out of the American people. I am beginning to think that masochism may indeed be the pathology that most Americans suffer from.
Axelrod==slime;
We'll see after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. I'm hoping that there is a calculating rage component that will exhibit.
- Ned
I'm hoping that there is a calculating rage component that will exhibit.
I believe the "rage component" is only contingent on the number of American people waking up out of their apathetic mind set and recognizing the one thought that they all should have....What have we done to ourselves?
he looks like a villain in a black and white movie.
Oops wrong program it was "Meet the Press" I was watching not "Face the Nation"....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
Great interview with Dr. Prentice Mike. He's no lightweight....
Thanks for the post!
No you didnt get it. They froze the prices of goods.
I just think he wanted to avoid the gold bug name so that is why he talked about oil.
I get it fine. Price controls do exacerbate inflation, but they don't initiate it, and they can't by themselves turn ordinary inflation into hyperinflation.
Nominal prices go up for two reasons: goods are becoming scarcer, or money is becoming more plentiful. The only theoretically possible way to have hyperinflation without money supply expansion would be a sudden extreme scarcity of goods, such as in a city under siege.
By capping prices, as inflation was already building, Allende pushed goods into the shadow market, lost tax revenues, and then substituted for those lost tax revenues with increased money supply. If he hadn't done the latter, he would have had fiscal collapse and severe inflation, but not hyperinflation.
Not necessarily true. Price controls cause a sudden extreme scarcity of goods, as all available goods are quickly sold and further production of said goods disappears completely. Such a scenario could happen before a shadow market even arises, and the shadow market could be prevented from functioning for other reasons, not least of which is government decree. Sure, there are probably multiple scenarios and multiple components to a hyperinflationary occurrence, and Gonzalo's exact scenario might not pan out. That's not the point. The point is that it COULD happen that way, and, given our current situation and what we know about it, it's a very plausible outcome. If we were speaking purely hypothetically, we could call Gonzalo's scenario just that--hypothetical. But because we do know a lot of facts about the present and because we do know similarities between today's economy and previous hyperinflations and because, given these things, we can narrow down the list of probable actions by the Fed and players in the market, Gonzalo's story is a compelling one.
I agree. While I think Gonzalo Lira is in the right track, how he justifies his ideas have several flaws. He is not the best ambassador of the inflationary camp.
I am an ambassador for no one save myself.
GL
Glad to see you here answering the comments. Says good things about you.
I am curious on why you think that hyperinflation is very different from stagflation.
Who said that I did?
I'll have a piece on the '79 stagflation and the current situation in a couple of days.
GL
You keep saying that hyper-inflation and price inflation are two completely different processes, or that is what I understood from reading your articles at least.
Under inflation currency is trusted, under hyperinflation it is not.
During Weimar hyper-inflation people was still going to work and accepting the currency as payment. Same in Zimbawe. At the very end is when the currency completely collapses, but as long as the government manages to keep control and can impose the monopoly on money people still accepts the currency.
In Weimar republic at the beginning of hyper-inflation people was seriously wondering if that was good or bad. It wasnt until it passed and they saw he destruction it brought that they realized how bad it was.
The thing is 2% price inflation will have some differences from a 10% price inflation and from 25% price inflation... but at the end the basic mechanism is the same. I am wondering why Gonzalo Lira stresses so much that hyper-inflation and price inflation are different things.
I am wondering why Gonzalo Lira stresses so much that hyper-inflation and price inflation are different things.
They are different things. Inflation comes about as the result of an overheated economy coupled with loose monetary practices. Hyperinflation comes about as a result of a failure of confidence in currency.
But in reality both are the same thing: offer and demand for the currency.
What you call an overheated economy (overheated economy is in reality a keynesian idea that like all keynesian ideas makes no sense and nobody has managed to explained me what it really means), so what you call an overheated economy is that the offer of currency goes up, therefore the valuation people makes of the currency goes down. People will offer more units of the currency for the products because their valuation of the currency is lower.
Now, hyper-inflation is the same but taken to the extreme. When the valuation of the currency gets extremely low people just dumps the currency.
