COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Steven Kalin]

This my opinion, I could be wrong, but I think the US is fading as a global power and Russia is spilling its guts in The Ukraine and in other skirmishes around the world, the EU ( the revived Roman Empire) on the other hand may appear to be weak, but they may be the next great empire although they will not last that long. All they are waiting for is a new leader, some thought Macron, but perhaps not. The old roman empire was made up of roman catholic states and that is where the gathering together will come from. The Roman Church whose pontiff is the self appointed king maker would like to gather in all these nations and even absorb the orthodox churches of the east into this new empire. European history shows the attempts to restart this empire. The Roman church is above all a political entity which has its own ambassadors in most counties around the world. Everybody wants to rule the world.

How many Catholics do you know? How many of them lived in sin before getting married? That religion is dying a slow( too slow?) death.

[Jovan Dragisic]

Russia's failure in Chechnya...

The Chechens are Russia’s number one crowd pleaser PR win in this thing in the Ukraine.

Can someone older here fill me in on how strong the anti-Soviet sentiment was back in the day, how fearful this Cold War made us feel in everyday life? I'm trying to figure out this gut reaction to all things Russian, regardless of the facts on the ground!

I used to live in communist times. Though I was a kid back then, there are still many books from that period, and large media archives. We were supposed to be anti American back then, if not even pro Russian. Media coverage of anything is never good and always leads to the opposite outcome, so people were really pro American in the 80's.

Right now the media is running the dirtiest CNN, BBC, Covid like campaign against the Russian hordes, but I think our media is even worse than the original that they are copying. I think all ex communist countries are falling over themselves to present themselves as a good boy at the capitalist table or whatever. Now you got people all over the country going pro Russian again because of the media hounding, just as they were pro American back in the 80's, but this is worse, since the media is getting dumber by the day. It is quite hilarious.

[Gilead]

‘Go to hell’: DeSantis responds to Fauci threatening lockdowns | America'''s Frontline Doctors

Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary explains why he won'''t debate me

I am not saying this, you are interpreting what I said from the London School of Economics faulty perspective. QE is an accounting maneuver, yes. QE is not increasing the money supply. In the monetary system that we have, central banks do not create money, private banks do. They do it by lending money to customers. What QE does is increase the bank reserves, but bank reserves are not money, they are one of the assets on a bank's balance sheet. It also enables the central banks to "buy" government debt, but they are not really buying anything, they are swapping bank reserves for government debt. This is somewhat useful for governments, because they can then issue debt and use it to meet their obligations. Some of this goes back into the economy in terms of governments paying employees or running infrastructure projects, but since the whole thing encourages further conservative behavior by the banks, any money that manages to make its way into the economy is offset by constantly contracting bank lending. Japan is the best example of this, they have had outright price deflation for two thirds of the time in which they have been running the so called inflationary QE. Europe is a good example too, bank lending has been contracting for most of the ten years of QE.

You can call what we have been seeing for the past two years inflation, since prices are rising. This is the standard London School of Economics (neoclassical) bullshit. The problem is that prices are rising in an environment in which bank lending (actual money creation) has been on the decline. There are many reasons for price increases, they are all connected to government actions, and in China and Russia's case this might be belligerent action, but since this is happening in an era of contracting money supply (so actual deflation), we are in for a very interesting ride. I can't really explain this much better, since I am not a professor. In case you are interested in how money and the economy really work, I suggest you stop reading the news and the financial analysts right now and get your hands on Milton Friedman and Anna Schwarz's A Monetary History of the United States and Keynes's General Theory.

Are you sure you don't work for Alhambra investments under the auspices of Jeff Snider.

Hey, I am an end-of-times guy myself, but I think the eschatological stories are really stories about an internal struggle, not about real life events.

Now I understand why you like Kabalistic text. You would probably enjoy Chassidic works as well. If you're interested, I am happy to discuss this on a different forum.

[Matt Jackson]

I am not saying this, you are interpreting what I said from the London School of Economics faulty perspective. QE is an accounting maneuver, yes. QE is not increasing the money supply. In the monetary system that we have, central banks do not create money, private banks do. They do it by lending money to customers. What QE does is increase the bank reserves, but bank reserves are not money, they are one of the assets on a bank's balance sheet. It also enables the central banks to "buy" government debt, but they are not really buying anything, they are swapping bank reserves for government debt. This is somewhat useful for governments, because they can then issue debt and use it to meet their obligations. Some of this goes back into the economy in terms of governments paying employees or running infrastructure projects, but since the whole thing encourages further conservative behavior by the banks, any money that manages to make its way into the economy is offset by constantly contracting bank lending. Japan is the best example of this, they have had outright price deflation for two thirds of the time in which they have been running the so called inflationary QE. Europe is a good example too, bank lending has been contracting for most of the ten years of QE.

Whatever little I know about the economy and money, I read from austrian economists and libertarians, definetely not the news.
But isn't inflation simply the increase of supply? Independent of the goods prices?
If you go from 1 trillion dollars to 5 trillion dollars, dollars just lost a whole bunch of value. No matter what happens to prices, which might be influenced and manipulated by something else, momentarily. But is there any time in the past where most goods, services or commodities cost more than they do now?
Mabye I should say currency devaluation instead of inflation?

Do you have sources that show how the money supply has decreased? Or some kind of appreciation of any currency since its introduction? For example you said Japan experienced price deflation.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation!

Here's a really good whiteboard presentation talking about what Jovan was saying about the money supply. I really recommend subscribing to George Gammon's YT channel "The Rebel Capitalist Show" as well.
The Secrets Of Money Printing Revealed (Shocking Intel) - YouTube

[mpalios]

Every time I listen to an episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, I wonder if what he's reading/speaking to us is accurate and actually what happened or the original author's opinion only. Or were the stories he reads to us a one-time thing that only happened to the original author.

