The "Game Over" Redux

Tyler Durden's picture

Back in November, we posted a piece by Knight Research titled "The Game Is Over" in which the firm's strategist Mark Lapolla presented his thesis why he believes that "the structural and cyclical terms of global trade have finally reached their tipping point. This will catalyze a wholesale change in sentiment and a historic repositioning of risk assets. The emerging market global growth story is over." And while the article came out just as the barrage of $750 billion in daily POMOs courtesy of QE2 was starting and hence masked the true state of reality, now that QE2 is finishing, it is only appropriate to bring Mark back up front, as the imminent and very violent convergence of the rosy myth that is the stock market, and of the underlying miserable reality, is about to wake up all those who have been dozing under the Pied Printer of Eccleslin's soothing tune, and Lapolla's thesis is about to see its first validation. In essence, while we have heard much from those who claim that the end game will come as a result of hyperinflation, Lapolla is convinced in the opposite: namely that the end will be not a bang but a hyperdeflationary whimper. In order to refresh readers with his thoughts, recently Lapolla conducted an interview with the master questioner Kate Welling in which the Knight strategist laid out his uber-bearish case in more gruesome detail than most can stomach. Below we present the key points from his interview, as well as the full thing subsequently.

In a nutshell, and this won't come as a surprise to anyone, Lapolla believes that "the game is over because there is no collateral... When consumer debt is rooted 75%-plus in residential real estate and residential real estate is impaired, easy Federal Reserve  monetary policy simply cannot make it to Main Street. The transmission mechanism is broken. There is no conduit. "

Lapolla's observations on the secular shift in the employment structure:

What's going on here is very simple. John Maynard Keynes wrote a letter entitled, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren "in 1930, in which he coined the term "technological unemployment." He said it's a term nobody has heard of, but you are going to be hearing a lot about it. Of course, he was writing about the use of technology to supplant labor in the factory... Any way you slice it, nominal wages, real wages, hourly wages, the duration of unemployment — all of these measures imply that we have a  growing structural fracture in the labor markets.

On the irrelevance of week to week and month to month micro fluctuations in the jobs numbers:

Right now, the full employment gap is running about 11 million jobs. That's a shocking gap and, although this is very difficult to quantify, we have a sinking suspicion that — while a number of the jobs that are being created right now might in fact be "good jobs" - they're being filled by over-qualified labor no longer able to wait for jobs at compensation levels similar to what they had before. Now, in the very long run, this might work itself out, but in the short run it doesn't do anything to change the outlook for the consumer. What it does is suggest that people are going to have to shift down the way they live and the way they expect to live — perhaps even further than they already have. Thus, the propensity to save in this country has to continue to rise — which (although not in the short term) is very bullish long term — whether that's captured in the aggregate data or not. So as you've gathered, we are very different from consensus, first and foremost, when it comes to the secular structure of labor and credit in the U.S.

On the previously discussed topic of Squatter's Rent (discussed extensively here):

There are roughly six to seven million folks who are no longer paying on the mortgages on their homes, so if we do some really simple arithmetic, it suggests in the aggregate as much as $100 billion of annualized consumer income is being freed up to find its way into consumer spending elsewhere in the economy, instead of going towards the satisfaction of housing debt..., the real question is if, or when, does the foreclosure mechanism begin to kick back into gear and then accelerate? At this juncture, there really isn't a tremendous amount of evidence that it's going to accelerate. Let me give you a tangible example. We know someone who has lost his job and is in a home with a $1.45 million mortgage. The house is on the market at $1.3 million, which we guess is the degree to which the home has been written down on the books of the mortgage holder. The property taxes on the home are about $20,000 a year, so he has been expecting an eviction notice or a foreclosure proceeding for almost 18 months. Yet his property taxes have been mysteriously paid every year. What is going on is clear: If the bank or whomever holds that mortgage note were to foreclose, the house's liquidation value is prob¬ably about $900,000. So they would have to take a further $400,000 writedown on that mortgage. Which makes paying $20,000 a year in property taxes, look like a relative bargain.