*Note that I am not saying that only the quantity of money influences the valuation of the currency. The quantity is one, but there are more causes.
The sad fact of the matter is that there is a lot of insidious Keynesian thinking on this site, even among those who are staunchly anti-Keynesian. I think that you and Gonzalo are both right. Hyperinflation is an extreme extension of inflation, and it isn't. I think that one of the points is that you don't need continuous excessive money printing to achieve hyperinflation (though that of course can cause it).
Indeed.
It does not seem unreasonable to use the term "overheated" to describe problems served up by Keynesian chefs who cook with too high of a flame. As per Ron Paul:
An "overheated" sector, meaning that the writter (Ron Paul in this case) thinks there is too much production from that sector (housing f.e.) makes sense. There is too much production on that sector, and is taking resources away from other sectors, and the production is unbalanced to consumer needs.
I really can not understand what it means that an economy is overheated as a whole. It does not make sense to me. But maybe you have a definition of it that makes sense.
What if multiple sectors of an economy are "overheated" at the same time? What if low interest rates lead to excessive malinvestment in coffee shops, consumer electronics, celebrity based media, housewares, doodads and useless crap? What if consumers go deeply into debt in order to obtain more and more of this useless crap? Might one call such an economy "overheated?" If you'd care to suggest a more applicable term, I'm all ears.
Well, its all semantics but...
I would say that the capital structure is distorted.
The thing is that an overheated economy seems to say that there is excessive production in everything, while the problem is excessive production in some areas, pulling resources away from what the consumer really needs or wants. So its overproduction in some areas and underproduction in others. I think saying that the capital structure or the production structure is distorted explains better the situation than saying that the economy as a whole is overheated.
But this is all semantics. As long as you know what is going on and people understands it, there is no problem on how you call it.
Demand pull inflation is different. You know the Mish type of inflation that he thinks only exists.
"nobody is borrowing the money to bid up prices, wages are falling, blah blah blah"
But when people are borrowing and bidding up prices, that is demand pull inflation.
When greece was on the cusp of default and the Euro fell(inflation) that is not demand pull but devaluation even if it was, like you said, 2% 10% or 25%.
I answered to this "demand pull inflation" in the above comment.
I need "solipistic" defined, before can go any further.
Solipsism (pronounced /?s?l?ps?z?m/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.
thanks.
You are welcome! This is just so weird....
thank you.
I am a brain in a vat, and you are all merely the stimuli of a mad scientist(s)...so fuck off.
fuck
Ah, the Turd. Eloquent as usual!
Ha! Love it!
Village Idiot
Hey now Johnny, let's not get all high falutin. Many people think the universe is composed of one mind, you know that whole Eastern philosophy thingamajig. Some scientists have posited the universe consists of a single electron.
Mu baby, mu.
You rang?
Have you read any Spinoza?
Whatsoever is contrary to nature is contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd.
VI-Heinlein did a good job (informative and as always enjoyable) in his latter works. - Ned
Thanks for the info, Ned. Now I know who to thank for one of my all time favorite (campy?) sci- fi pictures - Starship Troopers! I'm also a huge "post apocalyptic" fan. Read many of the more popular works - any suggestions?
Edit: sorry spelling sticklers, cleaned up.
Village Idiot
I'm also a huge "post apocalyptic" fan. Read many of the more popular works - any suggestions?
Funny you should bring that up. Heinlein had a short workabout a family that survived an apocalypse and wound up in the future. Blacks had taken over and were cannibals. That one doen't make the rounds too much.
C.M. Kornbluth had the Marching Morons. Some advertising guy winds up in the future and most people are stupid. The reason most people are stupid is they BREED faster. He included minorities amongst the stupid.
If you have never watched dig up a copy of Hell comes to Frogtown. A Roddy Piper post-apocalypse classic film.
Whitely Strieber has a few world ends books that make interesting reads. John Barnes Mother of all Storms, Charles Stross Iron Sky ( I think) but hell try all his works, Jasper Fforde Shades of Gray,Frank Herberts The White Plague, Greg Bear's Blood Music,
Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars Trilogy, Paolo Bacigalupi's Wind up Girl and Shipbreaker, The Atomic Knights comics.
