Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 2)


spunko

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Craig said:

I could probably survive quite happily on £15k pa. 

Exactly young man! £15k was the figure I had in my head for £100k SIPP worth of RDSB.......

When it was sub £10 the divi was 15% ie that's £15k there alone.....bollocks to your £1 million pension pot :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, JMD said:

I cant recall reading a discussion here concerning future investment decision making re. investment returns correlated against those big anticipated currency devaluations

I think the algo to work this out is far too complicated......you can nearly always counter with another POV

ie. markets crash, the rich have lost money, less dollars in USA lets say BUT then them being rich they have foreign assets which they sell, so they are repatriating dollars through foreign asset sales and the $ amounts even out for them! of course this only works for the 1%ers, us plebs just have to try and 'follow the money' as best we can.......

PLUS they are adding dollars to the US supply in their own country so it gets even more complicated O.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loki said:

And then look what arrives...synchronicity 

silver.PNG

Blimey mate that takes me back....outlook? What's wrong with a web browser? In fact get rid of Windows completely and use linux!

Which reminds me, these FAANG stocks, my God!!! Actually I call them MAFANG now, not to be confused with Bafang who make electric motors for bikes :)

The extra M is for Microsoft, I used to love all these technology guys, now I just think they're are bunch of corporate cunts, yes they produce some interesting software but none of it is needed, you can live with FOSS, the propaganda nuts just convince you otherwise ;)

Also check out the percentage of the US stock market that these 6 behemoths now have, above 20% I think it is

Enough flannel from me today, I need to lie down  :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

I've bought britannias via ebay before now for good money (more or less the same as silver-to-go) but chose my seller very carefully. I think those days have probably gone.

I sold quite a few 1oz silver Brits on eBay before CV hit. I'd made a decent profit and wanted to get a bit more space back in the place where I stored them. I then dealt directly with several buyers now that contact details were shared. Those days are indeed gone, as I've only got a few tubes of 2 oz Queen's Beasts left, which I will keep hold of for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Craig said:

If there's one thing the last five weeks have taught me, it's that I don't need a huge amount of money to get by, and that if I were mortgage free in retirement I could probably survive quite happily on £15k pa. 

Exactly the same as me.I live very very well on £15k a year.I actually spend about £9k.Mortgage free of course,fix most things myself,old cars.My partner does work though and she pays me £300 towards bills.She also rents her house out,its fully paid for.My bills excluding car and food are £274 a month.Since January iv averaged spending £530 a month including those bills.Full state pension isnt far off enough for me.I reckon £100 a week short,so in theory £5k a year would do me from 67.Since 18 iv worked until 30,then 5 years off,worked 6 years then 8 years off,worked one year and now packed in.I made sure i had lots of years not working when younger to enjoy myself.

Its ironic given my passion is investing and cycles etc,but i dont actually give a toss about money apart from enough for the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sancho panza

 

9 hours ago, JMD said:

Agreed.

Can any one comment on Raul's theory/concern about how/where the boomers will find ready buyers for their over-priced assets? Is he only talking about houses here, or is it a wider thing he's talking about?

I may have misunderstood him, but surely the institutions will always be buyers of assets? Or is he simply describing/underlining the future trend of low growth for most assets? (...i.e. not the type of 'reflation assets' we are focused on here of course!)

Something like 35% of uk total wealth is in the hosuing market.Hence the importance of marginal pricing.Most people's welath is in their hosue.Doesn't take much of a loss of credit down the food chain and some excess supply at the top and you've got a building society crisis.

Especially as most LL's are boomers accroding to that govt paper I psoted.

Edit to add correct figures

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2016tomarch20

image.png.e7e83b3eb37f972515573f473fdf545a.png

7 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

I've already had chats with two old friends who were bemoaning the direction their pensions are heading. However, they will not do anything about it, I'm fairly sure of that. It's always amazing to be reminded of how narrow people's world views are (in all areas). I might not have all of the answers but I do my very best to read around all the important matters of our times. For example. the latest Michael Moore documentary which I watched yesterday. It confirmed a lot of what I suspected but with the tentacles of power and money going further than I'd realised. I've recommended to my two daughters but warned them that it's hard hitting but essential viewing.

key thing Sas is that you're asking questions.Not enoguh people do.It's why they get shafted more than the ones who ask questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sancho panza
7 hours ago, Dogtania said:

Haven't read the whole paper yet but I thought he was talking about assets that the boomers or older may have and if they are dying more often then there would be increased sell off into a dropping/ bear market making it a vicious cycle.  Not sure if he means this but sort of made sense to me.

