Thunder Road Report Update: "Dear Portfolio Manager, You Are Heading Into A Full-Spectrum Crisis."

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

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

BEWARE, there be comupters, just off the edge of the map...

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ mtomato2

Actually, I traditionally DO overreact!  Part of the fun.  But, my point is serious, keep your Unambiguous Wealth close at hand. -- because nuinut just above did not already point the way  :)

Big Slick's picture

PITY that what seems like an important message gets marginalized by ridiculous statements like 'the 2000 US election in FLA was fraudulent' (pg 25 of the linked PDF).

After recounts by dozens of entities (even far-left outlets like the New York Times, USA Today, and a number of University political science departments), this was never shown to be true.  Bush won FL in 2000.  No known legitimate study refutes that.


On its own, the report sniffs of sensationalism.  Again, pity, because I believe the overall message is an important one.


pasttense's picture

Some of us believe in direct election of the President; that the candidate with the most votes should win. While the electoral college was understandable in horse and buggy days (an era of no electricity), it is not with modern technology.

FreeNewEnergy's picture

Big Slick,

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Just thought you'd like to know. As memory serves, this story (not the one referenced, as all the real stories have been scrubbed from the web - 1984, anyone?) broke on September 11, 2001. Coincidence? Study harder. Don't be a tool.

Lord Koos's picture

Actually, you're correct -- it was the 2004 election that was stolen.

dizzyfingers's picture


He has something real to sell, no rehypothecation.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Gene, we are all fore-armed. I'd rather be four-armed for what is coming up.

I can tell you, india is suffering from the biggest ostrich syndrome ever. Spending our way to msie...I mean happy-ness.

I think anyone can make a safe call to say that 2012 will be a rather un-stable year. Lot of downward pressure as long subdued vectors express themselves in asymmetric patterns and in asymmtric, explosive ways.

Boom boom, some Doom, some gloom and then Bloom again.



Melville1977's picture

He writes pieces for KingWorldNews's blog. One he recently wrote stated he is sticking with gold and to get out of stocks completely. He also stated he feels sorry for the younger generation since they now have to contend with massive debts from past generations. He is blunt and to the point.

LaLiLuLeLo's picture

Full-Spectrum Cluster Bomb

slewie the pi-rat's picture

and a joyous season of D00M from kondratieff to all BiCheZ, everywhere!

Lost Wages's picture

I hate people who quote Ayn Rand, but looks like an interesting report.

P.S. Who the fuck is Paul Mylchreest?

Ragnar24's picture

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

InconvenientCounterParty's picture

A man that does not understand the primacy of basic human psychology and physiology can't be trusted to have useful ideas about human sociology.

Canaduh's picture

It's generally not wise to follow an ideology of someone who worshipped a sociopathic serial killer.

"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"


Doomsday Profit's picture

Great observation! There are so many very intelligent people on this site that have no idea how evil Rand was Objectivisim that convinced Greenspan to derugulate and that markets would patrol themselves....pure idiocy born from the bowels of hell.  As one of the seven deadly sins, Greed needed to be it is about to destroy us all. My moniker is an homage to the doomsday profit that resulted from Rand's influence on Greenspan and other powerful disciples of Randian philosophy. Her absolute disdain for those who believe in God is another testament to the evil that infected her every thought. Here she is spouting her evil on Donahue. Listen at 5:30 where she twists logic completely around to say it is evil to believe in God:


Canaduh's picture

That's because intelligence and sociopathy are not mutually exclusive.

TheHillrat's picture

Read Griftopia about Rand and how Greenspan followed her beliefs in the free market. This commentary just reeks of elitist BS to try to scare the masses. There are a lot of things that are wrong in this world but to think we are headed for some sort of bizarre neo Nazi global regime is nuts.  Stick to facts not hyperbole. Also Rand is nuts and those that followed her basically got us into this mess in the first place. 

riphowardkatz's picture

No your nuts, no your nuts, no your nuts. Great argument jackass.



riphowardkatz's picture

For you morons that think greenspan followed Ayn Rand philiopshy in his job at the fed you should take the time to read her and quit spouting off.

