Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

vincecate wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:39 pm German PPI 37.2%
People are going to notice this eventually, one way or another.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:54 pm I follow 8 traders who have a good record of calling intermediate term trends in the market.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:16 pm Update below:

1. Long from a lower level (than where the market presently is). The S&P is going to 5000.
2. There will be a pullback from the 4150 area. It's not clear whether his long term position has changed.
3. No position. The medium term trend has turned up. The long term trend is still down. Waiting for a pullback to go long. No shorts until the medium term trend turns down.
4. Long from 3950. The medium term trend has turned up. The long term trend is still down.
5. Long from lower levels. The sentiment is still bearish enough to favor a swing to new all time highs.
6. 35% long. The bear market is probably over. The Fed is talking tough on interest rates but printing huge amounts of money.
7. No position. The main trend is down. The medium term trend has turned up. The short term trend is down. The downtrend will resume from here. Confirmation is required before taking a short position.
8. Still long from near the low. The S&P will get to 4200+ but not 4400 (as originally stated). There will be a big, fast reversal (down) in August.

1, 2, 5 and 6 have a bullish bias. 8 has a bearish bias. 3, 4 and 7 are unbiased, aligning their trades with their rules based trend systems.

Based on these positions, I think at least a pullback is likely this month. There should a bounce in the market on a first move down to about 3950 or 3900. Selling could accelerate below about 3850 on the S&P.

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:10 pm The US GDP is about $15 trillion and if we assume for simplicity (in order to get a maximum number) that all of the GDP is created by corporations, then corporate profits are about $1 trillion per year.

The US federal deficit is about $1.5 trillion per year. How ever you slice it or dice it, that excess gets spent into the economy and in general there a two main beneficiaries - large corporations by way of government contracts, bailouts and subsidies and poor people who can't save money. When poor people spend a government handout, of course the corporations only take their cut because they also have to provide something in exchange. Let's say a poor person goes to Wal-Mart with a food stamp card to buy a hunk of Kraft cheese. Kraft gets their 7.5% of wholesale (probably higher), Wal-Mart gets their 7.5% of retail (probably not that high), the media conglomerate that Kraft pays to advertise gets their cut and so on down the line. The poor person gets very little value of cheese and as that money gets circulated around in the economy virtually all of it that is not consumed ends up back in corporate coffers as profit with the exception of the little that wage earners can save out of their cut. To be specific, someone who is employed by one of these corporations will in all likelihood be able to save some of their wage, which then doesn't circulate back into the economy so the corporations can siphon it off.

Bottom line, a very high percentage of excess government spending in the form of government contracts, bailouts, subsidies, and aid for the poor winds up as corporate profits. I don't know what the percentage would be. My gut says it would be at least 1/3 of the $1.5 trillion. That's over $500 billion, or over half of all corporate profits using my simple assumption that maximizes an estimate for total corporate profits.

So now let's say the goverment balances the budget. Now we can see where this is going. We can see how the academic "expert" Village Idiots and assholes will stand behind the corporate Village Idiots and assholes who are part of this scam and pay their wages and consulting contracts, and declare, according to their phony expertise of which they have none, that deficit spending is absolutely necessary.

Balancing the federal budget would force gigantic, overstretched, money siphoning, unprofitable dinosaurs to get profitable without lobbying and sucking at the goverment teat when their idiot managements have NO IDEA how to get profitable, NOT A CLUE, without doing just that. And that's where the vicious spiral of deflation can begin to take hold.

So what I'm positing is that without government deficit spending there would be very little profit in this economy, on average. I believe from looking at the numbers that if the government were to balance the budget or already had, that perhaps 1/3 to 2/3 of the corporations in America would not be able to operate at a profit and would go bankrupt.

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:28 pm This week, the financial media is asking if the new Yahoo CEO will be able to turn Yahoo around when the others have failed.

To answer this question, first, we know that the tech companies that are very clever like Google and Apple have a knack for siphoning the excess money that is in the economy off into their coffers. Apple has an enormous amount of accumulated cash.

We can see how this happens. Consumer X may have a mortgage that they are not paying. No worries, the zombie who occupies the White House makes sure that the bank who holds the mortgage gets their bailout, their cut of the $1.5 trillion deficit, and we can add one more house to the shadow inventory. Consumer X can then go out and buy their favorite Apple devices with the money they save by not paying their mortgage and the zombie hopes this scam can go on until the election (to be clear, I'm not voting for Romney either - he's another farce and the Pub party should be absolutely ashamed to put that caiber of candidate in front of the public).

Assuming that the new Yahoo CEO, who comes from Google and is one of their 20 original employees and supposedly a major contributor to their success, can maintain that level of performance, then I do believe Yahoo can be turned around under the condition that the $1.5 trillion in deficit spending continues. If it does, those clever folks at Google, Apple, and now Yahoo will be able to find a way to continue to siphon a good share of that $1.5 trillion into their coffers.

On the other hand, if the budget is balanced next year and the excess $1.5 trillion disappears, then my assumption would be that no matter how good Yahoo's CEO is, there will be no possible way to turn Yahoo around. And I don't think even Apple will have an easy time of it if that were to happen.

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:43 pm Now onto Ben Bernanke who is my favorite subject of discussion.

Ben said that he could turn lead into gold with his helicopter, or what he really said is that a fiat electronic currency can be created in unlimited amounts, just like dropping regular paper currency out of helicopters, and therefore deflation can always be stopped.

One thing Ben forgot about is profit and the fact that corporations can become reliant on Ben's helicopter to the point that they can't be profitable without it. It would also be apt to say at this point that profit is a measure of wealth, but money is not.

Looking at the stock market, we now have two possible scenarios.

Ben can keep running the helicopter and channel free money to corporations so they can claim profits. Say a corporation operates at a $1 billion dollar loss without the helicopter drop. He can channel $2 billion to them so they can claim a profit while they continue losing money in their operations. They can keep their excess reserves on deposit at the Fed and earn 0.25% interest but have no other use for the money. in many cases, for the corporation to use the money to expand, make loans, and so on, they would only end up compounding their losses and needing even bigger bailouts.

The other option is that Ben can stop running the helicopter. If that happens, investors will soon realize that they bought Tulip Bulbs in many cases instead of stock in profitable corporations.

But in either case, I think it's too late because he ran the helicopter too long. The least painful option would be to stop running it but he's been running it for so long that the damage will likely be very severe if he stops. Under the wrong conditions, slowing the helicopter down or even not increasing the rate at which it runs could have the same effect as shutting it down.

The above 3 posts are all way oversimplified.

aeden wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:52 pm http://www.carrollquigley.net/
As you noted correctly the clerks had no interest in chage.

In addition Antony Cyril Sutton told us the intent and what they truly are.

Speaking as taxpayer the Agency issue proves the intent they worship evil.

Sutton concluded that it was all part of the economic power elites' “long-range program of nurturing collectivism” and fostering “corporate socialism” in order to ensure “monopoly acquisition of wealth” because it “would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market.”

In his view, the only solution to prevent such abuse in the future was that “a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from government, declares it will look after its own welfare and interests” or, specifically, if “a majority finds the moral courage and the internal fortitude to reject the something-for-nothing con game and replace it by voluntary associations, voluntary communes, or local rule and decentralized societies.”

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:34 pm The reason civilizations consisting of towns with immobile populations of 2,000 or fewer people work is everyone knows who the con artists are. And they are marginalized, or killed, or nobody lets their daughters marry them. Get a mobile population any larger than somewhere around 2,000 in an area, then deceit begins to spread out of control. Deceit is the core reason a civilization collapses. Nothing can save a civilization when deceit runs out of control.