I think that's more the point.No estate agent wants to see lots of people heading for the exit at the same time.Reality is that a good few poeple I know all have that 'my property's my pension,only ever goes up,' type attitude....I suspect 90% will hit the wall of disappointment at the same time .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sancho panza
6 hours ago, Craig said:

If there's one thing the last five weeks have taught me, it's that I don't need a huge amount of money to get by, and that if I were mortgage free in retirement I could probably survive quite happily on £15k pa. 

I jsut like being able to go to Aldi and the market and not look at the prices.

My car's worth £500 and I should replace it but can't face the stress.Mrs P was yesterday urging me to treat myself to a new hoodie.I am pathetically tight but I find no real comfort or pleasure in spending money on things I don't need.The Mrs and kids is different.I have found a great deal of pleasure this last 6 months studying at the gardening school of @Bobthebuilder and doing our own spuds,carrots.It's been amazing.

3 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

Exactly the same as me.I live very very well on £15k a year.I actually spend about £9k.Mortgage free of course,fix most things myself,old cars.My partner does work though and she pays me £300 towards bills.She also rents her house out,its fully paid for.My bills excluding car and food are £274 a month.Since January iv averaged spending £530 a month including those bills.Full state pension isnt far off enough for me.I reckon £100 a week short,so in theory £5k a year would do me from 67.Since 18 iv worked until 30,then 5 years off,worked 6 years then 8 years off,worked one year and now packed in.I made sure i had lots of years not working when younger to enjoy myself.

Its ironic given my passion is investing and cycles etc,but i dont actually give a toss about money apart from enough for the basics.

It's funny isn't it.I jsut enjoy finacial security nad not worrying about the price of food.

My interest has always been in the state of the nation my kids will inherit and I'm keen to have enough to help them on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reformed nice guy
7 hours ago, JMD said:

Yes i think they will all devalue. And America being America, they will probably 'go large' and super-size their own devaluation.

I have put my thoughts/strategy below. I cant recall reading a discussion here concerning future investment decision making re. investment returns correlated against those big anticipated currency devaluations. But this must be something others have considered and then adjusted their own portfolios for?

I Would welcome comments. Its a complex area and many experts appear to say just let things 'average out over time'. But in terms of this blog, I do think its worth at least attempting to predict the net effect of all that future currency see-sawing for us living here in the UK if investing in foreign markets.

My two main foreign markets are the US and the Asian EM's+Japan. I have formulated a guestimate for this decade (2020's). I think on balance UK investments in the US will 'suffer' due to massive US currency devaluing, so I will only buy US stocks only when there is a very good reason to, i.e. exposure to good PM miners, commodities, oil co's, etc.

For the EM's the calculation is more nuanced because i'm hoping to buy high growth stocks that may well neutralise the effects of any foreign currency fluctuations. In fact, it might be that our own UK devaluation (if v. big) could ironically hurt me more.

For Japan in terms of its devaluation effect on UK investors, I find it hard to even make a stab at a prediction, so would very much welcome others thoughts.

Like you, I have a lot of exposure to US , Asia and Japan. UK exposure is a bit under 30% but that is mostly commodity businesses that are mostly overseas selling in dollars then converting to pounds.

My logic is that my main exposure is UK since I live here, so my investing focus is overseas. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DurhamBorn, thank you again for this thread,which is an education in so many ways! I certainly don't want to pry into the details of your and your friend's formulas and correlations, but I am nevertheless very interested in the "most-macro" of your thoughts, and especially how they relate to recent history. I'm going to wrestle with my own understanding in this post, so if you take the trouble to read it, please forgive the length, and my stupid or misguided questions.

So, from partial explanations you have given, it seems to me that your work is not only more detailed (and predictive) than the usual cadre of economic theories, but also draws on insights from several different schools of economic thought.

