Guest Post: No Way Out

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Doug Casey of Casey Research

No Way Out

I really dislike sounding inflammatory. Saying that things are going to
go terribly wrong runs a risk of being classed with those who think
the world will end in December 2012 because of something Nostradamus or
the Bible says, or because that’s what the Mayan calendar predicts.

This is different. In the real world, cause has effect. Nobody has a
crystal ball, but a good economist (there are some, though very few, in
existence) can definitely pinpoint causes and estimate not only what
their immediate and direct effects are likely to be (that’s not hard; a
smart kid can usually do that) but the indirect and delayed effects.

In the first half of this year, people were looking at the U.S. economy
and seeing that some things were better. Auto sales were up – because
of the wasteful Cash for Clunkers program. Home sales were up – because
of the $8,000 credit and distressed pricing. Employment was up – partly
because of Census hiring, and partly because hundreds of billions have
been thrown at the economy. The recovery impresses me as a charade.

Let’s get beyond what the popular media parrots are telling us and
attempt to derive some reasonable assumptions about how things really
are and where they’re headed.

A Brief Summary of Our Story So Far….

Before we get to where things stand at the moment, let’s briefly look at where we‘ve come from.

That a depression was in the cards has been foreseeable for decades.
The distortions cranked into the system in the ‘60s – the era of “guns
and butter” spending by the government – resulted in the tumult of the
‘70s. Things could, and one could argue should, have come unglued then.
But they didn’t, for a number of reasons that have only become clear
in retrospect: 

  • Interest rates were allowed to rise to curative levels;
  • The markets were non-manipulated and so, as they became quite depressed, were left to send out real distress signals;
  • The U.S. was still running a trade surplus;
  • The dollar had only come off the gold standard in 1971 and was still relatively sound.

Then, starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the world’s governments
started cutting taxes and deregulating. The USSR collapsed peaceably.
China, then India, made a shift toward free markets. And on top of it
all, the computer revolution got seriously underway. All told, a good
formula for recovery and a sound foundation for a boom.

But sadly, taxes, government spending, and deficits soon started
heading much higher. Despite the collapse of its only conceivable
enemy, U.S. military spending continued to skyrocket. Monetary policy
encouraged everyone to take on huge amounts of debt, much more than ever
in the past, and everyone soon found they could live way above their
means. The stock, real estate, and bond markets got pumped up to
ridiculous levels. The main U.S. export became trillions of paper
dollars. Worst of all, the U.S. devolved into just another country,
undistinguished by anything other than a legacy of a high standard of

The standard of living in the U.S. is now going down for these reasons,
and others. But most disturbing to the average American is the falling
position of the U.S. relative to the rest of the world. In brief,
Americans won’t take kindly to the notion that they can’t continue
earning, say, $10-40 an hour, for doing exactly the same thing a
Chinese will do for $1-4 an hour.

What’s going to happen is that the Americans’ earnings are going to
drop, while those of the Chinese are going to rise, meeting someplace
in the middle. Especially when the Chinese works harder, longer, saves
his money, and doesn’t burden his employer with all kinds of legacy
benefits, topped off with lawsuits. This is a new threat, one that
can’t be countered with B-2 bombers. It’s also something as big and as
inevitable as a glacier coming down a valley during an Ice Age.

This, along with other problems presented by the business cycle have ushered in the Greater Depression. 

How Long Will the Greater Depression Last?        

Let’s briefly recap two definitions of a depression, along with a
couple of examples, with an eye to seeing how things may evolve from

One definition is that a depression is a period of time when most
people’s standard of living drops significantly. Russia had this kind of
depression from roughly 1917 to 1990, so more than 70 years. A second
definition is that it is a period of time when economic distortions and
misallocations of capital are liquidated. Russia had this kind of
depression from 1990 up to about 2000. It was very sharp but relatively

The difference between these two examples is that, during the first,
the state was in total – or even increasing – control. By the time of
the second, the country had greatly liberalized. As a result, the
depression was a period of necessary and tumultuous change, rather than
drawn-out agony. A depression can be a bad thing or a good thing,
partly depending on which definition applies.