On Europe's state of suspended animation:

Europe right now is still kicking the deflationary can down the street; trying to postpone and prolong the inevitable. Meanwhile, they're trying to cover their tracks with verbiage claiming they're pursing mandated fiscal and monetary austerity policies and monetary policy. But the ECB's bump up in rates of 25 basis points isn't material. And all of this is intensifying the deflationary pressures on the periphery countries. So Europe is in a state of suspended animation, where the deflationary pressures are spilling out but even the sort of modest financial restructuring the United States is trying is still being resisted. It's clearly not a stable situation.

On the "China" question:

I think the China situation, how¬ever, is profoundly obvious and profoundly simple. The idea that the free world is placing its hope in a repressive, communist regime employing command and control economic management while violating trade protections and human rights everywhere is absolutely astounding, amazing. I would suggest that, in itself, should be a sufficient warning flag. But let's be a lot more specific. I actually see the situation in China as very analogous to the U.S. in 1929 and Japan in the 1980s....I'll just tick off eight similarities between China circa 2011 and the U.S. before the Depression. 1) Massive disparity of wealth, income, and education. 2) Rapid industrialization and displacement of labor. 3) Opaque and misleading economic and financial data. 4) Massive build-up of leverage across the "rising" class. 5) Bubbles in both residential real estate and fixed asset/infrastructure development. 6) Accelerating and uncontrolled growth in disintermediated credit. 7) Expected transference of economic growth to domestic demand. And, finally, an accelerating price/wage spiral. Nonetheless, to China's credit, they have a booming economy which has drawn the attention, admiration and certainly the economic aspirations of the world. The irony is, despite its hubris, China appears to have lost control — and has done so by doing everything it could to avoid that. Essentially, in its own zeal to placate its masses with rapid growth, China has created a tide of inflation that threatens it with wide-spread social unrest. But if it crushes speculation and clamps down on credit, it risks a deflationary collapse that would also threaten social harmony. The upshot is that China no longer controls its own destiny. The free markets do. As an aside, I would suggest that in the not-too distant future, when this all unravels, there will be downside as well as upside for the U.S., particularly as it relates to what we were talking about before, the way the U.S. has benefited from the value of intellectual property versus scale.

On China's Lewis Point (discussed extensively here):

If there was one thing that pushed us over the edge to publish it last November, it was our belief, now confirmed, that China and an increasing number of other emerging markets are caught in a price/wage spirals that they're not going to be able to control through monetary, fiscal or legislative policy. These are an inevitable result, not only of the credit boom, but of the manufacturing engine they're living by. This is the great differentiator between the U.S. and China. The reason a systemic inflation cannot happen here for a long time and why it is happening in China is simply this: When labor is in the business of manufacturing goods (as opposed intellectual property or services), labor has a call on rising finished goods prices. When commodities prices begin to increase and manufacturers attempt to raise finished goods prices, wage rates must go up or labor's value is necessarily diminished. This is the dynamic traditional U.S. manufacturing businesses faced decades ago, and now, in China, it has reached epic proportions. We've seen 20% to 30% wage increases by the government on the low end and by contract manufacturers such as Foxconn (FXCNF), which does the Apple (AAPL) iPhone, on the high end. It has raised wage rates, almost 30%. China bulls believe this wage inflation is good for workers and so ultimately is going to help China accelerate consumer demand as an engine of their growth. Nonetheless, it hasn't and won't, for a couple of reasons. 1) Savings rates actually are rising in the major city centers. 2) China's consumer confidence numbers and research on the ground in China both show that labor has never been less secure than they are now, which seems paradoxical. One would think that China's new¬found international power, along with higher incomes, would make Chinese workers feel all is right with the world. The problem is that the cost of living is growing even faster. Without getting too technical, China has probably crossed over what's called, in academic theory, the Lewis Point, where the movement of labor from agriculture into manufacturing reaches a peak and begins to taper off as manufacturing labor begins to reconsider whether life in fact wasn't better back on the farm.

