THIS TIME ISN’T DIFFERENT

Last year ended with a whimper on Wall Street. The S&P 500 was down 1% for the year, down 4% from its all-time high in May, and no higher than it was 13 months ago at the end of QE3. The Wall Street shysters and their mainstream media mouthpieces declare 2016 to be a rebound year, with stocks again delivering double digit returns. When haven’t they touted great future returns. They touted them in 2000 and 2007 too. No one earning their paycheck on Wall Street or on CNBC will point out the most obvious speculative bubble in history. John Hussman has been pointing it out for the last two years as the Fed created bubble has grown ever larger. Those still embracing the bubble will sit down to a banquet of consequences in 2016.

At the peak of every speculative bubble, there are always those who have persistently embraced the story that gave the bubble its impetus in the first place. As a result, the recent past always belongs to them, if only temporarily. Still, the future inevitably belongs to somebody else. By the completion of the market cycle, no less than half (and often all) of the preceding speculative advance is typically wiped out.

Hussman referenced the work of Reinhart & Rogoff when they produced their classic This Time is Different. Every boom and bust have the same qualities. The hubris and arrogance of financial “experts” and government apparatchiks makes them think they are smarter than those before them. They always declare this time to be different due to some new technology or reason why valuations don’t matter. The issuance of speculative debt and seeking of yield due to Federal Reserve suppression of interest rates always fuels the boom and acts as the fuse for the inevitable explosive bust.

In 2009, during the depths of the last crisis that followed such speculation, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff detailed the perennial claim that feeds these episodes in their book, This Time is Different:

“Our immersion in the details of crises that have arisen over the past eight centuries and in data on them has led us to conclude that the most commonly repeated and most expensive investment advice ever given in the boom just before a financial crisis stems from the perception that ‘this time is different.’ That advice, that the old rules of valuation no longer apply, is usually followed up with vigor. Financial professionals and, all too often, government leaders explain that we are doing things better than before, we are smarter, and we have learned from past mistakes. Each time, society convinces itself that the current boom, unlike the many booms that preceded catastrophic collapses in the past, is built on sound fundamentals, structural reforms, technological innovation, and good policy.”

“The essence of the this-time-is-different syndrome is simple. It is rooted in the firmly held belief that financial crises are something that happen to other people in other countries at other times; crises do not happen, here and now to us… If there is one common theme to the vast range of crises we consider, it is that, excessive debt accumulation, whether it be by the government, banks, corporations, or consumers, often poses greater systemic risks than it seems during a boom.”

The third speculative boom in the last fifteen years fueled by Federal Reserve idiocy is about to become a the third bust in the last fifteen years. The unwashed masses who believe what they are told by CNBC are going to be pretty pissed off when they lose half their retirement savings again. None of their highly paid financial advisors are telling them to expect 0% returns over the next twelve years, but that is their fate. The numbers don’t lie over the long haul.

My view on “this time” is clear. I remain convinced that the U.S. financial markets, particularly equities and low-grade debt, are in a late-stage top formation of the third speculative bubble in 15 years. On the basis of the valuation measures most strongly correlated with actual subsequent market returns (and that have fully retained that correlation even across recent market cycles), current extremes imply 40-55% market losses over the completion of the current market cycle, with zero nominal and negative real total returns for the S&P 500 on a 10-12 year horizon. These are not worst-case scenarios, but run-of-the-mill expectations.

Hussman recently saw the brilliant take down of Wall Street – The Big Short – and thought it was a highly accurate portrayal of the rampant criminality of the Wall Street banks. They created fraudulent mortgage products, doled them out to suckers, and created complex toxic derivatives, selling them to clients while shorting them at the same time. Hussman’s only problem with the movie was that it left the true villain off the hook with nary a mention. Wall Street could not and would not have created the trillions of fraudulent products if the Federal Reserve had not kept interest rates at 1% and had performed their regulatory obligations of overseeing the banks.

The answer is straightforward: as the bubble expanded toward its inevitable collapse, the role of Wall Street was to create a massive supply of new “product” in the form of sketchy mortgage-backed securities, but the demand for that product was the result of the Federal Reserve’s insistence on holding interest rates down after the tech bubble crashed, starving investors of safe Treasury returns, and driving them to seek higher yields elsewhere.

See, the Fed reacted to the collapse of the tech bubble and the accompanying recession holding short-term rates to just 1%, provoking yield-seeking by income-starved investors. They found that extra yield in seemingly “safe” mortgage securities. But as the demand outstripped the available supply, Wall Street rushed to create more product, and generate associated fees, by lending to anyone with a pulse (hence “teaser” loans offering zero interest payments for the first 2 years, and ads on TV and radio hawking “No income documentation needed! We’ll get you approved fast!”; “No credit? No problem! You have a loan!”; “Own millions of dollars in real estate with no money down!”). The loans were then “financially engineered” to make the resulting mortgage bonds appear safer than the underlying credits were. The housing bubble was essentially a massive, poorly regulated speculative response to Federal Reserve actions.