Today, things are problematic in Russia for a number of reasons that
aren’t germane to this article. But people can own property,
entrepreneurs can start businesses, and the top tax rate is 11%. The
depression of 1990-2000 resulted in greatly improved conditions in

Let’s look at a couple of other examples: Haiti and Mozambique.

Haiti has been a disaster since Day One and has no current prospect of
improvement. The billions of dollars Obama is idiotically about to send
them will evaporate like a quart of water poured into the Sahara – just
like the billions of aid and charity that have gone before it. Worse,
it will eliminate the necessity of Haiti making meaningful reforms.
Additional aid actually precludes the possibility of liquidating
distortions, misallocations of capital, and unsustainable patterns of
life. It’s counterproductive.

Mozambique went through a long and nasty civil war from about 1970 to
the early ‘90s. The war made conditions worse than anything even Haiti
has seen. But when it came to an end, the Mozambicans changed things
simply in order to survive. The place is hardly a beacon of the free
market today, but duties and taxes have been reduced, most parastatals
have been privatized, and entrepreneurs can operate. It’s a good sign
that the country is drawing foreign investment but very little foreign
aid, which always just cements people in their bad habits while
ensuring government officials stay in office.  

Why do I bring up these examples? Because it’s clear to me the U.S. is
heading in the direction of Russia before 1990, or Haiti today. Not in
absolute terms, of course. But everything the U.S. government is doing –
raising taxes, increasing regulations, and inflating the currency – is
not only the wrong thing to do, but exactly the opposite of the right

This is really serious, because the government is the 800-pound gorilla
in the room. What governments do makes all the difference – actually
the only difference – in how countries perform. How else to explain
that Haiti and Singapore were on pretty much the same level after World
War 2, and look where they are now.

To my thinking, the U.S. is now clearly on the path Argentina started
down with the Peron regime. Cause has effect. Actions have
consequences, and the result will be much the same. Except I believe the
descent of the U.S. will be  much faster, much scarier, and will end
in a much harder landing than that experienced by

I say this because there’s no realistic possibility the Obama regime is
going to change course. To the contrary, they’re likely to accelerate
in the present direction. They believe the government should direct
society – as do most Americans at this point. They feel government is a
magic cure-all and not only can but should “do something” in response
to any problem. Most complaints aren’t that they’re doing too much, but
that they’re doing too little. Everything on the political front,
therefore, is a disaster. There’s absolutely no prospect I can see that
it will get better, and every indication it will get worse.

I’m not going to try to predict what will happen in the 2012 elections,
but it’s fair to say the last several elections are indicators of the
degraded state of the average American. What are the chances they’ll
make a 180-degree turn, in the direction of someone like Ron Paul? I’d
say close to zero, and libertarianism will remain a fringe movement, at
best. Will Boobus americanus vote for someone who says the government
should actually do less – much less – in the middle of a
crisis? Especially if the current wars expand, which is quite likely in
this kind of environment? No way.

Simply, the chances of a reversal in what passes for the philosophical
attitude of this country are slim and none. And Slim’s left town. While
there are some who hope for an improvement on the political front, I
think that’s very naïve.

The Tea Party movement? Its ruling ethos appears to be a kind of
inchoate rage. I sympathize with the fact that many seem to be honest
middle to lower middle-class Americans who see their standards of living
slipping away and don’t know why, or how to stop it. They feel bad
that it’s no longer the America portrayed in Jimmy Stewart and John
Wayne movies, but many are quick to blame the changes on swarthy
immigrants. They’re desperately looking for a political solution. These
folks tend to be highly nationalistic and atavistic, with a tendency
to worship their preachers and the military. I just hope some popular
general doesn’t get political ambitions…

The only bright spots – but these are very major bright spots – are in the areas of individual savings and technology.

As things get worse, the productive members of society will redouble
their efforts to save themselves by producing more while consuming
less; the excess will be savings. Those savings create a pool of capital
that can be used to fund new businesses and technologies.
The problem here is that with the dollar losing value quickly, the
savers will be punished for doing the only thing that can really
improve the situation. And they’ll be discouraged by wrongheaded
propaganda telling people to consume more, not to save. Funding new
business and technologies will be harder with more regulations. But
still, people will find a way to set aside a surplus. And that is a
factor of overwhelming importance.