On the link between inflation and money:

Increased money supply is not a causal factor for inflation. It's like suggesting that a bartender is a causal factor for alcoholism. In reality, reserves, whether they exist in the system's books or not, are always available. Credit creation cannot really be controlled. If you and I want to create a loan between ourselves, we can do it. If a bank wants to create a loan, it can do it. The only thing that can mitigate that ability is regulation of the banks. However, if we consider the off-balance-sheet and shadow banking mechanisms, there really is no way to control that credit creation. The only way the Federal Reserve can influence credit creation is by raising or lowering short-term rates. With that said, we're at the outer bound, at zero, and what we're finding is that demand for money is not increasing as the cost of money goes to zero — which is not unlike what we saw in Japan. What is happening, however, as ever when the cost of money stays this low, is that speculators are inclined to speculate because the cost of speculation on leverage is negligible.

The reason why, in Lapolla's opinion, the Fed has failed in generating systemic inflation (and why the Fed will keep coming back, and doing the same wrong things over and over until everything finally breaks)

The reason [we don't have systemic inflation] is that the labor markets are fractured. So, at the end of the day, what we're having now is an asset inflation again, an echo. We're not seeing the seeds or leading edge of wage/price inflation, the true driver of damaging systemic inflation. Asset inflation resolves itself in one way, and one way only, and that's through asset deflation. So we have ongoing asset deflation in the residential real estate market. We have ongoing asset deflation in the commercial real estate market and we will ultimately have asset deflation across China and Asia.

On what would happen to the global economy if the dollar were to collapse versus the euro and commodities:

Global deflation and depression are what would happen.

On what self-cannibalizing HFT algorithms means for volume and for the markets in general.

Doesn't it necessarily imply that there must be real inefficiencies in pricing on the table, for long-term investors, if everyone is totally focused on the short term? So, suggesting that "the game is over" has implications across the board. It has implications in terms of the way asset allocators think about investing, the way their money managers think about deploying capital, and ultimately about the way corporate managers think about deploying shareholder capital. We in effect are in this very awkward "teenage" stage where we've just had this fracturing shock, the credit crash, the exposing of all the financial hubris and misallocation of capital. We haven't even moved to credibly addressing those issues in Europe and we're still holding onto the notion that the emerging markets — which are just getting their first taste of capitalism on the back of reckless credit expansion and speculation — can somehow become the engine that overwhelms the massive deleveraging of the developed world. It's a preposterous notion. I'm not being fatalistic. This is the way history moves. In 30 years, it will be clear to people, looking back, that this is the final chapter of the old story in which finance, financiers, leverage and short-term trading ruled the world.

On what the "sequel" is:

We're moving towards something that, by definition, is going to have to address the real structural issues — in the U.S., fractured labor markets, still-excessive credit and unsupportable levels of debt tied to homes, a rising propensity to save, bleak expectations for wages and investment returns. From our vantage point, it's only a question of timing. But it's entirely possible that there won't be an asymmetrically positive outcome for the globe. "Growth" is not a fait accompli. In fact, there can and probably should be periods, lengthy periods, of virtually no growth; of consolidation and pruning. So we would reject the notion that growth necessarily has to happen. Very marginal, just population-type, growth could in fact be the order of the day, and that implies a re-pricing of risk capital across the board.

Lastly, his investment advice:

Those who are bit more speculative, we're encouraging to pick a spot where they will buy the U.S. long bond, if not zeros on the U.S. long bond, as rates start to move closer to 5%. It's likely to have very high, equity-type returns, in short bursts.

Full interview with Kate Welling:

2011 05 Game Over _China_

h/t Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Arrowflinger's picture

Game over.

Government referees threw the game.


JW n FL's picture

Transitory Manipulation for the Benefit of the New Normal, Sir…

mophead's picture

Game over? Too much dept? End of QE2?

