Cool Breeze's Topic

As requested, this sub-forum is for partying, fun, gossip, conundrums, flirting, comedy, tragedy, or whatever.
Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

John wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:37 pm
** 25-Mar-2021 World View: Predictions
Cool Breeze wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:10 pm
> It will happen some time, but I don't know when. If I had to
> guess, my guess would be in my lifetime, but not in the next 10
> years.
Since thousands of people have believed something similar for
the last 2000 years, and they've all been proven wrong, you must
have some reason to believe that "This time it's different." Do you
have such a reason?
Cool Breeze wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:10 pm
> I haven't written books and made predictions on the parousia, nor
> have I made a forum about it, nor have I guaranteed anything about
> it. So it's not really a great analogy, but I've played your game
> even so. The point of the parousia is not to predict, so in that
> sense, you are missing a great deal of the theology around it
> already.
It's a good analogy because it provides a point of comparison. I guess
your point is that the Second Coming is entirely a matter of faith, with
no basis in reason or historical analogy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

As an analyst, I would say that if 2000 years of predictions have all
failed, then they're likely to fail for the next 2000 years, unless
there's some reason to conclude otherwise.
Cool Breeze wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:10 pm
> Are you admitting that you have religious devotion to your ideas
> though? That could be a big breakthrough here, John. Very
> interesting where we have come.
Not at all. When I set up my web site in 2003, my expressly stated
purpose is that I would post analyses and predictions, and leave them
there for all to see. If they had been proven wrong, then no
"religious devotion" would have helped. I would have dropped
Generational Dynamics like a hot potato, and would probably have gone
on to be a much happier person, with more friends. As things stand,
those analyses and predictions have always been right, so I'm stuck.

The prediction of a likely war with China is entirely analytical, for
reasons I've posted many times. Briefly:
  • Based on the cycles of history, Generational Dynamics predicts
    a world war around this time.
  • There were two world wars in the last century, and massive additional
    wars on every continent. In fact, there have been massive wars on
    every continent every century for millennia, so it's nearly certain that
    there will be massive wars and one or two world wars this century.
  • If there were a way to assign a numeric measure to xenophobia, then
    that number would be going up in China towards Japan, Taiwan, the Phillipines,
    Russia, India, Kazakhstan, etc. These numbers have been growing steadily,
    with no sign of leveling off. Applying the rule that "If something can't
    go on forever, then it won't," there has to be a war.
So the evidence for the Generational Dynamics prediction of war is entirely
analytical, and has no "religious devotion" component at all.
Cool Breeze wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:10 pm
> I read your Singularity article and it was interesting. I suspect
> you are a scientific materialist, which explains quite a bit.
I don't know what a "scientific materialist" is, but it sounds
interesting.

Have you read Tom Mazanec's short story on the Singularity?

** 'Maybe we'll get it right this time' by Tom Mazanec
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 090309.htm
The teaching of the Christianity is to be vigilant, always ready for death, so live your life the right way. I fail to see how that is an analogy, since yes it is a matter of faith, but it has no contradiction in reason, either. My speculation means nothing, like many of the other speculations, since the emphasis is on what we do, and to rightly direct ourselves to live the proper way. We can discern the signs of the times, but it's only to prepare our lives and to maintain our faith; that's the point.

If you have been predicting war since 2003, how have you "always been right"? Before you basically made guarantees in your posts about the coming war at a certain time. That's the only time I ever piped up and objected, precisely because your predictions haven't come true, yet (I agree, they may come soon, but I don't claim to know like you seem to claim).

I have said many times that I predict a "likely war with China" as well. So I agree with you. But again, you have said in prior posts that you guarantee at this point that it'll happen (in 3-4 years very likely, and in 10 a guarantee). If you would like to retract that, fine, I have no problem understanding that you are correcting maybe a prior error in use of language. So please set the record straight.

I'll take a look at Tom's analysis. I am interested in futurists, mainly because they doubt religious people (yes a lot of religious people are fanatics and ridiculous) but the amusing thing to me is that futurists have an absolutely hysterical nearly equivalent faith in "science" or "progress" claiming things "have to happen" although they clearly don't and they can't predict the future. Their God and Kingdom is what lefties also pursue, which is "progress" where HUMANS become the Gods. It's quite dangerous and disgusting, when you consider what humans are doing right now, and will do, in trying to achieve this. As if the human leaders and intelligent among us are somehow moral, or holy. It's laughable. They are as corrupt as any peon they call a "useless" eater, just in different ways. Yet they think they are something special, even though they too will go to dust like the rest of us.