As are breakthroughs in science and technology. Don’t forget that there
are more scientists and engineers alive today than have lived,
altogether, in all of previous human history. These are the people that
will wind the main stem of human progress. And their numbers are going
to grow. So there’s real cause for optimism.

The problem is that most young Americans now go in for things like
sociology and gender studies, whereas the up-and-coming scientists and
engineers are primarily Chinese and Indians who, even if they get
advanced training in the U.S., tend to go back home afterwards. Partly
because the U.S. discourages hiring non-Americans for “good” jobs, but
mostly because they can see more opportunity abroad.

So, how long will the Greater Depression last? Quite a while, at least for the U.S.

But wait. Aren’t there other bright spots? How about the dollar?

The Dollar

Over the years I’ve been agnostic as to whether this depression would
be inflationary or deflationary. Or both in sequence, with inflation
first, followed by a credit collapse deflation; or a deflation followed
by a runaway inflation. Or perhaps both at the same time, just in
different sectors of the economy – e.g., prices of McMansions collapse
because people can’t afford to live in them, while the prices of rice
and beans skyrocket because that’s all people can afford.

At the moment I’m leaning towards a deflation in most areas. Why?
Because the purchasing media in the U.S. is primarily credit based. If a
mortgage defaults, what happens to the dollars it represents? They
literally disappear, which is deflationary. If a bond defaults, the
same thing happens. If stocks and property prices crash, the dollars
they represent vanish. If people or businesses don’t borrow, the money
supply fails to expand; in fact, many are trying to pay back loans,
which is deflationary. Even so, contrary to popular opinion, deflation
is much better than inflation.

Because today’s dollar is just paper and credit, and because
deflationary conditions will create a clamor for many more of them, the
government will eventually succeed in its inflationary efforts. It’s
true, as Bernanke has said in a moment of wry wit, that they can dump
$100 bills from helicopters to prevent deflation. But it’s not likely
since, in our fractional reserve banking system, the primary way the
money supply is expanded is through the granting of loans, not the
printing of paper, the way it was done in Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe.
One problem with credit-based inflation is that at some point, banks
become afraid to lend, and people afraid to borrow – a time like right
now. In fact, people may even become too afraid to leave their dollars
in banks. They’re coming to realize the FDIC is thoroughly bankrupt.

Here’s a speculative scenario. To solve these deflationary problems and
resolve Ben’s helicopter conundrum, maybe the Fed will go into the
retail banking business by directly taking over the hundreds of
institutions that are now failing. The average American would feel safe
depositing directly with the Federal Reserve. And the Fed could lend
as much as they want, without the restrictions imposed by actual
capital or pesky shareholders.

Ridiculous? I think not, certainly not after GM, Fannie, and the rest.
Certainly not when you consider that this depression is still in only
the second inning. It would be one way to head off deflation.

Be that as it may, or may not, at some point after the deflationary
waters have receded as far as possible, an inflationary tsunami is
going to wash ashore, to the surprise of all.

Everybody knows how bad things were in Weimar Germany, and what a
catastrophe hyperinflation has been in Zimbabwe. But those were agrarian
economies, with people still quite close to the land. If it hits in
the U.S., as highly specialized and urbanized as it is, it will be an
unparalleled disaster. And not just for the U.S., because the reserves
of almost all governments are mostly U.S. dollars. And dollars are used
as the de facto currency by the average man in about 50 countries. All
told, there may be as many as seven trillion of the things held
outside of the U.S., and, at some point, everybody will be trying to
unload them at once. At which time they’ll lose value very, very

So, far from being something to rely on, and very far from being as
good as gold, the dollar is going to be a lead player in the
catastrophe called the Greater Depression. And all the other paper
currencies are going down with it. Pity the fool who doesn’t see this
Or, for that matter, what’s going to happen to interest rates.

Interest Rates

The government is doing everything in its power to keep interest rates
as low as possible. There are many reasons for this. Low rates make it
easier for people to support their debt burdens and borrow more. Low
rates inflate the value of stocks, bonds, and real estate – and the last
thing the government wants to see is a meltdown of the markets. But,
perhaps even more important, it’s a lot easier for the government to
service $12 trillion of official debt at 2% than at 12%. That much of a
rise in rates alone will add over a trillion to what they need to
borrow to keep the giant Ponzi scheme going.