Sock Puppet's picture


"Lapolla is convinced in the opposite: namely that the end will be not a bang but a hyperdeflationary whimper."

Just another Mo Fo trying to get you to sell your PMs.

Don't do it, Troll alert.

Rynak's picture

@Tylers: I love what you do, but it would be helpful if in some articles you'd use the enter key a few more times :-)

FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

Let's hope it is game over soon, after all, those who are enjoying the game are the only ones who would want it to continue. Sanity asks who would possibly want a game to continue that they aren't enjoying... anyone enjoying this 'game'?

Rynak's picture

Anything that doesn't involve the word "nuclear" and doesn't involve dictatorships is a fine "end" to me.

JohnG's picture

So we are already only half way there?

Rynak's picture

:-/ yeah.... i noticed that when writing it..... considered rephrasing it to "the state not getting much worse than it is already" or smth like that.... but then just thought "too complicated - people will get it anyways"

sullymandias's picture

i thought he was talking about the nuclear half..

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

I am very sceptical about posts that entice you to short stocks, because the end is near and posts that entice you to stay with stocks because the shark must keep swimming to survive.

I think that both want to feed on players whether long or short. They can suck blood either direction with their HTF uber-software.

Thus, only a few of my marbles are in play as a hedge. Mostly puts

chubbar's picture

Sorry but ALL of your marbles are "in play". Cash IS a risk position if the gov't backing them is 14T in debt with 100+T in out year obligations. If your cash is in some other currency then perhaps it is marginally safer or in greater danger depending on the backing country. Have no illusions about what is coming, a full re-write of the monetary system. There are no SAFE positions without making an assumption about the future value/purchasing power of the US dollar, which you are doing IMO.

Zero Govt's picture

John Maynard Keynes ..coined the term "technological unemployment." ...writing about the use of technology to supplant labor in the factory

Did the West, who out-engineered and out-robotocised the East (USSR), create more unemployment? ...or did the West create more wealth and employment through the productivity and efficiency of machines?

Academics and economists always manage to lack common sense and miss economic history/reality which is why it's about time they were all made redundent 

Rynak's picture

As i wrote a few times already, economic planners should worry less about how to reduce unemployment, and worry more about how to stop making it a problem. Machines are here to stay. Increases in efficiency are here to stay. Trying to fight it, is a fighting a losing war. Think about how to solve it, rather than compensate it. But be warned: This WILL involve cultural and moral changes are the rootlevel - and they are not what "oppressors" would want.

rufusbird's picture

You are so right. The solutions are not financial or technical. They are social issues that corporations have no interest in. What kind of world will we have in 100 years? Interesting to consider...

johnnynaps's picture

It's good to see that there are a FEW that can see this! Thomas Jefferson said "leave the afternoon for recreation and exercise"......good to see they were able to enjoy the afternoon 200 years ago! What time period are we living in now that we have to work the whole damn day away? What is the sense in advancing the human race since it apparently makes the workday longer. We have the capability and technology to do without the 50 hour workweek......time to find a system for the entire country to live a comfortable life.

Rynak's picture

not just working the whole damn day.... working the whole damn day DESPITE of massive increases in efficiency. This alone.... that an increase in efficiency results in MORE work.... should ring alarm bells that something is seriously going wrong.

And if that isn't enough to wake up people stuck in the common mantra, then here is my usual oversimplistic (but structurally valid) hypothetical example: Imagine a small island with a population of 10 people, who for whatever reason only need bread to survive. At first, 10 people are necessary to produce enough bread for everyone. Then a while later, only 7 people (or 70% of time) are needed to produce enough bread for everyone. On our common sense island, the people will be happy that they now have more capacity free to do other stuff than working to survive. But in our current system, the happiness and wealth turns into partial poverty and existencial fear.

johnnynaps's picture

Couldn't agree more! The funny thing about our current predicament compared to your logical illustration is.......we are over $14 Trillion in debt and the workday needs to get longer to pay it back. Now that's IRONY! I am personally trying to work minimally, because I don't support the GDP system, our bloated GMENT, these wars, the debt I didn't cause, the Oligarchy, 55 hour workweeks, our Judicial system and this stupid way of life where everything we produce turns to crap thus causing pollution and creating obscure diseases.