And now the Fed has done it again. The stock market on most valuation measures is the most overvalued in world history. The rolling tsunami is about to wipe away the life savings of millions for the third time in fifteen years.

The current, obscenely overvalued QE-bubble is simply the next reckless response to Federal Reserve actions, which followed the global financial crisis, which resulted when the housing bubble collapsed, which was driven by excessively activist Federal Reserve policy, which followed the collapse of the tech bubble. As my wife Terri put it “It’s like a rolling tsunami.”

The pompous professionals inhabiting the gleaming skyscrapers in the NYC financial district are still arrogantly ignoring the imminent bust headed their way. The Fed juiced gains over the last six years will evaporate just as they did in 2007-2009. Cheerleading for and denying the existence of the bubble is a common them among those whose paycheck depends upon them doing so.

One had to suffer fools parroting things like “being early is the same thing as being wrong” until the collapse demonstrated that, actually no, it’s really not. The 2007-2009 collapse wiped out the entire total return of the S&P 500, in excess of risk-free Treasury bills, all the way back to June 1995.

Since two crashes weren’t enough to teach the lesson, here we are again, at what’s likely to be seen in hindsight as the last gasp of the extended top formation of the third speculative bubble in 15 years. The median stock actually peaked in late-2014.

And now for the bad news. At current market valuations, a run of the mill bust will result in a 50% decline. A bust that puts valuations back to 1982 bear market lows would result in a decline exceeding 75%. Whether it is a violent collapse or long slow decline, there is no doubt that returns over the next decade will be non-existent. This is not good news for Boomers or GenX entering or approaching retirement.

For the S&P 500 to lose half of its value over the completion of the current market cycle would merely be a run-of-the-mill outcome given current extremes. A truly worst-case scenario, at least by post-war standards, would be for the S&P 500 to first lose half of its value, and then to lose another 55% from there, for a 78% cumulative loss, which is what would have to occur in order to reach the 0.45 multiple we observed in 1982. We do not expect that sort of outcome. But to rule out a completely pedestrian 40-55% market loss over the completion of the current cycle is to entirely dismiss market history.At present, investors should expect a 12-year total return from the S&P 500 of essentially zero.

The reckless herd has been in control for the last few years, but their recklessness is going to get them slaughtered. Corporate profits are plunging. Labor participation continues to fall. A global recession is in progress. The strong U.S. dollar is crushing exports and profits of international corporations. Real household income remains stagnant, while healthcare, rent, home prices, education, and a myriad of other daily living expenses relentlessly rises. The world is a powder keg, with tensions rising ever higher in the Middle East, Ukraine, Europe, and China. The lessons of history scream for caution at this moment in time, not recklessness. 2016 will be a year of reckoning for the reckless herd.

There’s no question that at speculative extremes, recent history always temporarily belongs to the reckless herd that has ignored concerns about valuation and risk at every turn. Fortunately, the future has always belonged to those who take discipline, analysis, and the lessons of history seriously. Decide which investor you want to be.

Read Hussman’s Weekly Letter

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
110 Comments
DRUD
DRUD
January 5, 2016 5:43 pm

OneMoreCup gets one thing right–there is no use engaging and why I almost never do. I do not know what the cumulative effect of all human industry has been on the planet…unlike many other I do not pretend to.

I do know that there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an ulterior motive whenever the government and MSM opens its collective mouth. It is the same with AGW. Also, no can refute what HSF says above and no one even mentions my point about there being far more serious ecological disasters looming. The AGW narrative is all about taxation, money and control. This is true no matter what the science is or what the actual future may hold.

If, even if, AGW was ENTIRELY Anthropogenic and if, even if, the government truly and genuinely had the best possible interest and only the best possible interest of humanity and the future of planet earth at heart–there is NOTHING in the history of government that would suggest that any attempt by the government to solve the AGW problem would not make it much worse. War on poverty – dreadful failure by all accounts. War on drugs – dreadful failure by all accounts. War on Terror – are you fucking kidding me?

But, of course, with AGW it is clear that the government will save us…HURRAY!

Jynn
Jynn
January 5, 2016 5:45 pm

You’re right OneMoreCup, I’ll refrain (probably) from any more comments here. HardScrabble, sorry for using the word ‘debunked’, I agree it suggests an automatic win without requiring much proof to back it up. As I said earlier, I’m not trying to suggest the climate hasn’t changed drastically in the past, and some of the earths previous natural climate change also likely would have done serious damage to the human species.

At this point I think perhaps a little light relief is in order. Check out my hero, George Carlin talking about the environment:

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 5, 2016 5:58 pm

Hey Jynn, howz about you provide some proof that the Earth’s orbit changes when it comes out of an Ice Age. Do be sure to provide the source for GIFUCKINGNORMOUS source of energy it would take to change our orbit. What is the impetus for this change? What causes it to revert back? Can you even define “orbit”?