That's it off the top of my head
that's plenty, thanks.
Try Earth Abides by George Stewart. It was written in 1949, but it's still an excellent read today.
Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is excellent too, but it's a different type of end-of-the-world fiction.
A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller is awesome.
Here's a link to a whole list of books and movies on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fi...
As you can tell, it's my favorite topic when I take time to read fiction.
"The Painted Bird" -
Village Idiot: A Canticle for Liebowitz.
Alas Babylon
http://tinyurl.com/38fjo45
will check it out.
lot's of material, thank you.
VI, cat who walked through walls, number of the beast: RAH and solipsism.
I second Canticle for Liebowitz "can kraut" lol. All of Pat Frank (he came out of Korean war pretty dark, but with some optimism).
- Ned
Oh my...it's been many years since I read those RAH classics. I think I may have to indulge myself again soon. (Was he really a dirty old man? If so, does it make me dirty to like his stories? Oh well...)
'The Aristocrats', Martin Mull version. On You Tube.
READ Starship Troopers if you want a real treat. Also the "Puppet Masters." Most of the rest of Heinlein is depressing, poorly written, gay-ish, crap, or combination.
I second above recommendation on "Alas, Babylon" (post-nukes) and add "One Second After" (post-EMP) as a good book.
If you only watch TV, hit up "Firefly" on your Netflix.
my question also.
i believe that mis/dis information is down to a precise science. as we approach 9/11 some clown threatening to burn the muslim bible fills the msn 24/7. peoples focus is targeted and destroyed. fuck the bastards. turn off the ge news and take delivery.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/09/anniversary-of-911.html
thanks gw.
Excellent, precise observation "people's focus is targeted and destroyed". You could take this one step further, and state that "they" are polluting/destroying the individual AND collective consciousness.
Reason for my non-participation in the TV, MSM and newspaper world. Fuck them, this is my sovereign territory and "they" won't touch it.
What was the 9/11 guest post about?
an excuse for iraq and afghanistan and homeland security and the continued rape of the greatest idea ever.
I would like a link to the piece if the author can provide this.
Can Wikileak host articles censored by ZH? I thought the purpose of your Swedish home was to allow for this?
Did ZH get funded? Must be cause the edge is getting quite dull 'round here....
Shedlock.
powers that be JackES, powers that be...
It's all the same..It will never end........
Deja Vu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDOMuhpqUo&feature=related
We have all been here before, war,,,after war,,,,,after war
Ah, geopol, how good to see you. You were always one of my favorites. Now, it is time to move on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JltnBzjYuMY
Exactly. Having seen the exact same movie many times before, it would be the height of foolishness not to be positioned to both survive & thrive during the next iteration.
We've been in Iraq now for 6.5 years - twice as long as WWII. If it wasn't really just a make work program combined with resource consolidation, we would have been done & gone years ago.
Given these facts, one basically has two options: (a) be pessimistic; or (b) be optimistic. You can moan about how 'it will never end', or ... you can get excited about realizing that 'it will never end'. Get the distinction?
Imagine going to Vegas, and knowing that you would never lose. That's what option (b) implies - it will never end; ergo you will never lose. Therefore, a guaranteed means of gaining & securing wealth for oneself.
If you continue to reside in the US, mentally practice being a virtual ex-pat. Shed any vestiges of patriotic attachments and look dispassionately at the host. Do the people & its system even warrant sympathy? Or does it deserve everything it's going to get?
Once you view the world throught the lense of the latter perspective, you'll find yourself free to think clearly about what's goin' down.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been about Iran. Iran is the reason Obama has not pleased his anti- war supporters. Although Obama does not give a f**k about them anyways. Once you get the information available to the C n C naive academic ideas about cross cultural compassion get crushed immediately.
Excellent critical thinking.
Me: already an ex-pat. Occupation: gold miner!
The natural state of man is war, not peace...
I have never seen a war when I've looked out my window.
We have been lucky so far.. A whole lot of people can't state that..