Of course it’s a fool’s game. Eventually (I’ll guess between six and 24
months), when their creation of dollars eventually overcomes the
credit markets’ destruction of dollars, consumer prices will go up. That
evidence of inflation will cause interest rates to rise, with all the
short-term negative effects the government so fears. But higher rates
are absolutely necessary to get out of the depression. Remember, it was
the high rates of the early ‘80s that set the stage for the boom that

Rates – the price of money – shouldn’t be controlled by the state, up
or down, any more than the state should control the price of oil, or
bread, or toothpaste. One of the major reasons the USSR collapsed was an
inability to make correct economic calculations, and much of that was
due to their arbitrarily fixed interest rates. One reason why Japan has
been fading into the economic background over the last two decades is
that the government has artificially suppressed rates, in the vain hope
of stimulating the economy. All they’ve gotten is excessive levels of
government debt, which will result in the destruction of the yen. And
what will be tens of millions of impoverished, and very angry, Japanese

The same thing is in process of happening in the West due to suppressed interest rates.

The Next Steps Down in the Markets

With interest rates depressed to near zero, stocks, bonds, and property
in the Western countries are as good as they’re going to get –
especially after a very long boom in all three. When rates inevitably go
higher, stocks, property – absolutely bonds – are likely to head much
lower. That’s entirely apart from the fundamentals under them, which
are truly ugly. In turn, that will bankrupt pension funds across the
economy, many of which are already severely underfunded.

These pension funds are likely to be the centerpieces of the next leg
down of the evolving crisis. Will the government bail them out? Perhaps,
although after the misadventure of poor taxpayers throwing money at
rich traders at Goldman and AIG, the public doesn’t like the ring of
that term. More likely it will nationalize them, assuming their assets
in exchange for a special class of its paper. In the interest of
“fairness,” that will happen to small and solvent funds as well as
large and bankrupt ones.

After that, the next problem area will be insurance companies. And not
necessarily because they’ll suffer from the same problems, like
derivative trading, that sunk AIG. Even the well-managed ones have their
assets invested primarily in commercial loans, commercial property,
bonds, and stocks.

How This Will End

Nassim Taleb has popularized the concept of the Black Swan: an event
that no one thought was possible, actually happening. Naturally, it
takes everyone by surprise. To that lesson from zoology, let me suggest
one from astronomy. Let’s call it the Financial Asteroid Strike theory.

It’s well known that there are millions of pieces of sizable space
debris floating around the solar system. It’s just a matter of time
before something crosses our path at an inopportune moment, as has
happened so many times in the past. Unlike the Black Swan, it’s well
known that Financial Asteroids exist. It’s just that really serious
ones appear so rarely that people conduct their lives as if they never
will. It’s been such a long time since the last depression that people
see it as something distant and academic – like the Chicxulub or
Tunguska asteroid strikes. Until the actual moment it hits, everything
is completely normal. Then everything changes radically.

I’d sum it up by saying that a Financial Asteroid Strike takes much
longer to happen than you might expect, but once it actually gets
underway, it happens much more quickly than you could have imagined. We
had a strike in 2008. But they tend to come in clusters. I expect more
to enter the atmosphere fairly soon.

The question is whether the next one is going to wipe out all the
economic and financial dinosaurs or just flatten the trees for some
miles around.

Either way, it’s far from being all gloom and doom.

How This Could Be a Good Thing

Everyone, certainly including myself, prefers good times to bad times.
But much of the good times of the last two decades were a result of an
entire civilization living above its means. It was great fun while it
lasted, but the party is over. The result will be massive unemployment,
lots of business failures, and huge investment losses. These things
are most unpleasant, but inevitable. That said, I always like to look
at the bright side.

And what might that be?

Let’s restrict ourselves to just one of the lead actors in this drama: the United States of America.

The bankruptcy of the U.S. government will, at least at some point, lead
to a big drop in the number of government employees. This is a good
thing, since little of what they do serves a useful purpose; most are
an actual impediment to production.