Greenspan, for the uninformed, knew  objectivism. Objectivism shows that the root cause of the ills of our society is a result of a failed philopsohpy, altruism. Under altruism the collective good is valued over the good of the individual. Under the morality of altruism you have the right to take from one person and give to another person. This gives justification for wealth resdistribution in the form of taxes and inflation and saving too big to fail banks because we are "all in this together" 

Greenspan was ne economist he had no interest in trying to change people's philosophy and realized that death/jail  could come a knockin if he did (sword of democoles). He managed the crappy system the best he could, the fact is it is unmanageable. When the s*&^% was about to hit the fan he bailed on Rand by saying her philosophy failed as a means to distance himself from it.

0% interest rates have never been a part of Objectivism or capitalism
too big too fail was never a part of objectivism  or capitalism 
government power to the nth has never been a part of objectivism


TheHillrat's picture

She is and will always be a complete lunatic. She is the believer in black and white; you are a parasite or you are a creator. There is no grey in her world. In fact, Greenspan and Rand used to hang out together and talk about life. Rands books were influential in his thinking. When Greenspan wasn’t such a dick/free market capitalist she got angry at him and said, “I think Alan basically is a social climber.” Rand doesn’t believe in charity. If you use her reason, she is absolutely right all the time.

Altruism means for each his own even if it means stepping on those that got your there. This is the classic ideology that got us into this crap. Greed, 0% interest rates and TBTF was a byproduct of the Randian beliefs.  They printed the money, allowed NoDoc Loans, securitized them and sold them as AAA paper. Everyone made money until the bill was footed by the tax payers. In a Randian sense, it doesn’t matter if you hurt the rest of us as long as you made money. Wall Street Banks are so big because it is their belief they do “God’s work”. They are the producers; we are just parasites to them. We feel the effects of altruism every day. This market is a bubble built on the false sense of entitlement by Randian followers. 

riphowardkatz's picture

"In a Randian sense, it doesn’t matter if you hurt the rest of us as long as you made money."

Sorry jackass but you are wrong

from Ayn Rand

"We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws."


StychoKiller's picture

Altruism != Charity

Prove yourself, alleviate some suffering:

Libertarian != Inhumane


MachoMan's picture

So did greenspan correctly identify the proper objectivist response to the questions/problems presented him?  The problem is that ideals do not exist in a vacuum...  and it's an all or nothing proposal...  and, given some aspects of the concept could not ever be implemented, then we've got a problem. 

If you're talking about deregulation, then I'll posit that the markets have always benefitted those who can lobby the best.  We have deregulation in some aspects, but in others we have regulatory capture as well as an ability gap between the cats and the mice.  Ultimately, the aspect to complain about in regards to greenspan's tenure is not deregulation, but the conscious decision to endlessly lever via unnaturally low interest rates and the conscious decision to avoid any wrangling of derivatives (presuming the last one was his call).

Deregulation is a misnomer...  it's meant to entice you into the presumption that the system itself would or could be fair with government involvement...  it cannot...  it will always benefit those who lobby the best...  and, further, the determination and observation necessary to ensure there is no hopelessly large wealth gap will always subside when we choose to elect representatives to do our thinking for us...  we will rush to action and shed our apathy only after a crisis...  when our comfort levels have come crashing back to reality.  As always, the pound of cure is much harsher than the ounce of prevention.

PS, it is not evil to have disdain for theists...  if so, then I suspect you are guilty of the same evil from your post.

Doomsday Profit's picture

Regulatory capture and deregulation are two sides of the same coin....seperated only by semantics. I'll agree that lobbying is an evil unto itself that must be purged from any just political oxymoron, I know.  You seem to have presented a veiled defense of Randian tragic. In the end good will be called evil and evil will be called good....I think we're near the end thanks to Ayn....and the only real question is was it by design?

MachoMan's picture

I didn't think it was very veiled...  but no particular philosophy/world view gets everything right...  so I only adopt it in portions.

