Calling the Next Long Term Bull Trend

[smk762]

Swap the Americans for the Chinese for a brighter future??????
Remember Tiannemen Square (or however it is spelt).
Honestly, I might not like what the yanks have been up to, but I don't see any major powers stepping up that I would prefer. (My Nana was always waiting for the Russians to come and liberate us, but I son't subscribe to that theory)
If the American economy melts down, we might be somewhat prepared, but I don't think the years afterward will be any picnic.

Tienanmen was a long time ago, but the recent US police militarisation has been disturbing. I don't think China is overly interested in forcing global domination, they are patient enough for it to happen through genetics over generations and through economics by catering to materialist cultures. The art of war is to win without fighting.

I'm not keen on any of the major powers, but I think the US can't keep up this game for long. Adapt to survive. The UK saw the writing on the wall when it's empire started to crumble, and it managed to stay relevant.

 

[mmissinglink]

We understand the dollar is an instrument of war, disease, famine and most importantly debt. The world is weaning itself off the petrodollar. Sovereign nations are buying less and less of our stuff with Tbills and bonds. They don't want our debt. They don't want our wars. They don't want our bio-terrorism. They don't want satanic psychopathic central bankers turning the place into a putrid ashtray. There is a changing of the guard as we speak. I don't know which Commander in Chief is running the US but its not Obola - he's playing golf. Ordo ab chaos - dollar devaluation, shortages, a basic leveling or "reckoning" as the zealots like to say and a new Sino central banking hegemony. I've got my sights on a brighter future (regardless of the timing next long term bull trend in pm's) as the system returns to homeostasis and a greater semblance of sanity - with lots of rain expected this Friday in northern CA.

Presidents in the US today and for the past 100 years or so are by-and-large, figureheads. The decisions they make are generally those that either Wall Street or giant corporations want, the political party the sitting president is affiliated wants, or powerful special interests want (ie., powerful PACS and unions). The president, whether Dem or Rep is there mostly for public consumption and to give the appearance of legitimacy to the whims of those who really are in control (Wall Street, etc). Yes, on some social issue policies the president may actually have his own say even if it differs from his party or the elite and powerful, but on matter such as major spending/aide, foreign policy, and trade agreements as just a few examples, what the president may want is inconsequential to what is demanded by the groups who hold the strings tied to the president's lips, tongue, and signing hand.



.

 

[Sian Marie]

We understand the dollar is an instrument of war, disease, famine and most importantly debt. The world is weaning itself off the petrodollar. Sovereign nations are buying less and less of our stuff with Tbills and bonds. They don't want our debt. They don't want our wars. They don't want our bio-terrorism. They don't want satanic psychopathic central bankers turning the place into a putrid ashtray. There is a changing of the guard as we speak. I don't know which Commander in Chief is running the US but its not Obola - he's playing golf. Ordo ab chaos - dollar devaluation, shortages, a basic leveling or "reckoning" as the zealots like to say and a new Sino central banking hegemony. I've got my sights on a brighter future (regardless of the timing next long term bull trend in pm's) as the system returns to homeostasis and a greater semblance of sanity - with lots of rain expected this Friday in northern CA.

Presidents in the US today and for the past 100 years or so are by-and-large, figureheads. The decisions they make are generally those that either Wall Street or giant corporations want, the political party the sitting president is affiliated wants, or powerful special interests want (ie., powerful PACS and unions). The president, whether Dem or Rep is there mostly for public consumption and to give the appearance of legitimacy to the whims of those who really are in control (Wall Street, etc). Yes, on some social issue policies the president may actually have his own say even if it differs from his party or the elite and powerful, but on matter such as major spending/aide, foreign policy, and trade agreements as just a few examples, what the president may want is inconsequential to what is demanded by the groups who hold the strings tied to the president's lips, tongue, and signing hand.



.

Suffice it to say we are living in a global oligarchy and national sovereignty is an illusion.

 

[chucklenut]

Hey chucklenut,

Many of your arguments don't hold water at all. I will explain why. First though, I do want to agree with one thing you've stated, "...everything in economics is based in the buyers' confidence of what a product is worth...." Yes, that's why fiat money is used instead of precious metals today and why in spite of the fact that one may give away silver, salt, dollars, or gold, those things won't necessarily lose their perceived value because confidence would not necessarily be undermined.