With some luck it could result in the sale of agencies that have some
value, e.g., NASA, the Smithsonian, and the National Parks – to private
enterprise. It will also force a vast retrenchment of the military,
although only after more costly wars make that necessity very obvious.
It will force a decentralization of power, with more devolving to the
states and municipalities. It will mean much less regulation, since
there won’t be the personnel or money to enforce it. It will also mean
much less taxation for the same reasons, even though the state will try
desperately to collect more, and will absolutely succeed in the near

Internationally, it seems to me a sure thing that organizations like the
UN, the IMF, the OECD, and so many more, will be totally hollowed out
or even disappear. At a time when governments are straining to maintain
themselves, they’re unlikely to ship scarce capital abroad. So the
people who are worried about the UN taking over the U.S., One World
Government and such, will have to find something different to fret

As domestic currencies the world over are inflated away, some medium of
exchange and store of value will have to be agreed on. I don’t see any
realistic alternative to gold. China is going to be a focus of change
in this regard (among many others). The stupidity of the Chinese
government buying U.S. government paper in order to enable Americans to
continue consuming the things Chinese factories produce will come to
an end. That will be an impetus to demands for an alternative medium of

But if the U.S. and governments of other advanced countries lose power,
governments in places like Africa (in particular) will collapse;
Somalia is a model of things to come there. That may sound like a
horrible thing, but – notwithstanding teething pains – it’s a big step
forward. Deprived of free money, free weapons, and lots of free bad
advice that have entrenched kleptocracies, the Africans are likely to
make real progress after the Greater Depression plays itself out.

The transition period, however, is likely to be messy almost everywhere.

Can we prevent the status quo from falling apart, and preclude these messy changes? Further, should we, if we could?

Entirely apart from the fact that change is an essential part of life –
and I think the status quo is in dire need of some real change
(although absolutely not the kind Obama and his posse might have in
mind) – I actually don’t think there’s a realistic solution to the
problems the world is facing in this decade.

Yes, there are solutions that the government could proactively bring
about – almost entirely by doing less, rather than more. But the odds
of the U.S. voluntarily defaulting on its debt, abolishing the Fed,
using gold as money, abolishing all agencies not specifically
designated in the Constitution, eliminating the income tax, and cutting
back on military expenditures by about 90% -- among other things – are
so small as to be considered a fantasy.

In fact, the concept of invoking changes of that scale are too scary for
most to even contemplate. But they’ll happen anyway. Which means these
things aren’t going to happen voluntarily, under some kind of control,
and in a more or less orderly manner. Even so, because anything that
must happen will happen – all these things and more will actually
happen and, in the happening, will be most unpleasant and dangerous.

It seems to me that the upset we’re looking at could be the biggest
thing since the Industrial Revolution. Or perhaps the French Revolution
is a better analogy, although I expect it’s going to be a bit of both.
It seems entirely possible to me that we could have another American
Revolution, as unlikely as that seems among a nation of commuters and
suburbs-dwelling reality TV watchers.

But it’s hard to see how it could be anything like the first one, which
was led by thoughtful, rich, free market-oriented farmers and
merchants. More likely this one will center on people like Sarah Palin
and Sean Hannity on the one side, and Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi on
the other – strident, antagonistic, and bent, but also full of
charisma and certainty. I don’t see much chance of collegial and
reasonable compromise.

The best advice is not to be around the watering hole when two
antagonistic groups of chimpanzees are hooting and panting at each
other, getting ready to fight for control of it.

I’m afraid the current state of affairs is corrupt through and through.
From the top of the financial world in New York, to the top of the
political world in DC, right down to the average man on the street, 50%
of whom aren’t obligated to pay income taxes but feel entitled to be
net recipients of government largesse at the expense of others. Even
among those that have assets, there’s no feeling of shame in gaming the
system any way possible. There’s no longer any onus to being one of
the 40 million people on electronic food stamps, or defaulting on one’s
mortgage and continuing to live in the house, and collecting
indefinitely extended unemployment benefits. Bankruptcy is just
something you do when needed.

Frankly, it’s a mystery to me how the U.S. in particular, but most of
the developed world, is going to escape from the very unpleasant
consequences of its very stupid past – and current – actions. 

I’ve just scratched the surface of the possibilities for the next ten
years here. What’s clear is that some patterns of production and
consumption are unsustainable; they will stop. What’s not clear is what
new patterns will replace them. But that’s not so worrisome; what’s a
matter of more concern is what forms of political and social
organization will appear.