If the morons in this country (world) had even the slightest fucking bit of science education or just some idea of what science is, we wouldn’t have idiotic BS like this clogging up the works.

You see kiddies, our owners want…….no………NEED us to be dumb as posts so they can foist this shit on us. Books are the antidote.

Jynn
Jynn
January 5, 2016 6:19 pm

Drud, Amen to that. Read a darkly funny thing other day written by Greer at Archdruid report, that the MSM were celebrating a big victory at the COP-21 climate talk in Paris when in fact all the actually agreed on was slowing down, not the output of greenhouse gases, but slowing down the rate of INCREASE. And the MSM cheerleads this like the world is saved.

Also agree that humans are fucking the world in all sorts of disastrous ways, but my opinion is that climate change is the biggie that’s going to get our descendants.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 5, 2016 6:23 pm

ONEMORECUP, you’ve obviously never tried to teach a pig to smoke.

Jynn
Jynn
January 5, 2016 6:34 pm

Servant, so you expect that the earths orbit should be exactly circular with no variation? We’re talking about nature here, no straight lines, no perfect circles. So yeh of course there are cycles, one is the degree of tilt of earth’s axis , affecting severity of seasons, another is the roundness of the orbit, which interact with each other to create cycles of ice ages and warming. No extra energy needed, just a natural cycle. And no, I didn’t just look this up, I remember it from university.

It seems your angry post was intended to convey superior knowledge but to me you just come out sounding ignorant. You have a very strong opinion but you’ve clearly not even looked this stuff up.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 5, 2016 6:49 pm

Then there’s the n-body problem. Haven’t heard much out of the UN or the POTUS on that one.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 5, 2016 6:58 pm

My post was meant to convey the need for you to think critically rather than regurgitate bullshit. I’ve been a lifelong amateur astronomer. I study astronomy for FUN because I enjoy it, not to get a piece of paper signifying I could accurately regurgitate info given to me by someone else.

Tilt of the Earth’s axis has nothing to do with it’s orbit. Uranus’ axis is tilted 97 degrees yet it has a stable orbit. Earth’s orbit is extremely stable and has been for a very long time.

Don’t believe everything you’re told………even what I say. Question everything. Our govts and the owners of this planet thrive on our ignorance. As HSF says, anytime claims are made that something is “settled” is just an attempt to stifle the discussion.

I’m off to the salt mines. BBL.

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 6:42 am

right, so what I learned in university is bullshit. Anyway I’m done, no more replies from me.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 7:14 am

@Jynn, no, I don’t expect the Earth’s orbit to be exactly circular. As a matter of fact I KNOW that it is not. Besides the decades of armchair self education on the subject of astronomy, the simple fact that educated, critical thinking humans, can launch a spacecraft from Earth and hit landing and close approach targets like Pluto using the ephemeris (look it up) of Earth’s orbit developed and refined by centuries of detailed and precise observation proves beyond any doubt that Earth’s orbit is EXTREMELY stable.

Nature DOES have perfect circles and straight lines. Want examples? Drop a sphere into a calm body of water and watch perfect circles emanate repeatedly from the center. Many planetary nebulae seem to be perfect circles. Most stars appear to be perfectly circular or spherical. If you think that straight lines and even perfect 90 degree angles don’t exist then you need to look into crystallography and crystal twinning or simply study gemstone formation. Hell, just look at a snowflake……straight lines galore! Not only do straight lines exist but perfectly flat planes exist. Atoms aren’t arranged willy nilly!

You are correct that the tilt of the Earth’s axis affects the seasons on Earth but that tilt is not variable and has nothing to with the “severity of seasons”. You might be dumbfounded to know that when it’s winter in the Northern hemisphere, the Earth is closest to the Sun in our extremely stable orbit and when it’s summer in the northern hemisphere the Earth is farther away from the Sun. Earth’s orbit traces an ellipse around the Sun, not a circle. More proof needed? Look into what causes a total eclipse of the Sun and an annular eclipse of the Sun.

You calling me ignorant is the height of hypocrisy. You are the perfect example of why the world is so fucked up…….you just regurgitate false information rather than using the lump of fat between your ears (yes, the brain is primarily composed of fat, look it up) to vet the information you’re given. You’re just a sheep like billions of others. As long as you have TV and a piece of iCrap to stare at you’ll remain ignorant BY CHOICE! It’s an honor to be called ignorant by you. Really! And yeah, I’m angry because there is far too much willful ignorance in the world. The corrupt governments and real owners of this planet NEED you to be ignorant to carry out their plans which explains why you took astronomy in “University” and escaped with ZERO practical knowledge of the most basic aspects of it. Congratulations! The sad part is that you think you’re educated and yet, you presumably have the ability to vote for people who recognize how to use your ignorance in their favor. Enjoy!