Uploading some digital something or other (which is basically nothing) is easily the dumbest idea I have seen that smart people apparently have come up with, calling it a sort of immortality. Unreal how stupid this non-sequitir is, it's quite laughable again. How does anyone take this BS seriously?

Finally, the idea of the existence of alien life forms (while of course possible and I have no problem with it) is the ultimate faith paradigm, as there is absolutely no evidence for it. Pure faith in some silly "mathematical" nothing idea. No evidence whatsoever. At least Kartik Gada over at The Futurist is wise enough on this topic to state that if by 2030 we have no contact by an alien life, there is a near 100% probability none exists. I agree. If you disagree, that is faith and a faith based religion.

John
Posts: 10214
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by John »

** 26-Mar-2021 World View: Prediction guarantees
Cool Breeze wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:29 pm
> If you have been predicting war since 2003, how have you "always
> been right"? Before you basically made guarantees in your posts
> about the coming war at a certain time. That's the only time I
> ever piped up and objected, precisely because your predictions
> haven't come true, yet (I agree, they may come soon, but I don't
> claim to know like you seem to claim).

> I have said many times that I predict a "likely war with China" as
> well. So I agree with you. But again, you have said in prior posts
> that you guarantee at this point that it'll happen (in 3-4 years
> very likely, and in 10 a guarantee). If you would like to retract
> that, fine, I have no problem understanding that you are
> correcting maybe a prior error in use of language. So please set
> the record straight.
OK, how about this. Generational Dynamics predicts that we're headed
for new world war "soon." Analyzing trends, such as increasing
nationalism and xenophobia in various countries, makes it appear that
the world war will pit China vs US. It seems likely that it will
begin in the next 3-4 years, but it may begin later, with the
probability increasing with each year.

As the saying goes, "it is what it is." I can provide more analysis
to support those views, but I can't say, "war with China will begin on
July 23, 2025." That's impossible. And you're wrong when you say
I've been wrong, since I always use probabilistic language with
indefinite timings. If I name a specific date, then it's a typo. If
you'd like, search through my 2004 postings, and you'll find a place
where I did name a date. I was just starting out, and that was a
mistake, and I learned my lesson.

Back in the early days, I did try to assign probabilities, based on
data I'd collected. See the following:

** Six most dangerous regions in world (20-Nov-2004)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 041120.htm



If you read through to the end, then you'll find that I computed the
probability of a crisis war in 2005 in one of the six dangerous
regions to be about 21%:

Code: Select all

1 - (1-.0432)*(1-.0283)*(1-.0432)*(1-.0436)*(1-.0283)*(1-.0431)
	= .2089 = 20.89% ;
If it didn't happen in 2005, then the probability would go up a little
bit each year.

This approach didn't pan out, but it was an interesting approach to
trying to analyze probabilities.

I kept struggling with the concept of assigning probabilities. I
wrote the following article out of frustration:

** A beautiful mind? The world is paralyzed into a 'Nash equilibrium' (17-July-2006)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 17nash.htm



I was trying to use a the concept of a "Nash equilibrium" to try to
explain why you couldn't predict dates and probabilities. I pretty
much gave up after this.

Around that time, I started looking at incorporating the concepts of
Chaos Theory into Generational Dynamics, and I developed the concept
that the start of a war would be a "chaotic event in the sense of
Chaos Theory," meaning that it could happen at any time, and would be
triggered by some random, unpredictable event. (Just as a butterfly
flapping its wings in China could cause a chain reaction leading to a
hurricane in America.) And I developed the concept of a "trend
value," something that's reasonably measureable, that grows worse with
time, where the saying "If something can't go on forever, then it
won't" applies. As time goes on, the probability that a random event
will trigger the chaotic event increases with time (since the trend
value is worsening).

Here's an analogy: A forest fire (chaotic event) can start when a
random spark (also a chaotic event) is applied to dry underbrush.
When the underbrush is wet, then a random spark will have no effect.
But as the underbrush dries out over time (trend value), then the
probability that a random spark (chaotic event) can trigger a forest
fire (chaotic event) increases with time. At some point, as the
underbrush becomes dryer and dryer (trend value), and the probability
that a random spark will start a forest fire increases, even the
tiniest spark can trigger a forest fire.