But let me leave you with a final bit of good news. Most of the real
wealth – science, technologies, capital and consumer goods – will still
be here. There’s just going to be a change in ownership. And it’s
possible to position yourself to get more than your share.

Based on the above, what looks good to me – on a long-term basis – over
the years to come? In general, stocks, bonds, and property are dead
ducks, and headed much lower. But when a real bottom arrives, perhaps
even in this decade, fortunes will be made buying back into them. Gold
and silver, even though they’re no longer cheap, are going much higher;
they’ll be what you’ll trade for things that are cheap. Agricultural
commodities are going to do well. The trillions of currency units being
printed all over the world will definitely ignite more bubbles, which
should present fantastic speculative opportunities. And because the
political situation will be hairy, diversify your assets outside of
your home country.

Comment viewing options

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

you lost me at: "That a depression was in the cards has been foreseeable for decades." such a stupid statement.

tmosley's picture

Right, because abandoning honest money has worked so well for everyone else that ever tried it.

dlmaniac's picture

To Kato Denial is only a river in Africa.

SheepDog-One's picture

Right, stupid statement, because everyone knew that massive spending of a baseless currency and leveraging everything 40X would work so good and always has worked so well in the past. Your grade- *fail*

Fred Hayek's picture

Read The Lords of Finance by Liaquat Ahamed, an excellent history of what central banks did before and during the depression.  It makes it quite clear that the depression of the 30's resulted from a series of policy mistakes that were not at all inevitable. 

Was fiat currency a bad thing?  Yes.  But there was nothing inevitable at that point in time about the terrible economic situation that came to be.


Thomas's picture

Indeed, it was excellent. I especially liked the discussion of the gold standard.

Battleaxe's picture

The depression has been foreseeable for decades because of demographics. See

TwelfthVulture's picture

That wouldn't be DOW 36,000 Harry Dent, would it?

LowProfile's picture

Hey, he was just early.  Wait until we hit QEx35 in 2014.

Battleaxe's picture

The original Dow 36K guys were James Glassman and Kevin Hassett in 1999. Dent did say in 2004 that the dow would go to 36K. It went from 10K to 14K, so not even close. But his demographic observations do make a lot of sense. Listen to this interview from two days ago:

LowProfile's picture

Ding ding ding ding ding!


You just won the DFSOW (dumbest fuckin' statement of the week) prize!

chopper read's picture

i actually thought kato was making a very funny joke.  ?  


the author is a patriot, and confirms all rational thought, sadly.  any counterpoints seem fluffy and flowery by comparison, especially when we continue to connect the same dots independently.


buy guns 'n ammo while they are still cheap and in abundance.  by the looks of things, half of your countrymen will be your friends, and half your foes.'s picture

I don't go in for the false red v. blue dichotomy so does that means that I will have no enemies or that everyone will be my enemy? Surely there will be reasonable folks out there somewhere. They'll come out from cover after the reds and blues have become one giant purple splat.

chopper read's picture

i hear you.  i actually reckon that morons (both "blue" and "red") will revert to racism/tribalism in the ultra short-term (if there is a breakdown in 'government services'/rule of law, for example).  see: LA riots. 


probably a good idea to just get out of the cities. 


yes, rational heads will ultimately prevail but, again, this may not help you in the short-term.  ...i'm just say'n, Go Ahead.  

IQ 145's picture

  It's newsletter journalism; the rear view mirror makes everything quite clear; my favorite was "--The Africans will make real progress after the Great Depression".'s picture

And why is that your favorite? Make sure you give it the old college try in producing a 145 IQ response.

carbonmutant's picture

Financial Singularity...

cougar_w's picture

It probably just looks that way. A relative calm before the actual storm.

Energy singularity. Thermodynamics is the silver bullet that kills it all.

Lower Class Elite's picture

Give the lady a prize!  No mention of that gigantic gleaming sword of Damocles in Mr. Casey's Randy musings.   

Misstrial's picture

" Except I believe the descent of the U.S. will be  much faster, much scarier, and will end in a much harder landing than that experienced by Argentina."

As bad as things are going to get, I doubt that the US will fall faster and harder than Argentina.

(hint: the Argentine peso was never a world reserve currency)


Imminent Crucible's picture

It's precisely because the USD is the world's reserve currency that the U.S. will unravel with greater momentum and damage than Argentina.  Argentina didn't have most of its currency float churning around in 150 other countries.  There was no vast peso surplus to come charging home to dilute and debase the national stock of currency.

See "the Triffin Dilemma".

nuinut's picture

(hint: the Argentine peso was never a world reserve currency)

The major reason for the hard fall; the whole bloody world wants out.

Think about it.


Hope you enjoyed your exorbitant privilege while it lasted.

chopper read's picture

...a privilege earned by "The Greatest Generation".


the stampede out of USDs will be deafening.  

thanks, baby-boomers.  i hope you enjoyed yourselves.  i suppose its your bad luck that you could not die before the blowback of your cumulative poor decisions.  


shall we all meet in Texas then? 

doggings's picture

hmm. many more pissed off and desperate people used to freeloading up till this point, with guns, huge (soon-to-be ex) military without jobs, much more to play for control of..

Once it starts I can see it getting bad pretty fast.



cossack55's picture

Not fast enough to suit me.

mynhair's picture

Before you DC Lib types bad mouth the Tea Party, go to a rally and learn what it is about.

Maybe you will wake up.

Japhy Ryder's picture

The Tea Party have become more concerned with being a good "Christian" than wanting a small transparent Federal Govt.


Ivanovich's picture

So untrue.  That's like saying "all liberals want strong unions".

Japhy Ryder's picture

Agreed, but unfortunatly it seems the people who now get the media attention are not concerned with downsizing the Federal Gov't (including the military) like one of the original "founders" Ron Paul.'s picture

Then your complaint is against the media and not the Tea Party. Please direct future epistles to the proper respondent.

Hot Shakedown's picture

I am open to learning more about the Tea Party but if its charter does not include endind the fed and reducing the scope of the military indust complex, it is a complete waist of time. Period

chopper read's picture

as someone who supports those who are part of the Tea Party, Hot Shakedown, i entirely agree.

Navy and Air Force - YES.  standing Army - NO.  State Militia/National Guard - YES.



p.s. term limits, bitchez.

RockyRacoon's picture

You left out killing all the old people.  That about rounds it out.

chopper read's picture

thanks for that.



Andrew G's picture

You don't have to kill them, just stop paying for their stupidly high medical expenses (which is what any sane society should do)... I don't expect anyone else to pay for my olds' getting sick...

Helix6's picture

I'm just guessing that your parents haven't run into the kind of medical expenses that bankrupt families yet.

But here's the point: medical practice is tightly regulated here in the US.  Enrollment in medical schools is highly restrictive and medical services ore offerred under a tightly regluated licnesing regime.  This has had the effect of vastly raising the cost of medical care here.  

And in light of this, you're suggesting that the supply of medical services remains tightly restricted while the fees for those services remain unregulated?  This is a formula for financial disaster for anyone with a serious medical condition.  And it shows.  Americans suffer from one of the shortest life expectancies in the developed world while having by far the highest per-capita medical expenditures.  Think there might be a relationship there?

If you're not expecting any help when your folks become old and in need of medical care, then I'm guessing that one of three situations prevails: you or your parents are well enough off to buy medical insurance, you or they are well enough of not to need medical insurance, or they will simply die when the first age-related affliction hits.  Either that or they will be covered by Medicare, and you're secretly OK with that despite your grumblings.

Perhaps instead of sneering at society, we might be better off if we discussed ways of providing quality medical care at reasonable cost.  We seem to be about the only developed society that hasn't fighred out how to do that yet...

chopper read's picture

thank you for the lecture, Helix6.  

having just gotten back 1 year ago from living in england for almost 7 years, i can assure you that your delusions about the joys of state-mandated healthcare are nowhere close to reality.  healthcare in england is a disaster.


Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.  Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care.  Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex.  However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Conclusion.  Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Fact No. 1:  Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1]  Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.  Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway.  The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2:  Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2]  Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3:  Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3]  Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease.  By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. 

 Fact No. 4:  Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4]  Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

  • Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
  • Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
  • More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
  • Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5:  Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.  Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent).  Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

Fact No. 6:  Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.  Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6]  All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7]  In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7:  People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.   More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8:  Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.  When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9:  Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.  Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11]  [See the table.]  The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain.  The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12] 

Fact No. 10:  Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13]  The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14]  Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15]  In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize.   Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16]  [See the table.]