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 7:15 am

@Jynn, I’m sure you understand how scientific models work…….basically you input data, the model crunches the data and spits out a result. Envision for a moment you’re using a calculator to compute your paycheck. You add up the hours worked, multiply the result by your rate of pay, subtract X amount for retirement contributions, subtract some percentage for taxes etc to arrive at a final result. If you happen to put a decimal point in the wrong place or exclude one or add one by mistake, your calculations are going to be off right? Same goes for the digits themselves…..one wrong digit throws off the entire calculation making the result unequivocally wrong and useless.

Here’s a little something you can do to determine if the data used the climate models is accurate. I did exactly this myself. The climate model uses temperature data gathered from all over the globe. A large part of this data comes from NWS & NOAA approved weather monitoring stations. Guidlines exist as to how the stations are to be constructed, situated and equipped. (you can look these guidelines up) If a station does not meet the guidelines, data gathered by those stations is not entered into official records for statistical purposes because the data cannot be trusted.

In my little corner of paradise there are several stations included in the global warming models. One in particular caught my attention on a college campus where we hold our local astronomy club meetings. When this station was first established it was in an open, grassy field. Over the years as the college expanded buildings were erected in this open grassy field altering natural wind and air circulation patterns. A black asphalt parking lot was paved all around and under this weather station. The station which once met guidelines no longer does and has not for several decades.

You don’t have to be a genius to know that walking barefoot in a grassy field is much cooler than walking barefoot on black asphalt on a hot, sunny day. You also don’t have to be a genius to know that brick buildings and asphalt collect and store solar radiation (heat) during the day and release it at night.

Guess what? That individual weather station shows a definite increase in average temperatures beginning in the 1970’s that coincide perfectly with the additions of the buildings and parking lot. As you might have guessed by now, the much vaunted climate “scientists”, (I use that term loosely) included the data from that station in their model supporting global warming even though it was compromised and anyone with a decent high school education could see that. Now if these “scientists” that the global warming community worships so much included flawed data from even ONE source, it invalidates the data spit out by their model and brings every piece of data used into question.

Any honest or legitimate scientist would immediately retract their results and begin vetting the data used to build the model but these retards, with full cooperation of tax hungry governments did exactly the opposite and doubled down on the stupid. Does the East Anglia climate scandal ring any bells?

You can research the weather monitoring stations in your area that were included in the model too. Yes, you’ll have to do some digging and it will take some time and maybe a few field trips to investigate these things. Unfortunately, arriving at the truth involves more that tuning into CNN or watching an Al Gore movie or trusting what you read on your iCrap and it might not make you popular with your friends but truth is ALWAYS worth it.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 7:26 am

@Jynn, yes! If you believe that tilt of the Earth’s axis affects the “severity of seasons” then what you learned in University is bullshit!

I use a simple ping pong ball with a toothpick through the middle and a bare light bulb to illustrate to grade school kids how orbital mechanics causes the seasons on Earth. Whether any given season is slightly warmer or colder or cloudier or windier or sunnier has absolutely NOTHING to do with the the tilt of the Earth’s axis.

The answers to severity of climate have to do with fluid dynamics of both liquids and gases on Earth and heat radiation from the Sun driving them. The heat radiation from the Sun varies quite a bit. For starters, read about the Maunder Minimum.

Willfully ignorant is no way to go through life. Besides, learning is fun!

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 7:30 am

Correction to my comment @7:14am:

Tilt of the Earth’s axis doesn’t *affect* seasons, it causes them.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 6, 2016 8:31 am

The way it has worked- at least in my lifetime- has been that an authority will pronounce an alleged fact, i.e. anthropogenic global climate change is real and a threat to the planet- and that alleged fact will be parroted repeatedly via the institutions of the State, the MSM, academia, et al. As responses to the claim come in they will either be ignored, dismissed without consideration, ridiculed or as a final option, told that no further input is necessary since “the science is settled” or “97% of scientists agree”.

The longer I live, the more information I am able to gather and assess and as I discover relevant information that disinclines me to accept the Official Story(tm) the more certain I become that the claims- if not false- are immaterial to the positions or solutions offered.

Let’s take the Climate Change argument. No one can argue against it because it takes place, has taken place, will continue to take place both before, during and after mankind has been on the planet. Everyone can agree to that. So what exactly is the issue? That it is getting warmer. So you point out that it got MUCH warmer when mankind played zero role in the warming yet we now enjoy a very hospitable climate, how was that warming good but this one bad? “One is natural and the other is man-made”, they will say as if man is not a part of nature. In most cases, the AGW advocate will be an urbanite, an academic or someone who lives and works in a decidedly UNNATURAL MAN-MADE environment and is a major contributor to the very problems they rail against. I am a farmer and I sequester more carbon in a month than most people do in a lifetime. I work in accordance with the seasons and natural lighting, am off grid, self sufficient, etc and yet my input and data are dismissed as somehow “unscientific” despite rigorous observation- what I always understood to be the hallmark of science.