"We have been lucky so far.."
it would be foolish to think otherwise...
We have been lucky so far.. A whole lot of people can't state that..
But I believe that a majority of people can say that. Unless you can show that more than half of the human race is at war at any given time or that all of the human race is at war half the time you can't reasonably assert that, "the natural state of man is war, not peace."
You left out that Dos Zap is always wanting to kick somebody's ass.
If war and armed conflict are mutually exclusive events then I have to go with the Hulkster. No, I have not witnessed war but from the comfort of the evening news (and I do not mean to make light of it in either definition) yet the history of the world seems combative. All countries can be classified as killers, getting killed or supporting killers.
I think you've hit on something there. People see war and conflict on the TV news and come to the conclusion that the world is far more threatening than it actually is. The media is always trying to frighten folks with one chimera or another. Are you afraid of swine flu yet? How about Iraqi WMDs? Or Iranian WMDs? Or global warming?
Just because the media pushes a particular meme on TV in order to support its command and control agenda doesn't make those stories true. In fact, it's a good indication that such stories are not true.
The natural state of man is not war. Your own experience tells you that the natural state of man is going to work, coming home, kicking back and then trying to get laid on the weekends.
wrong! i think M A N is constantly wanting to get laid.
when the moment is right, i mean
when the moment is right,
I am not making this up:
Word Mark: WHEN THE MOMENT IS RIGHT Status/Status Date: SECOND EXTENSION - GRANTED
8/6/2010
http://www.trademarkia.com/when-the-moment-is-right-77675014.html
oh gee whiz, i made a funny comment.
Bruce W. Longbottom. I could not have made up a better name.
RR,
LOL,
You left out that Dos Zap is always wanting to kick somebody's ass.
That's not War, it's Attitude Adjustment. (:
I would vouch that 99.9% of people fight a "war" in their heads every day. Call it war, call it a state of perma-conflict, call it whatever you want. Really, how many people do you know these days that can exercise clear, concise thinking, that have truly attained a state of "inner peace"?
Perhaps this is what he means.....if so, he would be right.
second your emotion.
damn, i can't even find posts i made comments on.
no clear and concise thinking goin' on in this girl's head.
inner outer whatever, peace is a tough one to appreciate and command.
the only peace i think i can have, is just give up, it doesn't matter anymore.
there4, no problem.
so, show us your tits or something
well, your not so boring. i swear i wrote a post last night about missing cheeks, cause the rest of you left on ZH, are b o r i n g. no avatar turn on's anymore, just plain old boring topics talk. i don't think it would be in my best interest to have titty shots, using my real name.
Don't underestimate the girls.
Be brave!
You did. [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/article/20th-consecutive-week-outflows]You thought the CB in my handle was related to that other CB.[/url]
No worries here, I am not he that you think I am. ;-)
But, I liked his posts too, and also miss him. ;-(
no i am over him. i don't need no lousy cheeky bastard to make my day.
That is fuckin funny!
+ (.) (.)
My former landlord just screwed me for my deposit. My mental state has most definatively been disturbed.
This sucks. I'm sorry.
Well lucky you crockett. There were some born of perfect timing that looked out there window 30 short ticks before "Fat Man". Now what did they see?
Just listened to the most excellent podcast today:
http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/8585568
Well lucky you crockett. There were some born of perfect timing that looked out there window 30 short ticks before "Fat Man". Now what did they see?
In order to refute the statement that, "The natural state of man is war, not peace..." I indicated that my experience has been precisely the opposite. If you agree with the statement that, "The natural state of man is war, not peace..." then shouldn't those folks in Nagasaki have expected the terrible fate which befell them?
Do you believe that you are showing compassion to the victims of war by agreeing that war is inevitable? Only by recognizing that peace is the natural state of man while war is merely the natural state of parasitic governments will you begin to make the changes which make peace possible.