Ayn didn't really come up with anything new...  just repackaged for alternative consumption.  I think calling Rand the source of evil is naive at best.  All she did was catalog human behavior.  Granted, some of the conclusions are incorrect and/or lead to inequitable results...  but separate the value statements out and you have some pretty intelligent observations...  just like marx (again, laughable conclusions/solutions)...  or anyone else for that matter.

Further, the end is merely the beginning...  and happens time and time again.  We bounce between collective and individual oriented systems while at the same time rarely gaining political aptitude or self-determination.  The view only changes for the lead mule.

And no, the systems aren't designed per se...  the difference between the haves and the have nots is that the haves understand the forces at play and front run them...  all of the systems have built in lifespans...  certain political and monetary actions cannot be recovered from...  and propel systems towards their fate with the pinball bumper...  and they all happen in increments.  We just bounce back and forth and back and forth between the different systems depending on what collapsed the last time and/or what can be blamed the most conveniently (and thus rewrite history).  The haves quickly turn into have nots when they disregard the natural flow of things and what self interest brings.  Of course, that is not to say that the systems can't be gamed or sped up to benefit the few...  but everything is not by design...  the simple answer is that humans have no answer for a political or economic system that maintains some semblance of stasis. 

pasttense's picture

But of course we never had  true deregulation. With true deregulation there would be no bank bailouts. Instead we have "privatize the gains, socialize the losses"

MachoMan's picture

Exactly...  at least as to that particular aspect of the law.

twotraps's picture

Not sure if anyone comes back after a day to review comments but I agree with you.  Deregulation for sure, its all political.  On the wealth gap....I would say it has always existed but in times of stress everything hurts more, things are more pronounced.  What greenspan believed or not we will never know, he may have ecnountered what many do when they enter higher government.....good luck changing it.  It is  a massive beast, with many moving parts/interests that combine in a sinister way so that no one is on the hook but the collective result is devasting (housing).  

LowProfile's picture

Yeah, and Andrew Jackson killed the indians along with the bank.

Not to interrupt your throwing babies out with bathwater, but what exactly is your argument for collectivism?

Oh that's right.  You don't have any.  Mybad!

Doomsday Profit's picture

Charity is the prime virtue that has the potential (still) to save us....Rand helped to kill this virtue in the hearts of men.

LowProfile's picture

I can only imagine you must be speaking for yourself, since that virtue is very much alive in well in me and my circle.

The issue with forced charity is that not all are deserving of the same level . I might give an alcoholic bum a sleeping bag, food and a bunk somewhere, but IMO he doesn't deserve the same level of charity as a single widow with three kids.  Or for that matter, a MOTHERFUCKING INVESTMENT BANKER.

The issue I have with people like you is that you assume that some faceless bureaucrat knows better who deserves charity in my neighborhood than I do.  That's bullshit, plain and simple.

Doomsday Profit's picture

So you get to pick who lives and who omnipotent of you.  Yes - everyone considers themselves to be completely charitable and that this will result in a better society if government simply left them to dole out their fortunes themselves - everything would be better.  History proves otherwise - and any argument that holds personal greed as something to be admired and desirable is evil at its core.

LowProfile's picture

So you're saying you should decide then?


Doomsday Profit's picture

Name calling....the last refuge of the intellectually defeated.

Matt's picture

Please re-read the previous post. My understanding is that the poster was saying each person should handle their own charitable giving, rather than having a government take money from people and have a beauracrat  in an office somewhere decide who gets what, not that the poster should be the one deciding for everyone.

Basically, the argument is not pro-charity versus anti-charity, but rather independant giving versus forced redistribution by central planners.

StychoKiller's picture

How brave of you -- getting Big Brother to rob others at the point of a gun to benefit others you deem worthy, instead of doing it yerself -- yet you STILL have the gall to cry "Hypocrisy?!"

You obviously have NOT thought your premises to their logical conclusions!

Whalley World's picture

If you can't recognize today's amerika for Rand's Amerika in Atlas Shrugged, then you have not read it.  Wesley Mouch is Obama!  socialize everything, do away with production and increase socialism for the betterment of all.

