Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 3)

[Axeman123]

3 hours ago, spygirl said:

https://www.investopedia.com/trading/market-cycles-key-maximum-returns/#toc-3-distribution-phase

Not mentioned in the link is the concept of "secular" and "cyclical" market phases.

Several alternating cyclical bulls and bear market phases will constitute a secular bull, where each bear market bottom forms a higher low than the previous one effectively stairstepping higher over decades.

A secular bear may contain the same alternating cyclical bulls and bears, but crucially it will take out one or more previous bear market low and can form a series of lower lows at each cyclical bear market low.

Without trying to speak for DB, I understood his distribution cycle as broadly similar to a secular bear market.

Maybe broad indexes (S&P500 etc) crater during the BK cyclical bear, fail to regain the previous high during a cyclical bull over 5+ years, Drop to a new lower low in a cyclical bear in the late 2020s...and then who knows. The secular bear would only really be widely identified as such in retrospect at around the last stage listed.

[Axeman123]

15 minutes ago, marceau said:

The effect also gets stronger over time, hence the Chernenko comparison. By the time the 1st gen of pure ideologues is entrenched at the very top you have 2 entire generations of even bigger idiots fully produced and out in the environment beneath them. Biden/Clinton gen 1, Harris/Obama gen 2, and the likes of AOC/Omar gen 3. Gen 3 being full-spectrum imbeciles.

Really well put.

I would however suggest that Biden (decades ago) and Clinton were largely just competent and corrupt. I doubt they had any particular political principles beyond power for it's own sake and personal gain.

Obama again seemed competent and somewhat grounded in reality, if perhaps somewhat a coolaid drinker on some of the propaganda, and yet Harris seems like she should be in the mail room.

Gen 3 as you say are fully retarded.

15 minutes ago, marceau said:

The UK & EU are vassal states, both have lagged US political trends by a decade or two, as that has been the amount of time needed to push out and localise the required legal changes. This lag has also reduced over the generations, and now sometimes measures in only months. Nothing can change in the EU or UK until US control is forced out or collapses, it is the originator.

This is why I would welcome a US/Russia multipolar world. 

[marceau]

11 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

I would however suggest that Biden (decades ago) and Clinton were largely just competent and corrupt. I doubt they had any particular political principles beyond power for it's own sake and personal gain.

They were entirely raised in the ideological system created by FDR and came of political age during the 'progressive' breakthroughs of the 60s, albeit with Biden a decade senior. They are both true believers. They are (marginally) more competant than subsequent gens because of the lingering social presence of the previous system, which has been entirely eradicated by the time of Gen 3. Gen 4 can't even identify men and women, such is the depth of indoctrination.

 

17 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

Obama again seemed competent and somewhat grounded in reality, if perhaps somewhat a coolaid drinker on some of the propaganda, and yet Harris seems like she should be in the mail room.

Obama was promoted by the system at a time when it could still manage perceptions effectively. By the time of Harris they have lost the ability. I think they are, in reality, identical in capability & outlook.

[JMD]

1 hour ago, marceau said:

Obama was promoted by the system at a time when it could still manage perceptions effectively. By the time of Harris they have lost the ability. I think they are, in reality, identical in capability & outlook.

I recall that even Obama was stumped by a 'gender fluidity' question late on in his presidency, 2015ish I think it was, he didn't even appear to take the Q&A audience question seriously. Really underlines how much things have changed in terms of far left indoctrination and thought.                                                                                      However it was the MSM that sought to make a story out of the above debacle (despite it centering on their sainted Obama) and for me this underlines how manipulative the MSM are. I note that they are also the main instigators of the poisonous and destructive social media furores, always pumping and dumping divisive stories into the public realm, and then piously but disingenuously pretending to be somehow the moral arbitors?!    ...I'm ranting, sorry for that but I'm angry, and it's only the 1st January!!

[marceau]

1 minute ago, JMD said:

However it was the MSM that sought to make a story out of the above debacle (despite it centering on their sainted Obama) and for me this underlines how manipulative the MSM are. I note that they are also the main instigators of the poisonous and destructive social media furores, always pumping and dumping divisive stories into the public realm, and then piously but disingenuously pretending to be somehow the moral arbitors?!    ...I'm ranting, sorry for that but I'm angry, and it's only the 1st January!!

They are regime propagandists, doing what the system created them to do. The reason they are now so unpalatable to so many is:

1. The system that is being promoted is that of the hostile ideology that captured the US, post-Ellis Island.

2. They don't have the quality of people required to do the job effectively any more (including the ability to disguise pt 1).