I agree with with Jynn that you aren’t likely to change people’s minds. What they ought to be doing, if they really cared and wanted to make a real contribution, would be to get out of their cubicle and get back to an agrarian lifestyle that offsets the problems they see rather than trying to get government to dig ever deeper into my threadbare pockets while hypocritically jetting from Paris to DC in their private jets with their armored limos and heavily armed bodyguards to sip champagne and eat caviar on our collective dime while pretending that they give a shit about people or the environment. It would be laughable if it weren’t so insulting, yet not one of these so-called advocates haunts their message boards and forums trying to shame them into compliance, do they?

Of course not.

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 8:35 am

“@Jynn, yes! If you believe that tilt of the Earth’s axis affects the “severity of seasons” then what you learned in University is bullshit!”

Don’t need to be a rocket scientist to get why a greater angle would cause warmer summers and colder winters. As to why it might cause ice ages:

Yes I did go to wiki for this one, because I don’t remember the exact details, but here you go:

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

‘Axial tilt, the second of the three Milankovitch Cycles, is the inclination of the Earth’s axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Oscillations in the degree of Earth’s axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees.

Today the Earth’s axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees, which largely accounts for our seasons. Because of the periodic variations of this angle the severity of the Earth’s seasons changes. With less axial tilt the Sun’s solar radiation is more evenly distributed between winter and summer. However, less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.

One hypothesis for Earth’s reaction to a smaller degree of axial tilt is that it would promote the growth of ice sheets. This response would be due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter’s accumulation. At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range.’

Your arrogance and insults are really not appreciated in what could be a sensible debate.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 6, 2016 8:40 am

“Your arrogance and insults are really not appreciated in what could be a sensible debate.”

One could easily say the same about your posts. I am nothing, however, if not a reasonable man and I will take you up on the debate if you’re interested. No arrogance or insults whatsoever.

Go.

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 9:05 am

Admittedly a few of my comments have been written while my blood was up and my opening post was something of a veiled insult. I apologise for that.. Happy to start fresh as I do find this topic very interesting, with a guarantee of no insulting words. Hopefully Servant can do the same.

To start I would suggest contesting the following regarding why ice core samples show temperature rise preceding CO2 rise, which gives rise to the false conclusion that CO2 can’t be the thing that causes global warming:

““When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.”

Servant has already responded to this by saying that the earth’s orbit does not change to which I would respond that he’s going to need to disprove the Milankovitch orbital cycle theory which states:

“Eccentricity is, simply, the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. This constantly fluctuating, orbital shape ranges between more and less elliptical (0 to 5% ellipticity) on a cycle of about 100,000 years. These oscillations, from more elliptic to less elliptic, are of prime importance to glaciation in that it alters the distance from the Earth to the Sun, thus changing the distance the Sun’s short wave radiation must travel to reach Earth, subsequently reducing or increasing the amount of radiation received at the Earth’s surface in different seasons.”

Then there are other cycles (axial tilt and precession) which also affect climate but we can go into those later if need be.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 6, 2016 9:23 am

If we’re going to debate, we first have to establish positions-

What’s your position regarding AGW?

Here’s mine-

The climate on Earth is in a constant state of flux. There is no constant “correct” climate. There are a wide variety of factors that affect climate, all of them natural. Attempting to alter climate to either preserve or restore a “perfect” climate are at best arrogant and directly contradict the premise- that mankind is having an affect on climate, i.e. therefore we should further attempt to alter it to fit our concept of “proper” or “perfect”- fill in whatever word best suits.

DC Sunsets
DC Sunsets
January 6, 2016 9:29 am

(Chuckle.)

This started as a thread about the financial system. Notice where it went?

For what little it’s worth, please consider noting that people now are positively lining up to yell at each other (on line.) If stocks and (especially) bonds begin to tank in earnest, look for them to line up and at first yell at each other in person, then attack each other physically.

This is normal behavior in a bear market in SOCIAL MOOD.

It is irresistible, and you and I are being pulled by strings inside our minds operating at levels far below the conscious.

The parts of our brains involved in this are the same ones that run phobias and reflex actions (like jumping when a box of snakes lands in your lap.) It’s not rational and you won’t even realize it’s pulling your strings unless you pay very close attention to your actions and notice when you find yourself rationalizing what otherwise is a pretty irrational or even foolish action you took.

This is the system that drives people to by stocks (land, bonds, etc.) after they’ve been rising for a long time and “everyone” knows they’re going higher (usually near a top) and the system that causes people to panic-sell right at lows, just before the ensuing rally.

Get used to being angry. You’re going to find yourself marinating in anger for a while, I suspect.