In the 1930s, tensions between Japan and China worsened constantly
(trend value). In 1937, a random event (chaotic event) occurred where
a Japanese soldier had to pee and got lost in the woods. This random
event triggered World War II: The Japanese accused the Chinese of
abducting him, and military actions began.

It's interesting that once the chaotic event occurred, things happened
very quickly. Within just a couple of months, the "Rape of Nanking"
occurred, for example.

Returning to the forest fire analogy, the underbrush must have been so
dry that once a tiny fire started, it became a huge forest fire very
rapidly.

So today, I'm saying that the underbrush is very dry (trend value), as
measured by rapidly increasing xenophobia and nationalism in many
countries, and all it needs is the right random trigger, a chaotic
event, to start a world war. And so: WW III could start tomorrow, or
next week, or next year, or five years from now. It's impossible to
predict when that will happen, but the underbrush gets dryer each day
(trend value), and the probability that a random event will trigger a
war grows every day.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

Good reply, the thinking makes sense.

Do you think that others can be better predictors and "assigners of probability" in the sense that, for whatever reason, that isn't your forte? I'm curious if you think others might have certain analytical points to their mind that enables or facilitates synthesis of similar or even different, information.

The post WWII demographic change and general synchrony of the world's population has really set up a potential avalanche here. Not only do the world's financial markets and debt systems hang in the balance, the war thing also looms for reasons you constantly state.

It's the technocratic dystopia that quite honestly, worries me more, since tech slavery is the way out of even the cycles we think should always, or assume should always, happen. The reason I don't think great resets and all of these globalists stooges will be successful is that governments are generally chaotic and incompetent. I certainly believe this about the USA currently. They can do some things and threaten in particular spots, but their dysfunction is amazing when you really consider how the common man thinks about how "powerful" it is.

John
Posts: 10214
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by John »

** 30-Mar-2021 World View: Prediction domains
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:47 pm
> Do you think that others can be better predictors and "assigners
> of probability" in the sense that, for whatever reason, that isn't
> your forte? I'm curious if you think others might have certain
> analytical points to their mind that enables or facilitates
> synthesis of similar or even different, information.
A successful methodology for making predictions has to be within
a specific domain. The Generational Dynamics analyses and predictions
that I've made have been within a very narrow domain, and within that
domain I don't know of anyone in the world who has been more
successful.

However, in this forum, Navigator has made predictions about the
course of the war with China once it begins. Those are based on his
experience, his skills, his intuition, and his research on military
history. Navigator wrote a book on how to prepare for the "coming
storms." I could never have written that book, nor made as excellent
predictions about the course of the war with China, since it's out of
my domain, and I don't have anything skills or experience in that
area that Navigator has.

With regard to predicting whether a business will succeed or fail,
there are few if any people who are as successful at that as
Warren Buffett. He makes predictions in that domain that are far
more accurate than those of almost anyone else.

In this forum, Higgenbotham has been brilliant in making money by
going short. According to Higgie, almost everyone he's been in
contact with online who been going short has been forced to give up.
He's the only one who has survived in that domain, and has so far been
able to beat John Kenneth Galbraith's Principle of Maximum Ruin (the
maximum number of people ruined to the maximum extent possible) as
well as John Maynard Keynes's dictum, "The markets can remain
irrational longer than you can remain solvent." But I've watched
Higgie for years, and I've seen him come close to disaster a couple of
times, but he's always been able to survive because of his ability to
make predictions in a slightly different domain, day trading, or "bot
smashing."

In the political arena, the pollsters are the professional predictors,
but they often make mistakes, and have to learn from their mistakes
and improve their methodology.

So the point is that successful analyses and predictions in a given
domain require innate ability, experience, skills, research, and
intuition within that particular domain, and that same set of
attributes will probably do you no good in other domains.

I've heard several "experts" on CNBC and elsewhere say that the
biggest mistake that people make in their investments is that they
don't follow their plan, but instead make emotional decisions. I
agree that that's the biggest reason for failure. I know that I've
had to make predictions that I didn't want to make. And politicians
are wrong all the time because they make stupid decisions based on
their emotions or ideology. This is particularly true of
"economists," who are supposed to be experts, but make some of the
stupidest predictions around, because they're all political
predictions.
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:47 pm
> The post WWII demographic change and general synchrony of the
> world's population has really set up a potential avalanche
> here. Not only do the world's financial markets and debt systems
> hang in the balance, the war thing also looms for reasons you
> constantly state.