[JMD]

6 hours ago, Cattle Prod said:

That because very apparent to me after the last election. Open goal for the democrats after Trump, and they had some excellent candidates like Tulsi Gabbard. Articulate, intelligent, principled, veteran, active duty army officer, woman, "woman of colour", hot, literally ticked every single box. She destroyed Kamala Harris on the debate stage as if to emphasize this. Result? Dems choose Harris as running mate to a senile old duffer, barely beating Trump 

I scratched my head about that one for a while. Your explanation helps. But why is that they cannot produce another good candidate? "The Swamp" being fearful of actually being drained? To select a good candidate would be suicide fir the thousands of useless apparatchiks?

And of course for the Washington swamp read across for the Whitehall Blob (Boris has to be most easily manipulated PM I've ever seen), or the EU (Von Der Leyen as a cardboard cutout polo with a tape recorder strapped to her head).

I think democracy mostly works, in that the majority of people will choose the right leader at the right time (of course this doesnt apply to the EU, they've skipped that bit and just appoint the overlord). Like Churchill being booted out once the war ended. But we don't have any control over the candidates being offered. And no one seems to notice.

CP, excuse my thread drift and I know it wasn't your main point, but you mentioned Churchill and (I am triggered - not really - into saying that) Peter Hitchins has interesting things to say on what he calls the 'Churchill myth'. There is quiet a lot to his 'myth' viewpoint, but essentially Hitchins main objection is Churchill's hawkish-ness, and that Britain would have been better staying out of WW11 until the US entered the conflict, that there was no rush, and that we would have got better terms (no lend lease etc).                                                                                                                                            I realise critism of Churchill sounds like heresy-speak today, and too be clear i am fully onboard with the 'positive power of myth' (including that of Churchill, whos influence I think on balance was positive) and that nation's do indeed need to have a 'settled historical story' in order to create social cohesiveness etc. However I also believe Britains politicians today still jump to quickly into talk of conflict and of defending the freedoms of others, etc. All very principled of course, but in practice mostly ineffective to say the least. Rather alarmingly, it is Russia that seems to be the latest target of our 'moral military missionaries'!!!

[DurhamBorn]

11 hours ago, Mapper said:

Can @DurhamBorn or anybody else clarify the meaning of "distribution cycle"?

From the beginning of this thread I have not really grasped what it means exactly.

A while back I heard David Hunter in an interview refer to the term. He said the next cycle would be characterised in part by stocks that had made highs this cycle being sold off bit by bit. He said they would trend lower over the long term but with occasional bids higher. At these times long-term holders would see an opportunity to bail out. He said that was a "distribution cycle".

The other day I heard Peter Schiff describe the same mechanism for long-term holders of bit coin pumping and dumping in order to realise gains. He referred to that as "distribution".

The way DB has mentioned it, I had it in mind that it was more complex than just the above. That it was a process of capital moving from unproductive assets to productive ones. The reasons for that? Again, I am not clear. Is it to do with rising interest rates favouring capital supporting more productive endeavours? ie. If money is costly it ought to be put to good use?

A distribution cycle in the simplest terms is where assets needs to be sold to keep a level standard of living.The reason is the economy cant produce enough for the demands on it.Over the cycle this capital from assets being sold goes to pay for the inflation and that then sends price signals for companies to invest.DH is right,but only very simplistic.The macro is those assets being sold down are seeing the capital being moved to a much smaller band of companies,ones who can leverage inflation,not leverage dis-inflation like the last 40 years.

If you cross marker the macro on it you then see all the affects.For instance the pensioner paying more for their food having to run down assets more,they are distributing their savings to the shop worker,warehouse worker,farm labourer,farmer etc,but mostly to the potash company and energy company.Capital sat with savers is consumed by the whole chain,some more than others.Given most peoples capital is housing equity,its likely that will see the biggest distribution,that and 40/60 type pensions,even more so ones in drawdown.

 

[Majorpain]

22 hours ago, marceau said:

 

Events are certainly well advanced and the 80s does seem like the best comparison. The (hopefully) original point of my posts is that interlopers (Bolsheviks in Russia, 'globalists' in the US), having captured their respective systems, then used those systems to produce an ideological generation incapable of maintaining the thing they had captured. The ideological conditioning required a rejection of the norms associated with the captured nation, with advancement dependant on ever further ideological commitment at the expense of practical reality.

The USSR could not, therefore, have produced and promoted another Stalin or Lenin (products of Czarist Russia), their own systems would have made it impossible. Likewise the US cannot produce and promote another Eisenhower or FDR, for example; only dross like the Clintons, Bushes & Bidens and the legion of useless clowns that exist below them. Competance and practical ability are rejected as part of the political process, so the system cannot perceive its problems, let alone remedy them, and down we go.

I don't like Curtis at all. Just a series of non-sequiturs with spooky music imo. 