Nations maintain boundaries because of the threat of force. I teach in my university classroom "peacefully" because a small campus militia backs me. But even before that, informal threats (odd stares, disapproval) from peers will make a nonconforming student comply. Power, through the threat of force, suffuses our entire way of being. Your safe neighborhood is safe because of the threat of war or force. Our parents got us started with socialization---> FORCE. It so permeates everything about us, you can't see it. The power is absolute. If we were fish, power of this nature would be the water running over our gills.
So it's 1984 and War=Peace? I don't think so. That's like saying that the natural state of humanity is to be diseased because some people take vitamins in order to maintain optimum health.
Provisions made for security can not be equated with war. It's not semantically correct. How would one differentiate between say, the massive tank battle at Kursk and a couple of security guards having coffee and donuts at the local college campus if both situations are to be defined as "war."
Hulk's original statement:
"The natural state of man is war, not peace..."
is what I am addressing. The threat of violence underpins contracts, taxes, government, and security. I could list much more. If you start acting too screwy in public, they will remove you forcibly from the public. You stay free (see the irony in that?) if you follow the rules. Violate them and violence will be used to enforce them. If you think that outright shooting gunfire and bombs is the only thing that defines war, have at it. But if the dichotomy as defined above, is taken to be war and peace, all those things I describe will not fall into the peace category. They are war baby.
Hulk's original statement:
"The natural state of man is war, not peace..."
is what I am addressing.
As am I.
The threat of violence underpins contracts
Not at all. Contracts are voluntary agreements between free people. If force is used to make one party or another accept a contract then that contract shall be declared null and void.
The threat of violence underpins ...taxes, government,
That's true. The government has no natural right to one's loyalty, servitude or wealth and it employs force in order to extract these from individuals. War is the health of the state.
The threat of violence underpins...security
Self defense is a remedy for evil, injury or damage. The rightful use of force in a defensive situation can not be rightly characterized as a being a threat.
Yes, until one or the other of you violates it. Then what happens next? You get dragged to court and a settlement happens against whoever violated the agreement. Often there are "punitive damages." What happens if you do not do as you are told regarding the settlement? It is the avoidance of this that keeps order.
This is what most nations at WAR, the topic of the discussion, claim. Warriors defend against what they perceive to be a threat to their group's interests.
So now civil court cases are the same thing as war? How can an educator so willfully misuse language which is, after all, your primary tool?
If any object or action can be properly hyperbolized -- a court case is a war, a drop of rain is a hurricane, a whisper is a shout -- then how can you impart to your students any definitive information?
I have not attacked you personally and I don't plan to. I am arguing with you from a particular standpoint based on language, that is just true. Back to Hulk's statement. He set up a dichotomy. War and Peace. Contracts are enforced by the threat of state violence. They can be enforced by good relationships (ie I don't screw you over because I care about you). But because we have evolved such great complexity, because we are so large, we are in a situation where we don't even know our neighbors very well, never mind care about them or have a lot in common with them. The threat of violence is an undercurrent in all our relationships in modernity. The contract is a top down expression of power. But it was present even in simpler times and smaller communities: If you screwed over a neighbor, justice would be carried out and you may not go through a courtroom at all.
You can define what I am talking about as hyperbole if you like. My approach to this is from a post-structuralist standpoint. And yeah, in this approach language itself is a weapon of war. We typically say "knowledge is power" the idea being that if you know something you can get something done. In a PS approach "power is knowledge." Any time we are confronted with a "discourse" or a "body of knowledge", we are confronted with the raw expression of power. When I appeal to a body of knowledge, I appeal to a system of categories set up to include some and exclude others. Any system of knowledge is an expression of power. Mental health, penology, medical, military, hell, even the weight loss industry with their discourses and all of their experts who marginalize some and accept others. There are many theorists who look at it this way, but Michel Foucault would be one to look at (I also cite him so as not to be accused of theft).
I am trying not to go on too long with this explanation, I can write on this stuff for hours. Back to our bulky friend's statement regarding the nature of man. From where I sit, the process of socialization itself is totalizing and violent. From the second mom changes the kid's diaper and goes ewww at the poop, the process is started. Poopy baby is not an okay baby. Clean baby is a good baby.
How about if I say it a different way. The Hulk's statement is very defensible if you are willing to look at War as a structure/frame/lens through which to analyze society.