Ignore Atlas Shrugged at your peril

malek's picture

It is generally not wise to disregard everything an individual has ever said or written, because someone (rightly or wrongly) believes to have found a stain on her/his record.
Doing so only encourages the mudslingers.

Canaduh's picture

I do not disregard everything Rand has said or written, I disagree with a vast majority of it. She most definitely did write those words, and they are very significant to her ideology of objectivism. If you disagree, some salient points would be appreciated, instead of, as you say, 'mudslinging'.

malek's picture

Not sure how I could make salient points on your statements, as you have given close to none in the first place.

But your mention of "intelligence and sociopathy" in 1994962 seems to point to you believing her to be a sociopath. For which I never read the slightest coherent reasoning anywhere, talking about Ayn.

In the end it likely boils down that you believe "fairness" to be the highest good (more precise "fairness" in outcomes), and so capitalism -and in extension all forms of competition- are evil, as they inevitably produce winners and losers. Which would mean you commend the current central planners reign, as they are fervently trying to avoid to create any loser... but I'm just guessing your mindset here.

Canaduh's picture

The (1 more than none*) statement which I asked you to respond to was -  She most definitely did write those words, and they are very significant to her ideology of objectivism.

If you do not agree, why?

 She commends him not for the act he has done, but rather for the complete lack of empathy while he went about his life . Some call it sociopathy, some call it antisocial personality disorder, and until 1980, this was called psychopathy. Empathy, by the way, is not just recognizing and sharing feelings with those that benefit you (family, friends, business associates), but rather the ability to recognize and share feelings with any sapient or semi-sapient being. Rand derides this notion, and that is why I believe her to be a sociopath.(Sociopaths are born, not made, and there is no known treatment, therefore, if she was a sociopath at age 21, most likely she was a sociopath at age 60)

Those who know me would identify me as a libertarian. I have never received a cheque from the government other than on a tax return, and I don't believe in "fairness in outcomes".  I do, however, empathize with those around me, even those I do not know.

Btw, if you don't believe the central planners are trying to create winners and losers, then I question how much you have gained from reading this website.

malek's picture

But even as a libertarian you seem to believe in a thought-terminating knockout argument, or at least this is how you present it here. That doesn't fit together.

I do not want to spend time researching who exactly Hickman was, or what context those words were ripped out from...
I have by far not seen enough indications that Ayn Rand generally and without exception derided any form of empathy. But her thoughts, or ideology if want to call it that, should not be taken word-by-word as the ultimate wisdom, just like any other source of intellectual stimulation!
However she was a lot more right than wrong, and our current predicament is/was not caused by lack of empathy, but more by too much empathy-based thoughts (aka instant gratification / postponing the pain), clouding any rational reasoning. This does not in any way imply the road to heaven is getting rid of *all* empathy, however.

Canaduh's picture

It's telling that you do not want to explore the subject of Rands thoughts on Hickman further. The quote is from 'The Journals of Ayn Rand'.

I have by far not seen enough indications that Ayn Rand generally and without exception accepted any form of empathy. Her (named by Rand herself) ideology of Objectivism does nothing to discourage sociopathy, and everything to promote it's value in society. "The pursuit of my own rational self interest and my own happiness is the highest moral purpose of my life" is an ethos many Randians repeat. And one that a sociopath would agree with.

A thought experiment-

A young woman is struck and killed while jaywalking. She had no right enter the crosswalk, and because of that poor decision, 3 young children are without a mother. What is your first reaction?

a) What a dumb bitch, that should teach her.

b)That's horrible, those children must be devastated.

Being honest with yourself, if you chose a, you are most likely a sociopath.


malek's picture

You are really a do-gooder in the self-elected guise of a libertarian, plus a propagandist who draws up everything as a black-white choice.

Let me answer directly from the document ZH linked to in the original post:

"But the United States in the universe of Atlas Shrugged is heavily dominated by an altruistic
moral code, which holds that an individual has no right to his life but must serve society. Under
this principle, the country is increasingly becoming a collectivist dictatorship in which individuals
are right-less slaves of the state. [...]"

Have fun serving society, being the only allowed meaning to your life, dutifully accepted by you!