For example, you talk about the next cycle as a "distribution cycle", which I think is an idea that comes originally from neo-Marxism. That is to say, there are times when wealth accrues to the owners of capital, but when they get too wealthy (or the workers too poor), then the capital owners can no longer make a profit; and then there are times when labour has pricing power, and wealth thus ends up getting distributed back to the working classes, in a "distribution cycle". Marx saw this as an oscillation that eventually gets out of control, destroying capitalism itself - but that is the "religious" or "messianic" side of Marxism. I think this idea of a distribution cycle applies to the 1970's, when unions were able to negotiate better and better terms for their members (a situation which eventually got a bit out of control, and workers ended up pricing themselves out of the labour market in comparison to other countries, as Marx might have predicted). I believe you are saying that in this regard, the 2020's (when we get through the debt deflation) will resemble the 70's in so far as workers in suitable industrial sectors will get back their pricing power. Is that fair (both my understanding of what a "distribution cycle" is, and its existence in both the 1970's and mid-2020's), or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Also, your work seems to draw on ideas of credit cycles - or at least, you have said that the "price of money" (in the sense of the long-bond rate, unadjusted for inflation) is one of the most important drivers of macroeconomics. You talk about 1982 to the present as being a "disinflation cycle", by which I think you mean a time of falling long-bond rates, rather than a fall in the supply of money (which would be a "deflation"). However, I am very puzzled by your phrase "the government can print all the disinflation that has happened since '82". I find this puzzling for two reasons: firstly, I don't really know what it means, as it seems to mix different categories of things; and secondly, you seem to be treating money-printing with approval, which is very much not in accord with Hazlitt's book ("The inflation crisis, and how to resolve it"), which you recommended earlier. Hazlitt argues that inflation (defined as an increase in money supply) is always damaging: it skews production in ways that are not needed by the market; it damages companies & people because (due to its non-uniform effects) they cannot calculate profit correctly, so end up doing non-profitable things, or being deceived into giving their capital away as dividends; and it allows government officials to distort, and extort from the productive economy. I have been thinking about this, and my guess is that what you really mean is roughly as follows: That the disinflation has, over the last 40 years, allowed a large build-up of debts, many of which are on non-productive assets (e.g. houses), and many of these will never be repaid. We now face a debt deflation, which has the potential to destroy many productive businesses, as well as unproductive ones. A strict Austrian economist might say "this is fine: let them go bankrupt and be bought up by stronger hands; that is the free market doing its job of purging excess". However, I recognise that supply chains are fragile things, and if too many companies go to the wall, then entire sectors might get destroyed, and recovering them would take decades. In that sense, there is a good role to be played by government forcing liquidity into the system (even to the extent of just printing), in order to keep whole technology chains from dissolving in the chaos. This is not only beneficial, but also necessary. However, being a government, and not a free market, this injection of money must create distortions and corruption. I think you are saying that the amount the government can print before those distortions become catastrophic, is roughly comparable to the scale of the bad debts; and further, that a wise government can use those distortions in ways that have long-term benefits, by directing them towards building infrastructure. In some sense, this is still consistent with Hazlitt's anti-inflation stance, because we now face a large (debt-)deflation; and although Hazlitt, writing in the 1970's, was not worried about a falling money supply, deflation can create analogous problems of free-market distortion to those created by inflation. Also, government taking over a larger fraction of the economy is, in general, a bad thing; but in this case it is firstly a necessary evil, to prevent collapse; but secondly (in a rare turn-up for the books, because debt-fuelled house-buying, and the growth of the welfare state during the disinflation has led to a neglect of investment in infrastructure) this government interference might even have some "positive externalities". Again, am I somewthat aligned with your thoughts, DB?

So, how do these "cost of money" and "government spending on infrastructure" aspects fit into recent history? The 1970s were a time of rising inflation, and I think you are expecting the 2020s (after the debt-deflation) to be similar in this regard. My impression though, is that the 70's were not a time of heavy infrastructure build, which had already happened in the immediate post-war decades. The 1970s felt like a running-down of industry, but with some desperate government props put in place to try to shore up key industries, against a background of increasingly noncompetitive production, and rising union power. If so, then the 2020s will surely be more positive (albeit very austere for the consumer), with supply chains coming home, and capabilities being (re-)built in the West?

The reason I keep harping on about the 1970s, is that I am worried about what you hint concerning the end of the 2020s. It sounds like we will face the possibility of currency collapse, which I think we did (to some extent) at the end of the 70's - and which is always a danger at the end of an inflation. In the early 80's, we had Paul Volker reining in the inflation, and I think we had what could be called a "stabilisation crisis" here in the UK, as money became tighter through Thatcherite monetarist policies, giving a severe recession. If that is so, then why are you expecting the end of the 2020's to be so much worse? Is it because the scale of the money-printing, and therefore the dislocation caused by its being reined in, is so much more disruptive? It seems to me that we should be better set up, industrially, than the end of the 70's. Being very speculative (and I don't think you have mentioned this) are you suggesting that we will have inadvertently gone through a 1930's, German-style re-industrialisation (together with constant, real, austerity for the workers), and then when export markets collapse, and the government cannot print for welfare, we end up with a tooled-up manufacturing sector with nothing to produce, and a discontented population? The only political option in that scenario might be war.