That's along the lines of what Dominic Cummings has made several posts about, although in the UK the PM actually has very little power as most of its is devolved to the departments.  That doesn't mean ministers run things however, the nitty gritty is done in pre-meetings by civil servants in the background who know how to get the system to do (or not do) what they want it to. That was most obvious with Brexit, where the population said do one thing and the "system" threw it dummy out the pram and spent most of its effort 2016-19 trying to stop it, and will do doubt fight any attempt to reform it doubly hard.

The one saving grace about Westminster is a majority of MP's know if they screw up badly they can and will be voted out, its not much, and usually not long before they get a mayoral or other gravy train job, but its more than US House/Senate or EU offers. 

[marceau]

1 hour ago, JMD said:

CP, excuse my thread drift and I know it wasn't your main point, but you mentioned Churchill and (I am triggered - not really - into saying that) Peter Hitchins has interesting things to say on what he calls the 'Churchill myth'. There is quiet a lot to his 'myth' viewpoint, but essentially Hitchins main objection is Churchill's hawkish-ness, and that Britain would have been better staying out of WW11 until the US entered the conflict, that there was no rush, and that we would have got better terms (no lend lease etc).                                                                                                                                            I realise critism of Churchill sounds like heresy-speak today, and too be clear i am fully onboard with the 'positive power of myth' (including that of Churchill, whos influence I think on balance was positive) and that nation's do indeed need to have a 'settled historical story' in order to create social cohesiveness etc. However I also believe Britains politicians today still jump to quickly into talk of conflict and of defending the freedoms of others, etc. All very principled of course, but in practice mostly ineffective to say the least. Rather alarmingly, it is Russia that seems to be the latest target of our 'moral military missionaries'!!!

David Irving is the guy for the alternative version of Churchill. Although given some of his other work I'd be careful about how you go about getting his books, you might end up on some list somwhere. 

Bear in mind the British also went through an imperial collapse, albeit without a hostile ideological takeover. Possible you could lay Peel down as the start and someone like Lloyd George down as the end phase, with Churchill being one of the later-generation clown underlings who cause destruction everywhere they go and are never held to account. By the time he gets into the premiership the empire has already collapsed, although it takes until Suez for people to realise it.

[Yadda yadda yadda]

Anyone got ideas on the best ways to invest in private healthcare? I see this as an expanding sector as the NHS falls apart and some services can be cheaply undertaken online (counter arguments to this also welcome). BUPA appears to be investable. I guess insurance companies will grow but this isn't going to leverage the sector. Otherwise it might all get gobbled up by private businesses.

[Axeman123]

5 minutes ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Anyone got ideas on the best ways to invest in private healthcare? I see this as an expanding sector as the NHS falls apart and some services can be cheaply undertaken online (counter arguments to this also welcome). BUPA appears to be investable. I guess insurance companies will grow but this isn't going to leverage the sector. Otherwise it might all get gobbled up by private businesses.

Ages ago Vangaurd etc had healthcare index etfs. After Obama care was introduced I looked into the possibilities, and I seem to remember them doing well a while later when I checked. Never invested though.

[Yadda yadda yadda]

24 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

Ages ago Vangaurd etc had healthcare index etfs. After Obama care was introduced I looked into the possibilities, and I seem to remember them doing well a while later when I checked. Never invested though.

I was thinking it might be an etf. Spire Healthcare might be something I'm after.

[M S E Refugee]

28 minutes ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Anyone got ideas on the best ways to invest in private healthcare? I see this as an expanding sector as the NHS falls apart and some services can be cheaply undertaken online (counter arguments to this also welcome). BUPA appears to be investable. I guess insurance companies will grow but this isn't going to leverage the sector. Otherwise it might all get gobbled up by private businesses.

Their are quite a few Healthcare REITS that own medical facilities and Hospitals like Welltower in the US and Assura in the UK.

[Talking Monkey]

4 hours ago, marceau said:

They were entirely raised in the ideological system created by FDR and came of political age during the 'progressive' breakthroughs of the 60s, albeit with Biden a decade senior. They are both true believers. They are (marginally) more competant than subsequent gens because of the lingering social presence of the previous system, which has been entirely eradicated by the time of Gen 3. Gen 4 can't even identify men and women, such is the depth of indoctrination.

 

Obama was promoted by the system at a time when it could still manage perceptions effectively. By the time of Harris they have lost the ability. I think they are, in reality, identical in capability & outlook.

What's caused the system to not be able to manage perception as effectively from say the couple of years before the 08 election. 

[marceau]

1 minute ago, Talking Monkey said:

What's caused the system to not be able to manage perception as effectively from say the couple of years before the 08 election. 