RECISION's picture

fact No.7  People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.   More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding.

If I were you Chopper, I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of those Stats or Facts.

chopper read's picture

sadly, i've already had several friends and a father-in-law in england bet their lives and they are no longer here to wage their complaints.  so, i'm doing it for them.


i look forward to the day that treasonous cunts like you experience the true pain or your 'do-gooder' agendas.  

reasoning with assholes like you is like throwing pearls to swine.  no worries, i've got my guns and i've got my gold.  all my friends are buying guns and gold, too.  come and get them, fuckwit.

chopper read's picture

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very  
 interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations  
 International Health Organization.

 Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years  
 after diagnosis:

  U.S.              65%

  England        46%

  Canada         42%

 Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received  
 treatment within six months:

  U.S.              93%

  England        15%

  Canada         43%

 Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it  
 within six months:

  U.S.              90%

  England        15%

  Canada         43%

 Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within  
 one month:

  U.S.              77%

  England        40%

  Canada         43%

 Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

  U.S.              71

  England        14

  Canada         18

 Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in  
 "excellent health":

  U.S.              12%

  England        2%

  Canada         6%

 I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"  
 comparable to England or Canada .

 Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans  
 must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."


 He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health  
 insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high- 
 end coverage!  He will never have to learn to accept  


 The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in  
 the private business sector prior to their appointment to the  
 cabinet.  You know what the private business sector is... a real  
 life business, not a government job.  Here are the percentages.

 T. Roosevelt........  38%


  Wilson ................52%


 Coolidge..............  48%

 Hoover................. 42%

 F. Roosevelt.........  50%


 Eisenhower........... 57%

 Kennedy..............  30%


 Nixon...................  53%

 Ford..................... 42%

 Carter..................  32%


 GH Bush................. 51%

  Clinton   ................. 39%

 GW Bush................ 55%

 And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is:

 Obama................ 8%  !!!

This alone can explain the incompetence of this administration....! ! !
!!     8 % 

 Yep!  That's right!  Only Eight Percent!!!.. the least by far of  
 the last 19 presidents!!  And these people are trying to tell our  
 big corporations how to run their business?  They know what's  
 best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?

 How can the president of a major nation and society...the one  
 with the most successful economic system in world history...  
 stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?..  
 or about jobs when he has never really had one??!  And neither  
 has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers!  They've spent  
 most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit  
 jobs....or as "community organizers" when they should have been  
 in an employment line.'s picture

Tea Party...charter


Despite efforts to mischaracterize or co-opt the Tea Party it is simply a spontaneous association of individuals who quite correctly voice disapproval of enslavement by government. There is no charter, nor should there be one.

Boba Fiat's picture

Wrong, but thanks for playing.  Do you know what the "Tea" in Tea Party stands for?  Taxed Enough Already.  The movement is inspired by libertarian philosophy, seeks a return to a Constitutional government (and, implicity, honest money), and Ron Paul's presidential campaign was the seedcorn.  Go to a meeting.  There is literally one in every town.  This is a revolution and it's time to choose up sides. 

And being an ironic Seinfeldian heckler ain't an option this time.

lilimarlene1's picture

Well put, Boba! And, I like your shoes!


Getagrip's picture

Well said! I'm gonna get "junked" (more battle scars), but all we need to do is get back to the basics of our Constitution. One Nation Under God. One Nation Under Jesus...the  light, the truth, the way....In the mean time, standby for more pain as this plays out. God Bless and help us...   

Getagrip's picture

Forgot to mention, there have been four great civilizations in history (up to Euro/America). Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, and Rome. They all have the same thing in common..Godless, and currently... an archeological dig. How's America doing? 

Lower Class Elite's picture

I think you just proved Ryder's original point.

RECISION's picture

I'm pretty sure that the Roman empire was very Christian.

Which would be why the Vatican is in Rome.


Kobe Beef's picture

Hate to spoil your point, but the four civilizations you mention had lots of gods. They were very godly. In fact, most of the myths enclosing the Christian religion are borrowed freely from them. Look it up, please.