I note that your models have many other aspects too, such as psychology, and the insight that the market hurts the most people, and also a lot of detail about which sectors have knock-on effects (with delays) for other sectors. For that reason, I can see that there may be many differences between different distribution cycles throughout history. Nevertheless, it would be fascinating if you could say what you think will be notable about the end of the 2020s that will make it so perilous?

Coming back to the uncomfortable idea of global war, I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised that we didn't end up sucked into WWIII after the "great recession" of 2008. I was expecting the sort of correlation which I think people have seen with Kondratiev cycles and major conflicts. Specifically, I thought that within 10 years we would be in conflict with either China, or possibly Iran (the former for obvious reasons of rivalry with the West; and the latter not for any good reason, but because it seems to be a focus for warmongering with the American religious right, and would be a suitably-sized anvil to sacrifice a discontented generation on). So far, that has not happened. However, is this part of what you expect?

War, as general Butler famously said, is a racket. So, to bring this post back to the main subject of this thread, I should probably have the bad taste to ask: if the end of the 2020s do lead to conflict, what are the options for preserving capital. I don't know how precious metals fared during WWI & II, but it is certain that a lot of industries did very well. In that horrible eventuality, should be be looking at Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Caterpillar, or even your own Cummins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting article on ‘niche’ ETFs ‘following’ the spot price of WTI oil. 

Oil ETFs that (GIVE THE IMPRESSION) follow OIL spot price are particularly shitty because:

- Very High percentage charging (10-15%!)

- Longer you hold the more costs to investor. 

- If spot price oil rises by 100% you might make 20-30% if lucky. (That’s if rise takes place over a 6-12 month period). Any longer wait and your investment gets slaughtered. 

- CONTANGO - the ETF has to pay for all the storage costs etc and this is reflected in ETF share price.
 

- Targetted by leveraged shorts. I think the USA and FA will eventually introduce some severe regulation on these products (BOTH SHORT AND LONG). Already have done so in wrapping up the leveraged products and shorting products. 

- Only for those with an attitude to Very high risk - better ways to invest in oil. 
 

CRUD by name ‘ Crud’ by nature....
 

- £Billions of ‘tourist’ / ‘mom & pop’ and ‘millennial novice’ investors money tied up in oil ETFs. Going to get taken to cleaners and possibly precipitate a greater SM global crash.
 

Link is in Bloomberg - I cannot post it.

CA25FEB0-2571-44FC-8414-7DCAC2C562D2.png
 

Disclosure: I am long in a number of Oil stocks - RDSB, BP, Phillips etc...

D5E4F120-179C-458A-8D31-55D18D8E3FFC.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BurntBread

Il try to answer some of your questions a bit at a time.

"So, from partial explanations you have given, it seems to me that your work is not only more detailed (and predictive) than the usual cadre of economic theories, but also draws on insights from several different schools of economic thought.

For example, you talk about the next cycle as a "distribution cycle", which I think is an idea that comes originally from neo-Marxism. That is to say, there are times when wealth accrues to the owners of capital, but when they get too wealthy (or the workers too poor), then the capital owners can no longer make a profit; and then there are times when labour has pricing power, and wealth thus ends up getting distributed back to the working classes, in a "distribution cycle". Marx saw this as an oscillation that eventually gets out of control, destroying capitalism itself - but that is the "religious" or "messianic" side of Marxism. I think this idea of a distribution cycle applies to the 1970's, when unions were able to negotiate better and better terms for their members (a situation which eventually got a bit out of control, and workers ended up pricing themselves out of the labour market in comparison to other countries, as Marx might have predicted). I believe you are saying that in this regard, the 2020's (when we get through the debt deflation) will resemble the 70's in so far as workers in suitable industrial sectors will get back their pricing power. Is that fair (both my understanding of what a "distribution cycle" is, and its existence in both the 1970's and mid-2020's), or am I barking up the wrong tree?"