Did WW2 happen how the Time Magazine book series my dad had said it happened? WW1? The Civil War?

I honestly have no idea what is happening in Ukraine right now, even with all our media.....it would have been 1000x more difficult (I'd assume) to get accurate information back then.

It's really amazing to realize that we don't really "know" any history at all.

[Yngvi]

I really hope that that is bullshit. I really do.

I know of a few wealthy Russians who got everybody they care about out of Russia.
In the US, people seem to think nuclear war is impossible.
In Russia, they know we are now closer to nuclear war than we have ever been.

...And BTW I'm sick of "conservatives" like Denniger (even Tucker!) qualifying their analyses of this and other conflicts with admissions that, nonetheless, Putin=BAD. He's no more of an asshole than Republicans "want poor people dead" when they pursue certain policies. So, next time, think of the childish, visceral propaganda you must be internalizing, when you exclaim how BAD that tricky Russkie Putin is....

I have been observing the past few weeks that telling the older generation of conservatives you have a positive opinion of Putin is like telling them to go fuck their mother.
They are largely passive, turning the other cheek when you insult them, wrong them or take away their freedom, but they jump up ready to fight if you dare say anything good about Putin.
It seems to be why everybody toes the line on Putin=bad, even when they know better.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

Can you please cite the specific promises broken by NATO? What treaties and/or formal, documented agreements did NATO break regarding enlargement and Kosovo intervention? Seems to me Putin's Kremlin, and those who sympathize with it, are the ones pushing this revisionist history.

In the leader piece of its January 29th, 2022 issue, the Economist writes this:

"The global order has long been buttressed by the norm that countries do not redraw other countries' borders by force of arms. when Iraq seized Kuwait in 1990, an international coalition led by America (that's how they call it - my note) kicked it out. Mr Putin, who has a nuclear arsenal at his command, has already got away with annexing Crimea".
(Russia's roulette - it's easy to find on the Economist website, but it's paywalled)

Note, en passant, that it mentions 'norms', not written treaties. But that's not the main point.
The main point is that, I think you will agree, there is a glaring omission in the passage above: Kosovo.
Serbia's borders *were* redrawn by force of arms by the NATO intervention of 1999, an intervention that did not have the UN Security Council backing.
It was the first instance in which NATO showed it had unofficially changed its policy and its raison d'etre; from defensive alliance of a very limited and specified region of the world, to an organisation that gave itself the right to intervene offensively way outside that region. I suppose that, like any big bureaucracy faced with downsizing, it had to do something to justify its existence.
So, what Putin has done in Crimea, is nothing more than what NATO did in 1999 (and that's not couting on the fact the Crimeans voted for it, we've already gone over this so no need to repeat).
You think what happened in Kosovo did not break any treaty or written rules, and therefore using it to justify Putin's action is "revisionism"? Fine. But then you will have to apply the same standard to Putin's actions in Crimea. You can't consider one 'good' and the other 'bad', like the Economist implicitly does.

[note: There is another historic parallel in this story. The ex-Yugoslavia carnage started when Germany recognised Croatia and Slovenia, despite having agreed *not* to do so at a EU summit only a couple of weeks before, and despite the UN Secreatary General of the time warning that the action would have grave consequences. So, when Putin recognised the Republics of Lugansk and Donbass, he just repeated what Germany did in Yugoslavia in 1992. Again, I don't think you can condone what Germany did and condemn what Putin did at the same time]


As for NATO expansion, no formal written treaties were ever signed; plenty of verbal assrances at the highest level were offered and reiterated (see for example: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive).

What does this mean? It means, imho, that NATO's word is worth shit. Which, in a sense, makes Putins' case for his actions even stronger, not weaker. Because how could he trust reassurances that Ukraine would not join NATO, that it would not become a platform for lethal offensive weapon systems aimed at Russia? Do you think he could trust these promises from the same actor (NATO) that had already spectacularly broken its word once? Why do you think he insisted on a *written* agreement?

So, from the legal point of view, no treaty was broken, we agree on that. But the consequence of this is the fact that NATO cannot be considered a trustworthy partner, and this, imho, makes the world in general, and the Eurasian region in particular, much less secure. I don't think NATO in particular, and the West in general, can think of holding the moral high ground on this.

IPB

[Satch12879]

This my opinion, I could be wrong, but I think the US is fading as a global power and Russia is spilling its guts in The Ukraine and in other skirmishes around the world, the EU ( the revived Roman Empire) on the other hand may appear to be weak, but they may be the next great empire although they will not last that long. All they are waiting for is a new leader, some thought Macron, but perhaps not. The old roman empire was made up of roman catholic states and that is where the gathering together will come from. The Roman Church whose pontiff is the self appointed king maker would like to gather in all these nations and even absorb the orthodox churches of the east into this new empire. European history shows the attempts to restart this empire. The Roman church is above all a political entity which has its own ambassadors in most counties around the world. Everybody wants to rule the world.

Holy God, it’s like the 20th century never happened for you. Let me tell you about a little thing called Vatican II…

[CommanderFun]

It's really amazing to realize that we don't really "know" any history at all.

As time goes on, I begin to believe more and more "history" is just a means used by people exercising control to libel those who dare oppose them for generations to come. Every time I hear "the right side of history," I believe this more and more.

[francesco.decaro]

Here's a really good whiteboard presentation talking about what Jovan was saying about the money supply. I really recommend subscribing to George Gammon's YT channel "The Rebel Capitalist Show" as well.
The Secrets Of Money Printing Revealed (Shocking Intel) - YouTube

Why does he have to present his video like an idiot? It's really unattractive and sounds like clickbait