| | | I'd limit it to "a slightly more positive case" if based only on a trend reversal in rates.
The Fed is as much a part of the problem as everyone else in terms of the origins of difficulties in the fragility of mercantilism and its pairing with global socialism as imposed through banking. The Fed (et al) are refusing to recognize both the global and local consequences of the fact that their policies are breaking market functions by imposing centralized controls.
The consequences of those choices made are highly predictable... I predicted them long ago... see nothing that's not an obvious result now.
When mercantilist trade schemes are implemented, there is an initial flush of greater activity as "channeled" flows accelerate under new channels opened under mercantilist direction... that appears a "growth" at first, as they are co-resident with the prior market condition, where they initially constitute "additions" to the market... so they appear to be expansion, or growth, rather than substitution. But over time, they choke out the prior participants, resulting in a larger, more robust, more diverse and more flexible market being replaced by one with fewer and fewer but larger and larger participants who are increasingly fragile rather than robust, and who define the opposite of flexible. The "rules" basis of mercantilist flows cannot change the way competition in free markets changes to adapt as market conditions change. Having killed the robust and flexible, you are left with the fragile. And, when the fragile breaks... the robust and flexible does not naturally restore and reassert itself... given the re-definition of their risks previously imposed has not been changed by virtue of the failures those changes have induced.
Any function that has grown inured of constraints will tend to continue in self limiting behavior even when restraints and fetters are removed.
In the global economy today, the mercantilist constraints are fostering the failure... but they are not being removed.
You shouldn't expect to see any real economic improvements occurring until AFTER the source of the problem is both recognized and pro-actively removed... with alternative choices in unconstrained competition being enabled rather than suppressed, as now.
So, the larger trend now entrained in "things are breaking and falling apart" will continue... even if with some minor variation imposed in the rate at which the events in devolution and contraction proceed, as being driven alternately by tapping harder on the brakes, or letting up a bit... but always avoiding removing the brakes... and never fostering any accelerations that occur outside of that narrow band of control that the rules in the structure of the homeostatic mechanism they've crafted imposes.
In the extreme, that system already implemented results in no economic activity being allowed unless "you're one of us"... which is the defacto reintroduction of economic feudalism only without its prior attachment to land ownership.
You see it in the trends in declining trade most obviously... an inevitability as soon as China reached global wage parity... but, it is a mirror image proxy for the same events seen narrowly in finance, where the same events occur, only seen as variations in the flows in finance as the various wrinkles in or variations applied in QE I, II, III, non-QE QE, or Twist operations, Repo or Reverse Repo events...
In finance, they will tell you... the solution is a single global currency, or schemes approximating that with sufficient complexity layered in to mask what it is, and to make it confusing... but still with "us" (only) as the guys charged with control and management... Which is not a whit different than "a single global government"... or globalist economic feudalism.
But, of course, with a single global currency... you remove all potential for larger success in competition, here or there, based on quality of effort in policy variations imposed here but not there... ? The consequences in "money" are not different than they are in trade... as trade in various forms of money is still just trade ?
Their primary product is thus... the smoke and mirrors required to make finance appear complex enough that it makes it difficult to understand what they're doing, or trying to do...
An irony, of course, in that what they are seeking, in result, imposes all the same problems that they rail against when discussing the limits (ie., benefits) of gold as money... only with the minor niggle that by retaining for themselves only that power to control and define what gold "is" within their own fief... they can still cheat everyone else who is not "one of us" with flagrant debasement...
I think the "economists" they hired to come with this crap... all used to work as screenwriters for the TV show "Highlander". When it got cancelled, they became "economists" writing scripts for the globalists, and they have even adopted its tag line "there can be only one" as if it gives a definition of a rational economic policy goal... |
|