 

Well spotted.Yes indeed we are leaning very much to a 70s type cycle.Most of the tools (not all) were developed by macro strategists involved with Fidelity Investments.They actually built on tools developed over a long time and came around to developing "road maps".Fidelity were legends at stock picking,but what nobody outside knew was that underneath that stock picking was the macro work.My friend retired but a few are still active.

It is similar to Marx in that pricing power is going to move.He knew those things were certain.However this distribution cycle will see worker power improve,but also many older/retired selling assets for income.In the past the distribution went from capital to labour,but this will go from consumer to labour and anything industrial.Its why after this sell off is over i like things like telcos.Telefonica wont be noticed over 5 years putting a phone contract from £18 to £27,but it will double or treble free cash flow.That lease car wont be able to charge £600 a month.

The manufacture of the car sees inputs all going up in price before they can pass on some of it to the consumer.The telco is already depreciating the assets needed for its product.The miner has already dug the mine.They are close to the inflation,almost first base,thats crucial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BurntBread

The 2nd main point on the disinflation from 82 being available to be printed is too complex to go into.Its actually the bedrock of the calculations and so im not putting that public on the mechanisms.The key concept though is liquidity is only lost during a debt deflation at first.The assets still stand.The longer they stand out of use the more they fall apart and fail.The key is knowing how much dis-inflation was there from 82 so knowing how much they can print.We think they will print all of it and more.We cross market that to oil for instance and that gives us a price of $200 to $300+.

This of course assumes the CBs act,but they will.Its not a case of agreeing or not with them.Its the system we live under.To right size the economy they need to print all that dis-inflation so profit can return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, how do these "cost of money" and "government spending on infrastructure" aspects fit into recent history? The 1970s were a time of rising inflation, and I think you are expecting the 2020s (after the debt-deflation) to be similar in this regard. My impression though, is that the 70's were not a time of heavy infrastructure build, which had already happened in the immediate post-war decades. The 1970s felt like a running-down of industry, but with some desperate government props put in place to try to shore up key industries, against a background of increasingly noncompetitive production, and rising union power. If so, then the 2020s will surely be more positive (albeit very austere for the consumer), with supply chains coming home, and capabilities being (re-)built in the West?"

They will be better for the consumer longer term,but remember there will be a lag.A generation lag mostly.Those young people with HTB mortgages wont enjoy the inflation or wage increases because rates going up will take it all and more.

£400 interest on mortgage at 3% rates doubles at 6% rates.The wage increases will lag way behind that.Of course if you get a 10 year fix now;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BurntBread

"The reason I keep harping on about the 1970s, is that I am worried about what you hint concerning the end of the 2020s. It sounds like we will face the possibility of currency collapse, which I think we did (to some extent) at the end of the 70's - and which is always a danger at the end of an inflation. In the early 80's, we had Paul Volker reining in the inflation, and I think we had what could be called a "stabilisation crisis" here in the UK, as money became tighter through Thatcherite monetarist policies, giving a severe recession. If that is so, then why are you expecting the end of the 2020's to be so much worse? Is it because the scale of the money-printing, and therefore the dislocation caused by its being reined in, is so much more disruptive? It seems to me that we should be better set up, industrially, than the end of the 70's. Being very speculative (and I don't think you have mentioned this) are you suggesting that we will have inadvertently gone through a 1930's, German-style re-industrialisation (together with constant, real, austerity for the workers), and then when export markets collapse, and the government cannot print for welfare, we "end up with a tooled-up manufacturing sector with nothing to produce, and a discontented population? The only political option in that scenario might be war."

 

My friend says he hopes he is dead before the next cycle ends.Its exactly because of what you say.We will have a much better economy in industrial areas,and yes similar to Germany pre WW2 in output but not scale.However government spending  is and will be at eye water levels for welfare.The CBs wont be able to print at the end of the cycle.Inflation could be 20%+.Once they cant print governments cant pay the bills,benefits stop.This is where we will be in 2029.Likely the greatest financial dislocation and wealth destruction in all of history.Of course lots can change between now and then.If this thread is going,then the next several years will be about trying to work out if there are any areas to protect wealth.Where we are now and the next 12 months dislocation is nothing to the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BurntBread

"I note that your models have many other aspects too, such as psychology, and the insight that the market hurts the most people, and also a lot of detail about which sectors have knock-on effects (with delays) for other sectors. For that reason, I can see that there may be many differences between different distribution cycles throughout history. Nevertheless, it would be fascinating if you could say what you think will be notable about the end of the 2020s that will make it so perilous?"