DC Sunsets
DC Sunsets
January 6, 2016 9:33 am

@Hardscrabble,

You nailed it.

Look at (what amounts to) political action everywhere. It all falls into two categories:
1. Move the world toward Utopia.
2. Stop change.
(I leave off #3, which is really the rule: Privatize profit, socialize costs.)

Is today’s “climate” optimal? That question is never asked, is it?

Is a static climate possible? That question also is never asked.

FWIW, all living systems (and systems made up of living things) are dynamic. Only dead things are static. So when you see someone try to tell you to support some notion that is synonymous with stasis, you know they’re too short for the ride.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 6, 2016 9:35 am

DC, thread drift has been around as long as I can remember. You’re right about the mood though, it will get much darker…

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 9:57 am

“The climate on Earth is in a constant state of flux. There is no constant “correct” climate. There are a wide variety of factors that affect climate, all of them natural.
Attempting to alter climate to either preserve or restore a “perfect” climate are at best arrogant and directly contradict the premise- that mankind is having an affect on climate, i.e. therefore we should further attempt to alter it to fit our concept of “proper” or “perfect”- fill in whatever word best suits.”

I completely agree Hardscrabble. However I would say there is a big difference between altering the climate for our needs and discontinuing to fuck it up. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any serious plans to try alter the climate eg. some silly plans like pumping sulphur dioxide to counteract CO2, space shields etc. I think this debate is more about whether AGW is real or not.

Here’s my position:

Climate has been in a constant state of flux and is one of the main reasons for the rise and fall of animal / plant species. Natural climate change can be slow or in some cases, very rapid due to positive feedback loops. The evidence suggests that AGW which is due to a rapid increase of CO2 over the last century will override any natural climate change, possibly triggering huge positive feedback loops (eg: methane in the arctic), and causing massive climatic disasters in the coming century leading to a huge reduction in the human species through war, disease and famine.

DC Sunsets
DC Sunsets
January 6, 2016 10:00 am

Denninger is right. It’s all about the bond market.

A tiny increase in rates DESTROYS vast wealth.

When the bond market was small, like a pond, and rates rose, it was like 1 mm of water evaporated off the pond. Not much water disappeared.

With the bond market now the size of the Pacific Ocean, the same small increase in rates, like a 1mm evaporation, reduces the total amount of water by millions of cubic feet.

[img]http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=3_month&uf=0&type=1&size=1&sid=12576397&style=340&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=10&rand=530862111&compidx=aaaaa%3a0&ma=5&maval=13&lf=4&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=218&width=430&mocktick=1[/img]

[img]http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=1_year&uf=0&type=1&size=1&sid=12576406&style=340&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=10&rand=2098089851&compidx=aaaaa%3a0&ma=5&maval=13&lf=4&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=218&width=430&mocktick=1[/img]

[img]http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=30_year&uf=0&type=1&size=1&sid=12576402&style=340&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=10&rand=1581128616&compidx=aaaaa%3a0&ma=5&maval=13&lf=4&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=218&width=430&mocktick=1[/img]

Everyone still thinks the long end of the curve matters, but in reality the USA has shifted vast amounts of its borrowing to very short-term debt. This means that small changes in the short end of the curve have very large effects on the capital value of that debt.

As the 3 month T-bill and 1 year note rise in rate, some people are seeing their accounts DESTROYED, especially the large players who often own that debt on very high leverage.

There are lots of trains out these nights, all running without lights. It’s always the one you don’t see that gets you.

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 10:00 am

edit: …The evidence suggests that AGW which is due to a rapid increase of MANMADE CO2 emissions…

DC Sunsets
DC Sunsets
January 6, 2016 10:06 am

Jynn, your position (and the position of all people on that side of this debate) truly underestimates the buffering capacity of the Earth.

This planet has existed under conditions that have been between and upper and lower boundary for time out of mind. I submit that natural inputs to the climate of the Earth have varied by factors far greater than anything Man has produced, over millions of years.

Yet conditions did not enter “feedback loops.” Feedback loops do not exist in buffered systems.

There are many “greenhouse” gasses. There are many inputs. The climate is the very definition of a complex system.

If no computer model can successfully predict the value of stocks (in a less complex “complex system”) a week out, why on Earth would you posit that any model of any sort could possibly have predictive value regarding the temperature of any part or the whole of Earth?

Scaling UP such things makes them worse, does it not?

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 10:23 am

DC, will respond later, really need to try get a bit of work done!

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 10:26 am

ONEMORECUP says: Jynn, they ain’t listening. Why engage? There’s plenty of science out there, over 30 years worth in a dozen different disciplines, but these folks are choosing to ignore it or throw in with the deniers.
—————————–
NOAA and the IPCC have been caught red-handed manipulating and falsifying climate data. Therefore you cannot believe ANY of their data or their hypotheses.