Degradation in the quality of their people, improvement in the quality and number of dissidents, the impact of new technology and a sprinkling of foreign interference. 

[working woman]

2 hours ago, Yadda yadda yadda said:

Anyone got ideas on the best ways to invest in private healthcare? 

Preventative and Wellness Businesses as well as treatments for when people get ill.

[JimmyTheBruce]

7 hours ago, marceau said:

By the time the 1st gen of pure ideologues is entrenched at the very top you have 2 entire generations of even bigger idiots fully produced and out in the environment beneath them. Biden/Clinton gen 1, Harris/Obama gen 2, and the likes of AOC/Omar gen 3. Gen 3 being full-spectrum imbeciles.

Beautifully put.  I've never seen a better explanation of Abbott, Lammy, Ashford, etc

[AWW]

10 hours ago, wherebee said:

if you have a mortgage free property to live in, you are not subject to rent increases

Neither are people who rent, as far as I can tell from my local rental market (north London)

[MrXxxx]

10 hours ago, wherebee said:

for example, if you have a mortgage free property to live in, you are not subject to rent increases

But you are a 'sitting duck' for government and/or local taxation....and in an asset that potentially is not very liquid [if everyone runs for the door or the buyers market dries up], this is what puts me off property, especially in the UK where a) they are expensive [so difficult to 'cut your loses and run'], and b) successive governments seem to be happy to give all of my 'hard work' to either their 'mates' or the idle.

[WICAO]

4 hours ago, M S E Refugee said:

Their are quite a few Healthcare REITS that own medical facilities and Hospitals like Welltower in the US and Assura in the UK.

Not a recommendation but I own shares in Primary Health Properties (ticker: PHP) who do this.

[WICAO]

2 hours ago, MrXxxx said:

But you are a 'sitting duck' for government and/or local taxation....and in an asset that potentially is not very liquid [if everyone runs for the door or the buyers market dries up], this is what puts me off property, especially in the UK where a) they are expensive [so difficult to 'cut your loses and run'], and b) successive governments seem to be happy to give all of my 'hard work' to either their 'mates' or the idle.

Are you a renter or an owner occupier?

Reason I ask is that you have to live somewhere and as a renter the experience is not always pleasant.  For example I am so looking forward to not having to do the annual rental increase negotiation bullsh*t.  It'll be great to just fix something when it's broken.

[leonardratso]

47 minutes ago, WICAO said:

Are you a renter or an owner occupier?

Reason I ask is that you have to live somewhere and as a renter the experience is not always pleasant.  For example I am so looking forward to not having to do the annual rental increase negotiation bullsh*t.  It'll be great to just fix something when it's broken.

as all good landlords know, broken things often fix themselves eventually, either that or they just stay broken forever with a promise to fix them sometime this lifetime. I do so hope a lot of them got a good fucking kicking in the wallet this past lockdown.

[WICAO]

10 minutes ago, leonardratso said:

as all good landlords know, broken things often fix themselves eventually, either that or they just stay broken forever with a promise to fix them sometime this lifetime. I do so hope a lot of them got a good fucking kicking in the wallet this past lockdown.

I'm happy to pay for parts and fix something that I own.  I like my stuff clean and in very good condition.  I'm not happy to fix something for somebody who thinks I'm a lower class citizen and a significant inconvenience within their debt leveraged money making scheme.

[AWW]

1 hour ago, WICAO said:

I am so looking forward to not having to do the annual rental increase negotiation bullsh*t.

Here's how my annual rental increase negotiation has gone every year since 2010:

Me: Hello?

Letting agent: Hello! Your contract is up for renewal and I wanted to discuss the rental payment with you.

Me: I'm an excellent tenant, have never missed a month's rent and I look after the place.  I'm not even going to discuss an increase.

Letting agent: Oh OK, I'll run that past the landlord.

I then never hear from them for a year. I'm sure the game will be up at some point, but that time has not yet come.

[WICAO]

3 minutes ago, AWW said:

Here's how my annual rental increase negotiation has gone every year since 2010:

Me: Hello?

Letting agent: Hello! Your contract is up for renewal and I wanted to discuss the rental payment with you.

Me: I'm an excellent tenant, have never missed a month's rent and I look after the place.  I'm not even going to discuss an increase.

Letting agent: Oh OK, I'll run that past the landlord.

I then never hear from them for a year. I'm sure the game will be up at some point, but that time has not yet come.

I guess it depends how many years you've been renting for.  I do the same and then before the call make sure I also know what the current market rates are.  I'd say 1 in 3 times I've had no increase but the rest have seen an increase except on one memorable occasion where I managed to negotiate a decrease.  The ar*eholes I hate are the ones who very early on start the S21 threats.  There is a special place in hell for them.