The removal of the ability to print from CBs due to being on the edge of hyper inflation (20%+)

Imagine March 12th for two weeks with the Fed and CBs printing nothing.Injecting nothing.

Imagine that same scenario with treble the debts on government balance sheets.

Imagine the UK government now being unable to borrow anything and nobody to monetize.Imagine that now.All pensions and welfare payments stop last week.

When the government becomes  the main driver of the economy,but cant borrow.Worldwide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BurntBread

"Coming back to the uncomfortable idea of global war, I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised that we didn't end up sucked into WWIII after the "great recession" of 2008. I was expecting the sort of correlation which I think people have seen with Kondratiev cycles and major conflicts. Specifically, I thought that within 10 years we would be in conflict with either China, or possibly Iran (the former for obvious reasons of rivalry with the West; and the latter not for any good reason, but because it seems to be a focus for warmongering with the American religious right, and would be a suitably-sized anvil to sacrifice a discontented generation on). So far, that has not happened. However, is this part of what you expect?

War, as general Butler famously said, is a racket. So, to bring this post back to the main subject of this thread, I should probably have the bad taste to ask: if the end of the 2020s do lead to conflict, what are the options for preserving capital. I don't know how precious metals fared during WWI & II, but it is certain that a lot of industries did very well. In that horrible eventuality, should be be looking at Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Caterpillar, or even your own Cummins?"

I think we are already at war with China.It will be proxy war,fought on many fronts,main aim containment and slowing their growth so they implode.I cant see any areas to invest in at the end of the cycle.Its a long way away though and we have enough to worry about getting through this one.However hopefully the macro picture will provide some sort of road map.I have a feeling it will take a lot more guessing though.

My friend thinks one way out might be a war between India and China stoked by the west.He said watch Japan invest heavily into India during this cycle especially in industry to tool them for war.Just a thought for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vendetta incredible people buying a product like CRUD thinking its a way to play the long game on oil.They are for traders over very short periods.Probably a lot of people chasing losses elsewhere hoping for a quick 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

 

My friend says he hopes he is dead before the next cycle ends.Its exactly because of what you say.We will have a much better economy in industrial areas,and yes similar to Germany pre WW2 in output but not scale.However government spending  is and will be at eye water levels for welfare.The CBs wont be able to print at the end of the cycle.Inflation could be 20%+.Once they cant print governments cant pay the bills,benefits stop.This is where we will be in 2029.Likely the greatest financial dislocation and wealth destruction in all of history.Of course lots can change between now and then.If this thread is going,then the next several years will be about trying to work out if there are any areas to protect wealth.Where we are now and the next 12 months dislocation is nothing to the next one.

I'll be 62 in 2029 if I've dodged Covid, cancer, drunk drivers on the wrong side of the road etc etc. I will hopefully be retired and living in a semi rural house in a proper community. I suspect our aged parents will no longer be with us. I am predominantly worried about my children, currently 20 and 22. I have been drip feeding information to them in the last couple of years but it's a delicate balance between harsh reality and hope. It is impossible not to worry about their future. It's not their fault they've been born into this shit storm of an era. Hopefully they can get from this 4th turning into the next saeculum emotionally intact but it's going to be tough. Any others on here with the same concerns for their offspring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, @DurhamBorn, those are exactly the kind of detailed, thought-provoking, and worrisome replies I was hoping for.

I don't wish to be dead by the end of the decade (but who knows?), and I hope your friend is only using that as an emphatic figure of speech. Nevertheless, I will take on board the idea that my optimism might have been misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noallegiance
1 hour ago, Sasquatch said:

Any others on here with the same concerns for their offspring?

Absolutely.

My boys will be mid-teens. Ripe for influence beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually become much more optimistic about the future since I've had kids. Maybe I'm kidding myself, or maybe I think that they are the future and, being good kids, the future will be good. I'm certain they will be much more financially secure when they hit adulthood than I was, and I'm determined to teach them the financial lessons that my parents never taught me (or never felt they needed to teach me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a chance that by 2029 they just crash everything/let the system lockup and bring a new, possibly digital only, currency?  The big 5G push makes sense in a context of that and tracking everything/everyone.  Compared to "Watch movies on your phone"

It looks like even the good times in the mid '20s will just be a final hurrah in an un-salvageable system.  They'll keep it going just long enough to get the final pieces in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...