When lied to by “scientists” how can you take anything else they say seriously? ‘Nuf said.

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 10:29 am

Just want to add that it’s so good to see DC Sunsets posting more frequently. He’s one of the smartest posters here, and a pretty darn good novelists (“Revolutionary Language”).

Drud, your reply to Jynn @1:13 (and subsequent ones) were terrific.

HSF, your common-sense responses are also worth gold.

This is why I give donations to this website–masterful comments by wise folks. Worth every penny!

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 6, 2016 10:30 am

Just in between chores, gotta run but wanted to respond-

“AGW which is due to a rapid increase of CO2 over the last century will override any natural climate change…”

Is it your contention that human beings aren’t part of nature?

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 10:50 am

@IS, traditional solar system depictions are of a flat plane with all the planets on the same plane. What do you make of the helical/vortex model of our solar system as it travels through space? I’d like your thoughts on this theory.

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 11:07 am

Jynn says: I completely agree Hardscrabble. However I would say there is a big difference between altering the climate for our needs and discontinuing to fuck it up. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any serious plans to try alter the climate eg. some silly plans like pumping sulphur dioxide to counteract CO2, space shields etc
————————–
That statement says volumes of how illiterate you are on this subject. Ever heard of Solar Radiation Management? Google it and see how chemtrails are being used in a futile attempt to mitigate “global warming”.

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 11:18 am

‘That statement says volumes of how illiterate you are on this subject. Ever heard of Solar Radiation Management? Google it and see how chemtrails are being used in a futile attempt to mitigate “global warming”.’

@Rise-up : Just because I don’t know anything about chemtrails, doesn’t make me illiterate on AGW. Two very different subjects.

@HardSCrabble, aren’t we getting into semantics here? To be more precise then: ‘“AGW which is due to a rapid increase of CO2 from human emissions over the last century will override any climate change caused by earths natural orbital cycles…”

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 11:26 am

Jynn says: @Rise-up : Just because I don’t know anything about chemtrails, doesn’t make me illiterate on AGW. Two very different subjects.
————————–
Totally wrong! The 2 subjects ARE linked. SRM is a proposed mitigation strategy to so called “AGW”.
You have a steep learning curve ahead of you.

Jynn
Jynn
January 6, 2016 11:57 am

Rise-up, we not discussing mitigation strategies, that is not the debate, the debate is whether AGW is real or not.

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 12:25 pm

Blow me. We discuss anything we want here.

gm
gm
January 6, 2016 1:05 pm

@ DC Sunsets ,, Thank you for your thought full answer. I ponder this constantly , and your right ,skills , out of debt etc are very much pre cursers for surviving the almost mathematically impossible to avoid fiat currency credit collapse . Will governments ,under the control of POCB’s revalue to whatever suits their interests? Absolutely !.
Preparing for eventualities keeps me and family fed etc. It will take me a day or so but I will
violate my particular OP SEC and get a burn phone , and post it here , I work for a very large company , and you might be surprised at the particulars that are very possibly right up your area of expertise DC. With the number will be times to contact , simply because I work a varying schedule .
If I am being presumptious , shit I cant spell lol , then tell me to fuck off lol .
I am close to retirement sorta. bout 10 years.
Benefits
401k with 117 % company match , no vesting period.
Decent health care insurance .
Pension funded by company @ 4% of whatever your total salary, bonus income is for year .
Vacations.based on tenure , low on the starting side , better as time goes by .
Mostly , paid holidays off , with 2 additional floating holidays.
Short term , and long term disability based on tenure.
Other benefits ,depending on position in company . For example company car , credit card , things of that nature .
Yearly performance reviews. I have never missed a raise actually and it seems reasonable
I cannot complain actually about my work environment .
2nd largest company of its type in the U.S.
I am not a recruiter , except in the most oblique way . I do hire various management staff tho for my location .
50/50 chance they need someone in your location . They are global in a limited way , tho unsure of that scope except for it is a global market we are in and a very common name .
Post burn phone number @ 12pm est tomorrow if I can get it to work lol

Please be considerate of my time constrictions on the burn phone, altho for a few I will understand if im called and um cussed out lol

Just a cook ))

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 1:31 pm

gm says: “Just a cook ))”
———————————-

@gm, you get all those perks and benefits for being a cook? Or did you mean kook?

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 4:46 pm

@Jynn, I really don’t understand your argument. Milankovitch cycles apply to Ice Ages not global warming and certainly not AGW. These cycles occur over tens of thousands of years and longer. Mankind’s increased output of Co2 has only been in the last 200 years or so. My argument that Earth’s orbit does not change was with respect to it being the cause of the current fad of global warming. Changes in Earth’s inclination to the plane of the solar system and variations in the eccentricity of its elliptical orbit happen on vastly different time scales and do not play a part in AGW. Your argument makes no sense.

you said:
“Your arrogance and insults are really not appreciated in what could be a sensible debate.”

Apparently you are not familiar with The Burning Platform. Stick around though, you’re gonna do fine here! I mean that. Most global warming shills run for the exits when challenged.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 5:00 pm

hardscrabble farmer says:
“If we’re going to debate, we first have to establish positions-

What’s your position regarding AGW?

In a nutshell, it’s bullshit. Like you said, our climate changes continuously and has done so for 4.5 billion years. The rise of the current fad of global warming is a ginned up excuse to exert more and more control over humans primarily in the west by restricting and taxing our activities. The science backing it up is severely flawed by admission of the IPCC itself. When you cherry pick unassailable temperature data the models show a slight decrease in global temps over the the period in question. Any responsible scientist would immediately retract their conclusions once their data was found to be flawed regardless of discipline. That is not happening and the massive involvement of western governments is highly suspicious.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 5:07 pm

I should add that when I was in grade school the alarmist fad at the time was in favor of an imminent ice age that would find the northern half of the USA uninhabitable before the end of my lifetime.

Governments always need a new boogeyman to extract more wealth from the sheep. The war on drugs, war on poverty, no child left behind, war on terrorism………..all failures are prime examples of why the government should never be trusted to “solve” any of our problems.

The very fact that TPTB changed the name of this crisis from global warming to climate change is very telling. It’s hard to argue with something that is universally acknowledged.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 5:27 pm

@RiseUp, regarding that video see:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

and

The Helical Model of the Solar System (is probably crap)

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 5:44 pm

@Jynn, are you aware that large earthquakes like the Christmas quake in the Indian Ocean and the more recent Fukushima have significant effects on the tilt of Earth’s axis? Those events are tiny compared to say a large meteor impact like the one that killed the dinosaurs. I’d bet that an event like that has far more influence on our tilt than Milankovitch Cycles.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
January 6, 2016 6:51 pm

@Jynn, I’m off to work but I wonder if the admission by the IPCC that the data used to create the model of global of global warming was massaged and manipulated in support of their theory affects your belief in it? If so, how?

My opinion follows the old adage of “garbage in, garbage out”. Their model is fatally flawed but that is almost universally ignored by AGW adherents. Why is that?

Rise Up
Rise Up
January 6, 2016 6:59 pm

@IS, thanks for your reply, re: helical vortex solar system.

KaD
KaD
January 7, 2016 11:16 am

“One Bank To Rule Them All • One Surveillance State To Find Them • One World Order To Disarm Them All…And In The Darkness Bind Them…”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-05/how-iceland-escaped-one-bank

Suzanna
Suzanna
January 7, 2016 12:06 pm

there is no global warming/there is a tax scheme,

there is tremendous pollution/but the big corps.

continue to throw all garbage into the water or

left at the roadside.

The sky, and water and food are being filled with poison…

and the PTB have people arguing about global warming.

What a joke.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
January 7, 2016 1:19 pm

Re: helical vortex solar system.

If the observable red shift is in fact evidence of a “big bang” type event, then t would have to be true. Nothing in the Universe is stationary, but rather moving outwards from the origin of the Universe itself.

If something is moving- like a star- and it has planets orbiting, they would have to be following a vortex.

Unless the laws of physics do not apply.

DRUD
DRUD
January 7, 2016 1:52 pm

“Unless the laws of physics do not apply” – HSF

May I make an addendum?

“Unless the understood laws of physics do not apply.”

IMO we have a VERY limited understanding of the very very large and the very very small and no friggin’ clue how the very very small sums to the very very large. This is the reason physicists have been searching for a Grand Unified Theory for almost a century. Even General Relativity shows massive holes. It explains planetary motion quite well, but breaks down when applied to Galaxies and Clusters.

The biggest issue I see with Cosmology in general is what I call “Six Blind Men and the Elephant” Syndrome. We have only one perspective from which to view celestial mechanics and have only been doing so for the very tiniest window in time (even if you want to go back to the Egyptians). The most important thing to consider about the Six Blind Men is that none of them are really wrong–it’s just none of them have the whole picture.

As far as the helical model of the solar system, I had not heard of it before this thread and I didn’t watch the video. I do understand Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and they explain the Solar System quite well (except for Mercury–which is explained nicely by General Relativity).

DC Sunsets
DC Sunsets
January 7, 2016 2:05 pm

Stock market:
Monthly trend is (astonishingly) still up, but that could change within a few weeks.
Weekly trend is now down.
Daily trend is now clearly down.

For this to change, the SPX would have to rally up well past 2020, over 70 points higher.

Can this happen? Of course. Weekly Williams%R is nearing a place where rallies often occur, and a hard down close today will cement the daily Williams%R in “tomorrow is either a collapse or an upside reversal day.” Short-killers are what I call the latter (because I’ve been killed in them.)

Until it does rally past about 2020, however, the path of least resistance is lower.