The nature of man is war... I take this sociologically or anthropologically.
OUR ARGUMENT HERE IS WAR
From Wiki
Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I've never won an argument with him.
If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.
He shot down all of my arguments.
Never mind the language in the business world, holy shit!
War can be viewed as a frame from which to interpret social life. War can be looked at as something that occupies a great deal of the content of our culture.
Both as form and content, war suffuses our being.
I have not attacked you personally and I don't plan to.
That's rather pacifistic for an opening salvo. Have you deserted your post?
The threat of violence is an undercurrent in all our relationships in modernity.
What a sad and fearful existence you must lead.
You can define what I am talking about as hyperbole if you like.
What's that -- one of the new terms of the Geneva Convention?
From where I sit, the process of socialization itself is totalizing and violent.
What did your parents do to you?
How about if I say it a different way. The Hulk's statement is very defensible if you are willing to look at War as a structure/frame/lens through which to analyze society.
I am not willing to look at war as a lens through which to view society. I won't be conned into hating my fellow man. Don't you realize that that is the biggest con game going?
Never mind the language in the business world, holy shit!
Now you're onto something: a scatological lens through which to analyze the world. Some examples:
-- You're full of shit.
-- Get the lead out.
-- You've got your head up your ass.
-- I'm pooped.
Perhaps you should rework your dissertation along the lines of "Human Existence: I Don't Give a Crap."
You are not interested in a discussion. To be exceedingly clear, you have spent your last two posts telling me what is wrong with me. I thought you wanted to talk about ideas. I was mistaken. Makes me sad.
Good bye.
Here is a parting gift for you:
http://www.survivalblog.com/
You are not interested in a discussion.
But I am interested in discussion. I thought we could talk more about the origin of common phrases and how they relate not only to war or poop but to other interests as well. For example, there are a great many nautical phrases in use -- three sheets to the wind, three squares, dead eye, (and yes once again) poop.
To be exceedingly clear, you have spent your last two posts telling me what is wrong with me. I thought you wanted to talk about ideas. I was mistaken. Makes me sad.
If that's not ironic I don't know what is. You think we are at war and in my effort to convince you otherwise you've become a causality. Don't be sad. My comments weren't meant to be personal and you gotta admit there was some funny stuff in there. Picture me typing my comments with a good natured smile.
I am familar with survivalblog, thanks.
Peace!
MsCreant,
" Power, through the threat of force, suffuses our entire way of being."
This,in it's purest form, is what human government is for.
Government, run properly, top to bottom, is to have be structured, promote a safe, peaceful,productive,and orderly society.
It's ultimate function is for the suppression of Anarchy, and to maintain a semblance of tranquilty, and safety for it's citizens(subjects),etc.
Unfortunately, we have a corrupt one,and have had for longer than any here have been alive.
Right.
But the "glue" that holds that safe,peaceful, productive and orderly society together is FORCE.
That "Force" can take many forms - beginning with mild social disapproval from one's peers and ending with an all-powerful state beating your head into the ground while it takes from you all of your property as "compensation" or "punishment".
And you don't have to commit a "crime" or "civil wrong" to have this force involuntarily applied to you - even in the U.S., merely the "wrong" utterance or displaying evidence of "wrongthink" will have you forcibly dealt with.
In any society or group, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
I thought your supposed to give a dog treats.
Woof Woof.
Only a man who has not gone through that madness or experienced deep loss could say something like that. Grow up.
The natural state of free men is peace. The natural state of slaves is war.
Glad you caught that one!
Yes, my home internet is very slow, so it took me several minutes to get back to the edit screen. I saw it about a millisecond after I hit "Save".
I'm switching over to a dedicated wireless pipe next week. Hopefully it will work (at $160/month, it better!). Rural internet is a pain in the ass.
What about the new android phones.
Super hot spot capable for way less then 160 a month?
It is likely to suffer from the same oversubscription as all the other services around here. The $160 is for dedicated pipe, meaning I get to utilize a full 1.5 Mbps all day and all night if I want, absent power outages, bad weather, etc.