Nation building is not providing security...it's telling others that we will impose the leaders, values, and military bases we want on your soil for the purpose of controlling either the spigot of resources or the cultural dynamic that is favorable to our worldview.

I think you have little to no clue about Middle East and American history. Which nation led the undermining and destabilization of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan most recently? Which country supported and propped up the Ba'athists during the corrupt Reagan and Bush 1 administrations? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran Which nation supported and propped up the radical and depraved predecessors of Al-Qaeda (remember that bunch whose figurehead, Osama bin Laden, was enemy number 1 to the war hawks in the US?) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1670089.stm

If you answered the U.S. to all of those, you'd be right. Learn your history before making absurd accusations.


As for most people benefiting, you don't even have a good anecdotal argument let alone something substantive. Since the invasion and subsequent military occupation of Iraq beginning in 1990 (Gulf War - a war of choice no doubt for the U.S.), what has been the all in cost to the tax payer for everything (including long term health care for vets who were psychologically or physically damaged and payouts to family members of soldiers who died as a result of injuries in these US led attacks, and I mean everything)? What has been the cost in lives and trauma to vets, their families, and the rest of us? At this level of incomprehensible expense, are we really more safe now? Before 1990, there have been no incidents inside the US of retributional killings but since the Gulf War we have had a few...the short list includes those who have been succesful in killing others here in the US or were caught prior to carrying out their plans for killing in the U.S. That short list includes but is not limited to (in no particular date order: November 2009: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, July 2011: Army Pfc. Naser Abdo, June 2009: Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, October and November, 2010: Marine Corps reservist Yonathan Melaku. These were all deadly or near deadly incidents that were carried out on military installations. If not even our own military installations are less safe since the Gulf War began, then why would that make civilians more safe??? It doesn't.

Most people in the world are actually not better off because of these deadly and extremely costly wars of choice....to claim that it is is simply regurgitating war hawk propaganda. Countless people have paid dearly in many ways for these wars of choice.


.

you sure are inserting alot of bias into your argument here

i kept my personal political sentiments out for the most part (to claim me as a warhawk is funny)

we swapped to fiat courtesy of nixon because (he and others claimed) speculators were ruining US currency

as for your summation of the middle east and american politics, remember hind sight is 20/20.

we didnt destabilize the region, we took advantage of it. maybe perhaps you see an increase in terror attacks is because of increased globalization? as economies become intertwined and our influence spread (since america is the worlds largest economy) it would make sense that western, especially american targets, would be attacked more often

i think your own bias is clouting your ability to remain objective on this topic (as if the bush and reagan admin is any more or less corrupt than obama or clintons or bush jr. (i am assuming you were referring to bush sr.))

lol, fact is the middle east sucks because.....well, its the middle east

 

[chucklenut]

We understand the dollar is an instrument of war, disease, famine and most importantly debt. The world is weaning itself off the petrodollar. Sovereign nations are buying less and less of our stuff with Tbills and bonds. They don't want our debt. They don't want our wars. They don't want our bio-terrorism. They don't want satanic psychopathic central bankers turning the place into a putrid ashtray. There is a changing of the guard as we speak. I don't know which Commander in Chief is running the US but its not Obola - he's playing golf. Ordo ab chaos - dollar devaluation, shortages, a basic leveling or "reckoning" as the zealots like to say and a new Sino central banking hegemony. I've got my sights on a brighter future (regardless of the timing next long term bull trend in pm's) as the system returns to homeostasis and a greater semblance of sanity - with lots of rain expected this Friday in northern CA.

Presidents in the US today and for the past 100 years or so are by-and-large, figureheads. The decisions they make are generally those that either Wall Street or giant corporations want, the political party the sitting president is affiliated wants, or powerful special interests want (ie., powerful PACS and unions). The president, whether Dem or Rep is there mostly for public consumption and to give the appearance of legitimacy to the whims of those who really are in control (Wall Street, etc). Yes, on some social issue policies the president may actually have his own say even if it differs from his party or the elite and powerful, but on matter such as major spending/aide, foreign policy, and trade agreements as just a few examples, what the president may want is inconsequential to what is demanded by the groups who hold the strings tied to the president's lips, tongue, and signing hand.



.

What? presidents today have more power than ever because since FDR they have been influencing international relations via foreign policy/trade policy

congress before hand traditionally had to vote on, and impose agreed upon tariffs/sanctions/what have you against a specific country (not industry, market, region, but specific country). we all nkow how long congress takes to do anything