Rynak's picture

Which is why a gov shouldn't even be allowed to engage in such massive programs with money/debt of people who do not support it. If we already do not get to vote on such stuff, may we at least vote with our money?

Quixotic_Not's picture

But the sheeple did support it!

They kept voting for the (D) & (R) Free Crap Empire™ election after mind-numbing election, didn't they?

johnnynaps's picture

Most. Unfortunately, this population doesn't embrace change and isn't smart enough to recognize when change is needed.

BobPaulson's picture

Humans evolved in a simpler world with many fewer abstract concepts required for survival or integration into society. As it gets more complicated, that normal distribution of intelligence stays put, while the median required intelligence to function slowly creeps up.

It doesn't make sense to ridicule the less intelligent. They're not going to go away. If we plan a world that steadily requires more smarts to function, we're naive to be shocked when some people can't cope with it.

grok's picture

well.. or rather, priority should be placed by the planners in making people more educated before making processes more complicated (growth of intelligence being a nurtured attribute).

BobPaulson's picture

There are sustainability issues if we would hope to keep providing more education to the population. I'm a professor, and I see a bubble in education where too many people are getting more education for more costs, too many professors writing too much bullshit, yadda yadda. That feels very top heavy when many students don't give a shit about the content as long as they get the credentials. 

Again, from a sustainability standpoint, we I don't think it's wise to envision a world on a ramp to continuous growth in anything, be it education, organization complexity, resource use, or population - of course, M2 has no notional limit, especially with the convenience of floating point arithmetic :)

ibjamming's picture

And they KEEP on telling us that the races are equal! 

Sure they are equal...THAT'S why they compete so well? 

Blacks and browns don't have the smarts to make it in our "white" modern system...they don't...that's why they NEED affirmative action, they need welfare, and that's why our inner city schools are so shitty.  It's why all the inner cities suck. 

It's like we're expecting the cows on the farm to take care of themselves.  They CAN'T.  If they were in "the wild" they could scratch out a living...but they don't have the "smarts" to survive in a modern farm setting...without people to do the complicated stuff for them. 

I've been saying this for years...of course, with our conditioning...nobody listens.

Alpha Monkey's picture

I wonder what racism does to self confidence?  I wonder what poverty, worrying about food and shelter and other basic neccessities does to self confidence?  I wonder why "blacks and browns" are willing to work in shitty conditions for little pay and don't stand up to their bosses demanding respect?  I wonder what it's like hoping to be qualified for financing, or being able to afford financing earning minimum wage with most of your income going to food and energy?  Somehow I don't think it's their inability to compete, but rather the marvelous system we have set up that keeps people properly in their place.  It's not just inner city schools that suck, but most schools throughout the united states.  Why?  Because white people beleive everyone should be like them.  Therefore they have set up the school system, not to teach one how to learn and become inteligent critical thinkers, but instead how to follow orders, stay in line, and be smart enough to play in the "white" system where you get a job and keep your head down for the rest of your life.


interesting perspective I have on this one, I'm half hispanic but was raised in a nice racist midwest town, where I learned how to live the "white" way as a brown person.  I think you need to spend more time widening your perspective.

sleepingbeauty's picture


The risk to thinking this way, and assuming that you are part of the crowd that is intelligent enough, is that you need to take a "Big Brother" role in protecting the people who can't understand. At some point in your protecting them, you have a situation where what is best for you is worse for them and vice versa. You convince yourself that if you don't survive they cannot (kind of like the parent putting the air mask on before their kids on an airplane). And after that it gets easier to do what is best for you. And then you can believe you are doing God's work.

JW n FL's picture

the reality of.. or our shared reality... is that the Duly Elected have sold us po' folk down the river for some pretty trinkets and beads!


here's a Great Slave Song that we should all learn.. so that we can sing it together while working for slop.


You might as well get in the mood, for your kids sake becuase they will surely being singing this song becuase no one wanted to get off their fat ass! no one wanted to threaten their pension.. lol! PENSION PROTECTIONS!!! LMFAO!!!

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

@ Rynak

That was a failed experiment already. We exported physical work to China and we were sitting on desks playing solitaire and had "bring your daughter to work" days, blue jean Fridays and company barbecues. No pain no gain. 

Rynak's picture

Well, perhaps instead of playing solitaire, we could use the time to create more "luxury" (art, entertainment, literature, research) on a freelancer basis..... but you know, that would imply a society that no longer is living to survive, but has managed to solve existencial needs totally, and which now is concerned with stuff beyond this..... but noooo, must stay lowly primitives who live in fear of death. In the big picture, it almost is like mass-sadomasochism.... a civilization that has the technology and knowhow to make existencial needs peanuts, yet still artificially makes itself fight for survival.

Hey, i got an idea.... if those fucking stupid morons like pain so much, could they at least let those who are a bit more evolved, do something better with their life?

swissbene's picture

nice.  the mental model is key first step.  in my experience, people are often constrained by their own thinking.

when i quit corp job, colleagues/friends/family very curious 'what would i do'.  ie how possibly to fill the void and achieve meaning.

sometimes i felt obligated to make something up.  simply to 'consume' one's own life is foreign to the dominant work-to-consume model.

i am with you & T. Jefferson though.  even seems obvious :)

FreeNewEnergy's picture

Your comments have hit the nail pretty squarely, but, allow me to add, current economic conditions are fostering an environment where work has changed and what you call the "existential needs" might more reasonably be filled by the technology-marginalized workers, such as home gardening, DYI home repair and generally more resourcefulness and less dependence on the "system", the grid.

I am one of these technology-marginal types, in my own home business, with very limited overhead, having to actually do work about five to six hours a day, and that only four days a week. The rest of my time is spent raising my own vegetables, making my home more energy efficient and sourcing other income streams. It's actually a pretty sweet spot.

The promise of technology was always presented - back in the 60s and 70s - as more leisure time, but the banksters and politicians stole that luxury lifestyle from the common man. However, through their own rampant greed, this is backfiring, because more people are now on welfare (read: government-supplied leisure), not paying mortgages (bankster inspired leisure), and working less (congress, thanks for doing nothing).

With all this free time on their hands, common folks - the smart ones - are devising ways to capitalize and take back their leisure, which has some new definitions, such as, leisure as not spending, leisure as self-education, leisure as efficiency.

Deflation is going to hurt the most at the top of the food chain. Those already at or near the bottom will be scarcely affected, while the smartest of that group will actually prosper, just as in the depression.

It's all coming at very slow speed, thanks to the Fed's unending fight against deflation, but it's coming, no matter what. There is no other good alternative.

Baptiste Say's picture

Yeah, all the coal, iron ore, copper, steel, rare earth, thermoplastics, semiconductors, oil, gas, electricty and whatever else you rely on to maintain your life of sloth is going to extract and produce itself if we simply focus more on art and literature.


Piss off you bum.

Seer's picture

"Machines are here to stay. Increases in efficiency are here to stay."

Saying so won't make it so.

Machines require energy.  As was the case with (corn-based esp) ethanol, people finally got it, got that the machines weren't going to get that energy.  Walk around any nearby city and note the vandalism; infrastructure gets pummeled when people are messed up.

Further, 2/3 of the world's population subsists on the equivalent of $3/day or less- do you think that machines play a big role in Their world?

Lastly, in regards to "efficiency," look up Jevons Paradox.

Rynak's picture

When i said efficiency, i meant efficiency. That is: Requiring less input to get the desired output. Unless knowledge or ability to built such mechanisms is lost, it stays and only increases with accumulating improvements (i agree though, that the returns must in the longterm be dimishing).

P.S.: Energy/Ressource supply certainly matters, and it is one reason why i consider nowadays wasteful and growth-greedy culture so problematic. It doesn't change the advantages of increased efficiency though. Even if ressources decrease, i can still get more output per input, with efficiency improvements.

StychoKiller's picture

RICH Economy step 1:


Offer a prize of $50,000/year to any worker that designs a
machine/software/process that will replace him/her.
Offer an additional prize of $30,000/year to ALL OTHER WORKERS that get replaced.

Answering conservative objections:
1. A machine works 24/7, thereby tripling output immediately.
2. Machines do not take sick leave.
3. Machines are never late for work.
4. Machines do not form unions and constantly ask for higher wages and more fringe benefits.
5. Machines do not take vacations.
6. Machines do not harbor grudges and foul up production in sneaky, undetectable ways.
7. Cybernation was advancing every decade anyway, despite the opposition of Unions, government, and other Alpha males; it was better to have huge populations celebrating the reward of $30K to $50K/year for group cleverness than huge populations suffering the humiliation of welfare.
8. With production rising due to Cybernation, consumers were needed and a society on welfare was a society of very meager consumers.

The majority of the unemployed, living comfortably on $30k/year, spent most of their time drinking, smoking, engaging in primate sexual acrobatics and watching TV.
When Moralists complained that this was a subhuman existence, Hubbard answered, "And what kind of existence did they have doing idiot jobs that machines do better?"

[/quote] -- R.A. Wilson

TrueStrengthTurnsTheCheek's picture

Sorry I dont buy it. This could only happen in a sane world not run by elite/evil bankers who would much rather just inslave us all. they will lie to us until its to late to do anything and we wake up realizing we own nothing of value and must beg the government to feed us. thats how I see it. get some physical silver/guns and stay free!

Crab Cake's picture

It will never, never ever, be too late to do something. What? You think you are going to live forever? I plan to die on my feet, rather than live on my knees should it come to that.

sullymandias's picture

i guess when you die on your feet it will be too late to do anything..

serotonindumptruck's picture

Thought I recognized that quote.

"It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!" -- Emiliano Zapata

Well done. ;-)

TrueStrengthTurnsTheCheek's picture

hey! I meant for the general populous. I've made the proper preperation to stay free (0 debt, ounces upon ounces of silver, retreat house with years supply food and water, guns and ammo) nothings ever certain but I plan to make it through all this just fine. drones do worry me...

johnnynaps's picture

when drones are used against the population, that is when we strategically storm police headquarters and get some of our own.

TrueStrengthTurnsTheCheek's picture

Ah but what about when they are using drones not against the "population" but against "terrorists"?

drones already kill thousands of innocents in tens of countries because we think they are killing terrorists. we are being set up the 60 minutes piece on sovereign citizens as "terrorists" and the threat we are constantly reminded of "homegrown" terrorists.. the gov. will spin it however they want and the american sheeple will eat it up. a police state is being enacted across the world with the civilian control mechanisms being tested in america and europe and the rebellion control mechanisms being tested in iraq/afghanistan/pakistan.

Rynak's picture

Ownership only works as long as most people respect it. Material force overrides all "laws" if the force is strong enough. Casualities on the other hand......

nufio's picture

+1. i never understood why people think that their ownership of something would actually be considered fair by others.. just because they themselves think they earned it.

I think personal property rights is just ingrained in the moral code that we grew up with, but for someone who grew up in a communist nation for example it might not be evident.

serotonindumptruck's picture

I'm reminded of Chief Seattle's philosophy on land ownership.

Seer's picture

Yeah, I think that we should all hold hands and sing "let's protect property rights" when everyone is homeless and TPTB own/control it all.  NOTE: TPTB aren't communists, they aren't anything, really, just folks who will do anything to stay on top of the pile.

gangland's picture

you could say such folks are legitimately a separate species, a further evolved species than sapiens...homo psychopathicus