> It's the technocratic dystopia that quite honestly, worries me
> more, since tech slavery is the way out of even the cycles we
> think should always, or assume should always, happen. The reason I
> don't think great resets and all of these globalists stooges will
> be successful is that governments are generally chaotic and
> incompetent. I certainly believe this about the USA
> currently. They can do some things and threaten in particular
> spots, but their dysfunction is amazing when you really consider
> how the common man thinks about how "powerful" it is.

Well, that's the generational cycle. After WW II, everyone was
super-cautious, both in finance and foreign policy. As time has gone
on, and younger generations come to power, and they unravel all the
super-cautious policies that were put in place during and after the
war, and soon everything falls apart and there's a "potential
avalanche," resulting in another war.

Returning to the forest fire analogy, once a forest fire destroys the
entire forest (generational crisis war), there's no more dry
underbrush (generational Recovery era). But as the forest is
restored, and new young saplings grow into trees, they throw off twigs
leaves that form new underbrush (Awakening era). At first the leaves
and twigs are green enough so that even a lightning strike would not
cause a fire. But as the underbrush dries out (Unraveling era), the
forest becomes more vulnerable to a new fire, although a small fire is
extinguished quickly, since the underbrush is not yet dry enough to
sustain it. But finally, the underbrush becomes dry enough (Crisis
era), so that even the tiniest spark can start a forest fire that
quickly spreads to the entire forest, burning down cities, people,
homes, and anyone else who can't find a safe place to hide.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

Yes yes yes. Good post.

You skipped over my tech slavery suggestion though. Any thoughts on that thwarting a war? The overlord governments are just find to monitor and enslave their people through subsistence and drugged living?
Last edited by Cool Breeze on Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

John
Posts: 10214
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by John »

** 31-Mar-2021 World View: Tech slavery
Cool Breeze wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:46 pm
> You skipped over my tech slavery suggestion though. Any thoughts
> on that thwarting a war? The overlord governments are just find to
> monitor and enslave their people through subsistence and drugged
> living?
I really don't understand what you mean by "tech slavery." Are your
referring to our "computer overlords" after the singularity? Are you
referring to some kind of enslavement by Google, Twitter, Facebook and
Amazon? I don't know what you mean.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

Yes, technocrat slavery (tracking, surveillance, manipulation, etc).

I'm not sure how this will work out, but I'm pretty sure they have certain types of profiles of most people; at least generic ones.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

John wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:41 am
That's because it isn't simple. All you know is "Too many dollars
chasing too few goods. Too many dollars chasing too few goods. Too
many dollars chasing too few goods." That's the simple formulation,
which is all you know. But it's much more complex and nuanced than
that.
Another great example of something I've never said, but you put on me and think I say. Scour the posts and you won't find anything I've said near that. Stop being a simpleton, and stop misrepresenting arguments, another simpleton technique.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:51 am
Simple idea:

“If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.”

― Warren Buffett

The Bitcoin bubble is no more complicated than that. It can be expressed in a number of simple ways.

Inflation is more complicated.
Another useless, and irrelevant quip. Try an argument for once.

Is the USD a ponzi scheme, Higgie? Why don't you talk about it being one? Do you think charts in Turkey or Argentina (Saylor pointed this out) which show a USD "bubble" relative to their currency, are bubbles or just people going to a more desired asset?

Gotcha. There's no way out. You have no argument. I expect you'll reply to this with more emotional, nothing language, and unrelated anecdotes.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

vincecate wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:51 am
Simple idea:

“If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.”

― Warren Buffett

The Bitcoin bubble is no more complicated than that. It can be expressed in a number of simple ways.

Inflation is more complicated.
The people holding 30 year bonds at 2% are the patsies. The dollar does not have another 30 good years in it, for sure.
The people who bought them when the yield was 1.25% are starting to realize they made a mistake.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2521/30-yea ... ield-chart
Isn't it amazing the non-arguments these guys make?

We've given actual facts, reasons, examples, etc. They just reply with the words "No." or "bubble". It's a sad state of affairs for their credibility and use of language, even (on this topic).

"Bubble" is (like Saylor says) their "get of of thinking free card" (mine). The use of the word is a crutch because it requires no thought.

One final time, bubble bros. You claim it's a bubble. Make your case.

And if for the 5th time, you try the argument, "Prove to me it's not" I will definitely lose respect for you. That's not understanding logic, arguments, truth, or even trying, to be certain.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests