The (Economic) World in 2030

[konkon]

Konkon, it is not reasonable to make economic forecasts 20 years into the future.

However, following general trends, one can be assured that things are going to be worse than their are now, for the West at least. That is absolutely guaranteed. By 2030, Europe will most likely be a conflict-ridden mess similar to the middle-east. North America will be similar. As for Australia, the nation-less nation, becoming a Chinese protectorate would not be surprising.

Leave to future till the future, just make sure you are moving your own personal self in the right direction. 'Tis all you can do.

Worse with more ongoing but socially, economically and governmentally acceptable debt. The bar will be raised some more and no longer being able to pay debts with revenue of some kind (but more debt) will be the norm; it's already happening.

I think it's ok to speculate about the next couple of decades. I think we need to, to keep up with others that are already doing this. They may not share their views with the rest of us. Very few people saw the Nazis as a real threat in Europe and around the world in 1933, however, in England, Churchill did and warned the British etc about likely and almost inevitable events, but very few listened at the time and took him seriously. Not saying we are faced with these sorts of problems, but it doesn't hurt to share thoughts about what our opinions are on future events.

 

[konkon]

I recently picked up Friendman's The Next 100 Years. I disagree with many of his key points. I am perplexed to read that Friedman believes (in no particular order):

1. that Poland will become a superpower, the main influence in Europe, and a real threat to Russia. pg 148.
2. Germany will lose its economic superiority and by 2040, Germany and France will lose their major power and influence in Europe. pg 151 Poland will be more of a superpower than Germany. pg 7
3. that Japan will reemerge as an aggressive nation like it did in WW11 and it will go to war with the US
4. the new great powers by 2050 will be mainly the US, Japan, Turkey and Poland.
5. that over the next decade onwards, the United States will have a huge labor shortage. pg 121 & 132
6. there will be a confrontation with Russia and the United States by 2020. pg 101
7. by 2040 US/China relations will be closer than ever, and the Japanese will find this a direct threat. pg 155
8. a global war will break-out between the US, Turkey, Poland and Japan.
9. by 2020 China will begin to fragment and it won't be a dominant nation in the geopolitical and economic world.
10. that the US war on Terror is a short lived exercise. pg 86 & 4
11. the "American Age began in December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.." pg. 31.
12. that the "act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step". pg 11
13. the Mexicans and the Turks will be two of the major economic powers in the world. pg 9

I don't believe any of the points (1 to 13) above will occur. There are other points I disagree with and might mention them later on.

I just don't see how Poland will become a major superpower, replacing the likes of Germany. I'm still baffled! Germany will continue to be a dominant force in continental Europe and around the world. Germany's influence will continue to grow economically and politically, and I believe Germany's alliance with the US will grow stronger. Sure the US and Germany will be competitors but they have strategic benefits.

Japan will not emerge as an aggressive nation at all. I think the Japanese are and will continue to be content about themselves and their economy. They have gone through some pretty bad economic times over the last twenty plus years and have handled themselves well considering. Their debt to GDP is one of the highest in the world, at over 200%. I think that the Japanese are a very sophisticated lot in more ways than one and their aggressive days are long-gone.

The new great powers in 2050 will include the US (of course) but NOT these three countries: Poland, Japan and Turkey. For me, the US and China will be the two superpowers by far. China mainly by wealth, as it will be the wealthiest nation by far. The US because it controls the seas, skies, markets and geo-political world (amongst other reasons). Friedman places too much emphasis on the US controlling the seas but I believe he forgets to note that the US controlling the skies is the biggest advantage the US has over all other nations. The same goes for controlling asset classes and markets; Friedman doesn't really mention this as playing a key role in the US's dominance in the world.

Turkey will have a major influence in its region, but not as much as Friedman believes. Turkey will not be an aggressive nation in the region to the extent Friedman suggests. But it will be a major headache for countries like Greece. Iran will be a major problem for the west. Friedman downplays the significance of US and radical Islamic tensions and that "the war between the United States and the radical Islamists will be little remembered". He's got this wrong and this will pose the biggest threat to order and stability in the world. Friedman talks about fault lines occurring between nations like the US and Mexico (really?!) but the real fault lines will be religious ones. I think Iran will be a real problem here and not necessarily Turkey. I think we saw a hint of what Iran's intentions might be when it sent its war ships in the region during the height of the Egyptian crisis, to drum-up support perhaps. There is clearly something brewing in that region. The Judeo-Christian and extreme Muslim (how far into the bell curve are we talking about?) tensions will escalate at times over the next few decades. You are dealing with two very unyielding at the core groups. I think that the actions or lack of them in Pakistan just recently suggests a tolerance, at some level, for extremism that should concern many in the east and west.

Friedman's approach to tensions is more 20th century and linear, than 21st century dynamism. He makes his revelations with a 20th century cap. "Executing the necessary and logical next step" (pg. 11) is far too linear a method when dealing with extremely complex issues and predictions.

Labor shortages will not be an issue in many parts of the world. Overpopulation and high unemployment will be an issue.

A global war WILL NOT break-out between any of the following nations: US, Japan, Poland, Turkey. The US, Japan and Poland (amongst many others) will be allies. Turkey will probably be a country that will help to negotiate with other Muslim nations, like Iran, if tensions become high. There may be some tension between Turkey and Iran but not like Friedman suggests.

The American Age began way before December 1991. It does depend on what this quantifies over, but it may even have started as early as when the Declaration of Independence was written. The US was controlling the world as early as 1919 and maybe even a few years earlier than that.

If any nation wants to @#$!%$ with the US and the US really wants to flex its muscle, the US can ultimately take-out any threat it sees systematically and thoroughly. This would nullify any real attempt by some rogue nation to become unreasonably aggressive in its region or beyond. The net effect of allying oneself with the US would be a better future in the long run. I just wish countries like Greece would do this. But they see things differently, I guess.

 

[konkon]

A friend of mine thinks there's no point to thinking about these sorts of things. I'm surprised more and more people don't have their say on such matters. Even if you don't get it right, there's probably a lot that you can get out of these sorts of discussions. I find that you can refine your own level of thinking by thinking of these issues (and more).

I've often wondered how advanced an out-of-this-world being would be. Just think of the difference between a person and their dog, for example. Dogs, I'm sure can make simple predictions like looking forward to seeing his owner again. Naturally its level of thinking, or whatever you want to call it, would be on a different and basic level. The dog would have no conception of time but it must be able to differentiate between the now and the not now (or future and even the past).

It is possible that a different form of life out there would have greater prediction abilities and far more advanced reasoning powers than us.

I'm a believer that thoughts themselves and even will-power can have some influence in certain future states of affairs or events. So events themselves just don't occur because of physical interactions. Most of the time they do but there's room for certain non physical influence.

Time as a conventional instrument is really useful but thinking about it, even subconsciously, can also hinder or restrict ideas about the future, I feel.

While the 'path' from past to present to future may appear to be linear, it isn't. The term 'path' implies a linear direction itself. Our language and our thought processes are restrictive to say the least. The 'edge of the universe' type of talk involves contradictions, based on our classical level of thinking. But we are lucky enough to be able to 'reason' with a lot more sophistication than any animal (of course) or machine. That we are aware of, at least.

 

[Tysonboss1]

"Those that look into the crystal ball are likely to see an idiot looking back"

These predictions of the future are likely to be as accurate as asking a 1980 high school student what the world would look like in 2000.

 

[Julia]

Konkon, some interesting thoughts. Hope others are inclined to add to these.
Thank you.

 

[financialdonk]

I recently picked up Friendman's The Next 100 Years. I disagree with many of his key points. I am perplexed to read that Friedman believes (in no particular order):

Konkon, first off am impressed that you chased up and read this book upon my recommendation! Obviously at the present time there can be no way of knowing precisely the way events are going to unfold in the 21st century. However I found the book (and the approach taken by Friedman) to be quite plausible in attempting to put large scale shifts into perspective.

If you don't mind I am going to try and bounce off some of your ideas and thoughts but let me start by saying I'm not criticising your point of view as incorrect as I have no way of proving my own thoughts correct!

1. that Poland will become a superpower, the main influence in Europe, and a real threat to Russia. pg 148.
Friedman, being an American has a very American centric take the way the century will possibly play out. I think this is more beneficial than harmful as whether or not he is an ardent chest thumping patriot, events unfold from the will of the powerful. In regards to how he mentions specific nation state's I too had suspicions in regards to Poland especially gaining momentum as a global power. However, if you can look beyond the name of the state what he is saying is that it is the US who picks and chooses who to support and who to withdraw support from. You can understand that a strategic partner, strongly supported financially and militarily by the US over a number of years can begin to impose itself on the global stage. The US will always be wary of Russia given it's size and natural resources available and because it poses the greatest threat to the US - that being the most capable at the current time in controlling all of Eurasia (a very important geopolitical concern for the US that was brought up in the book and well argued). It is because of this wariness of Russia, that it's neighbours will always be looking to ally with the US to grow their own aims (in Poland's initial case - self defence).

2. Germany will lose its economic superiority and by 2040, Germany and France will lose their major power and influence in Europe. pg 151 Poland will be more of a superpower than Germany. pg 7
Germany is hampered somewhat by their actions in the 20th century and the atrocious crimes that they committed. If they did not have an ongoing complex about this or if they had of minimised the inhumane acts they committed and focused solely on invasion this belief may not be in play. I am unsure if Friedman was going down this path himself but I believe the capitulation of the Eurozone experiment could be sufficient to harm German power longterm. If they are unable to cut weaker (economically) failing nations like Greece away, they will end up regressing, regardless of how industrious they are. Remember, whereby Germany were integral to the US in the last 50 years because the USSR stretched all the way to Berlin, this is not the case and the breathing space afforded the Germans means they are strategically less beneficial to the US.
3. that Japan will reemerge as an aggressive nation like it did in WW11 and it will go to war with the US
The Japanese have no resources, an ageing population, intelligence and military history. If push comes to shove and a nation faces extinction expect them to lash out for survival then roll up into a ball and whimper. Unlike many western nations the Japanese have had very little cultural interference. They are fiercely proud and judging by how they have handled the recent Tsunami's and Nuclear meltdowns are extremely strong willed.
4. the new great powers by 2050 will be mainly the US, Japan, Turkey and Poland.
The US definately the other 3 less so although cases can be made (see above). As for Turkey, they are historically important and geographically powerful. They are also a strong Muslim nation with western world links.
5. that over the next decade onwards, the United States will have a huge labor shortage. pg 121 & 132
Ageing populations due to Baby Boomers demographics and improved medicine meaning they will survive longer make this perhaps more plausible than other points. Combine this fact with my belief that the US will have to start making things again (for the first time in 30 years) because they can no longer afford to import items due to rising international living standards.
6. there will be a confrontation with Russia and the United States by 2020. pg 101
Timeline and likelihood of this does not add up to a likely scenario at the current moment. Unlikely that Russia, on the mend would want to enter into a conflict with the US so soon after regathering their feet. This does not mean that both won't be pushing their agendas strongly and that these agendas don't match a lot of the time. More likely to be stern words than a conflict.
7. by 2040 US/China relations will be closer than ever, and the Japanese will find this a direct threat. pg 155
I think that the US would have cooled off China significantly by 2040. The US is unlikely to continue long term support when China is attempting to match them economically and militarily. More likely the US will start up spot fires in Tibet, Vietnam and regional China to cause internal fighting.
8. a global war will break-out between the US, Turkey, Poland and Japan.
Again the nations are somewhat irrelevant. The last 60 years are an anomaly, without major war. Either the US will become worried of losing power, or another nation will become scared that they are being pushed into a corner by the US (or Russia or Israel or *insert any other nation*) *Edit: I believe Friedman listed this war occurring by mid century which would mean over 100 years since the end of WW2. A conservative timeframe for a large scale international conflict.
9. by 2020 China will begin to fragment and it won't be a dominant nation in the geopolitical and economic world.
See my answer to 7. China's rosy picture is without doubt distorted. Their economy is a shining light because it is the only offer the US and Europe have to escape their own woes. Without a doubt they are cooking the books and nothing says fragment like 800 million starving farming peasants.
10. that the US war on Terror is a short lived exercise. pg 86 & 4
An elaborate and ongoing battle because they have nothing better to do. Was advantageous because of scramble for oil and to unsettle the region to prevent a Muslim power structure emerging.
11. the "American Age began in December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.." pg. 31.
Arguable. Not sure if it significant in the overall context of the book. If in 200 years time the US is still the major power it will be the Soviet's who are referred to as the first victory of the American Empire, not the Nazi's.
12. that the "act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step". pg 11
A scary thought and perhaps more true than any of us are willing to accept. Look at Obama's first term. Look at other political leaders worldwide. They are hampered by the electorate and their own fear of being deposed. They are made to realise geopolitical aims of the nation are more important than social reform.
13. the Mexicans and the Turks will be two of the major economic powers in the world. pg 9
If you disagree because you refer to "major" as top 3 I concur. If "major" is considered top 10-15 I find it highly plausible by 2100.
I don't believe any of the points (1 to 13) above will occur. There are other points I disagree with and might mention them later on.

That's my . Interested in your response Konkon.

 

[konkon]

That's my . Interested in your response Konkon.

I am replying to some points now during my (extended!) lunch break and I will reply to others later on. Your comments financialdonk are excellent and it was really worthwhile reading them. The book was purchased last month while awaiting a connecting flight out of Bangkok. Let's hope that the Thais are as wonderful as they've always been in 20 to 100 years from now! I'm sure they will be.

You make some very good points about Poland, financialdonk. It probably will strengthen its borders for fear of conflict etc with Russia and perhaps Turkey. But I still don't see Poland becoming a superpower like Friedman thinks. I also can't see Germany's influence and power diminishing. For me, Germany will continue to be the most powerful and influential country in Europe (along with Britain, of course), even if its future demographics suggest an inevitable slowdown, technically. The Germans are too much of a sophisticated lot overall and their influence, expertise etc today in many ways is paving the way for an economically and technologically sophisticated European region for the latter part of the 21st century. Germany's exposure to EU perpetual debt is a problem though, but having exposure to huge layers of debt is normal for nearly all nations on Earth these days. If the German's and Poles are threatened by Russia, Turkey or any other nation they may have little choice but to unite. It would be pretty hard to 'defeat' a unified Europe; after all, this is one of the main benefits of the European Union and the main reason countries like Greece would want to stay in the EU. United they will stand.

You need more than one 'aggressive' (wanting to invade etc) nation these days and in the future to really cause long term problems for a host of others. This was one of my criticisms of Friedman when I suggested he saw things with a 19th to 20th century linear perspective. A threatening nuclear country is a different story, but thank God we have the US and a coalition of other nations like England, France, etc etc to oversea, and if need be, protect or retaliate if ever the need arises.

"However, if you can look beyond the name of the state what he is saying is that it is the US who picks and chooses who to support and who to withdraw support from. You can understand that a strategic partner, strongly supported financially and militarily by the US over a number of years can begin to impose itself on the global stage". from financialdonk This is an excellent point financialdonk.

Japan, I'm sure is being looked at closely and the treaties it signed just after WW11 will still apply. Any attempt to break those treaties, even gradually, would send alarm bells ringing throughout the world. However, as a key strategic economic powerhouse for the west, Japan and Korea even will be supported by key nations in the west, as there would be no point in letting Japan suffer any long-term economic hardships. I'm positive Japan would be leading the way in developing and marketing non hydrocarbon type fuels for the next century onwards. I think China will be a key player in this development too. Energy is all around us and tapping into these resources, like gaining it from ocean turbines and powerful ocean currents or from utilizing solar power with next generation solar cells, might not be as difficult as it seems. So does a country like Japan go the way it did before and during WW11 by trying to overpower countries and take what it lacks, or does it see better opportunities out there like, for example, developing wind and ocean powered turbines etc to power generators and grids? I think the latter even if is a different type of method/fuel etc. I'm sure there is more than one way to generate large and sustainable volumes of electricity. The world is full of energy that can be used to create electricity.

I grant you that countries like Turkey may surprise many and may become an aggressive state if it needed to. Out of all of the ones mentioned by Friedman, Turkey could for some time be a real threat to neighbouring countries. But a unified Europe will mean that Turkey doesn't head west all that much. Not sure about some of the Greek islands though. But will the EU survive over the next few decades? It's biggest problem will be the volumes of debt it won't be able to honor. But then again, this is a world wide phenomenon. A restructuring of debt or to be more to the point, of creditor and debtor relations, equations and dynamics in the world could become a catalyst for major conflicts in the next decade onwards. Hopefully not, but it looks like it may head that way to some extent. Hopefully those in their think tanks are trying to work out ways to avoid this. It comes down to what action would a creditor nation take if it can't be paid at all or within a given time-frame. Many might not do much at all, but it might come down to two or three powerful-enough countries wanting some form of compensation and their debtors pretty much showing them the proverbial finger. The economic consequences or sanctions for a debtor nation might also be a real problem in the not so distant future. Not being actively involved in the world economy like it perhaps was would lead to all sorts of problems and perhaps conflicts.

to be continued...

 

[konkon]

That's my . Interested in your response Konkon.

Before I forget, but it may not directly relate to the Friedman comments and your excellent ones financialdonk, speculation on the upside on all sorts of commodities (soft and hard) is one of the biggest problems facing most people on this planet and it will be one of the biggest in the future too. I'm sure I'll get all kinds of criticism from those that like the commodity play, but there are very few people that benefit from overpriced commodities in the long run. One of the reasons why the US economy won't get better the last half of this year and even next year (even if this Friday's [8 July] employment numbers come in good!) is because of high commodity and energy prices across the board. This stifles growth prospects.

Now many might say 'but there is real demand in the world', which would explain high commodity prices. Not true! This is pure spin. The world, economically, is in worse shape than 4 years ago. The Baltic Dry Index based on actual (non speculative) shipping receipts of moved commodities from port to port around the world is at a real low point http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BDIY:IND
Click the 5 year chart too for a good visual on the problem.

The real problem (and it's a future one) is that the large and diverse numbers speculating on all types of commodities are so powerful and influential that, the way things stand today, commodity prices will continue to appreciate over the long term, based on the sheer numbers and the level of sophistication involved and the sheer lack of opposition to these moves. Add to this the algorithmic trading computers, government and private industry (banks) cornering of commodity markets, mass purchasing and price moving abilities, and you have yourself a real problem. Physical stockpiling to control supply and demand dynamics by countries is a problem too.

Sure corrections do occur but unless some adequate counter-measures are enacted commodities will keep decoupling and continue to appreciate, even if the world falls in to some type of depression. The traditional fundamental demand dynamics will not matter and prices might continue to rise over the long run. The market (speculators with so much money!) itself will control the price of soft and hard commodities and not fundamental demand dynamics. The Baltic Index itself suggests that there has to be supply available, even if it is stockpiled. Sure many commodities are inversely related to the US dollar but a future scenario like this might mean that the USD becomes decoupled to a larger extent too. We may not even notice these changes either.

One outcome for your average consumer around the world is the $50, for example, that he or she was going to spend on some item to spur on the economy, will be spent on higher energy and commodity prices indirectly. The is not a zero-sum game for the middle class either as nearly all in this class system will get very little in return.

 

[financialdonk]

I am replying to some points now during my (extended!) lunch break and I will reply to others later on. Your comments financialdonk are excellent and it was really worthwhile reading them. The book was purchased last month while awaiting a connecting flight out of Bangkok. Let's hope that the Thais are as wonderful as they've always been in 20 to 100 years from now! I'm sure they will be.

Can't think of any easier way to set out a reply so will stick to interrupting in red! Thanks for the kind words re my response. Thrilled to be able to bounce some ideas around with you.

You make some very good points about Poland, financialdonk. It probably will strengthen its borders for fear of conflict etc with Russia and perhaps Turkey. But I still don't see Poland becoming a superpower like Friedman thinks. I also can't see Germany's influence and power diminishing. For me, Germany will continue to be the most powerful and influential country in Europe (along with Britain, of course), even if its future demographics suggest an inevitable slowdown, technically. The Germans are too much of a sophisticated lot overall and their influence, expertise etc today in many ways is paving the way for an economically and technologically sophisticated European region for the latter part of the 21st century. Germany's exposure to EU perpetual debt is a problem though, but having exposure to huge layers of debt is normal for nearly all nations on Earth these days. If the German's and Poles are threatened by Russia, Turkey or any other nation they may have little choice but to unite. It would be pretty hard to 'defeat' a unified Europe; after all, this is one of the main benefits of the European Union and the main reason countries like Greece would want to stay in the EU. United they will stand.

Don't get me wrong I am a huge supporter of the way the Germans go about things...(most of the time) and definitely think they are the most dynamic and productive in Europe and have been for some time. They are limited geographically and in terms of energy supply (until renewable's come online). This no doubt was the whole point behind the previous centuries wars. They are always going to feel like they are 'hemmed in'. They have wised up somewhat and realised that expanding borders by fighting on two fronts is far too costly for a number of reasons. Hence the concept of the Eurozone makes perfect sense. Increased trade, increased safety and increased influence on the global stage and they (Germany) get to be the leader. If the Eurozone manages to stabilise economically then the goalposts shift and much of what Friedman was referring to will alter. An interesting by product will be to see how strong but not entirely committed members (UK, Scandinavians) of the EU respond to such a scenario. Perhaps they (Britain especially) will grow wary of the EU and focus on strong alliances with the US in order to counter balance increasing German power. Another point worth mentioning is the demographics of Western Europe. As the population becomes older, they become less productive, hence opportunities arise for the Turkey's and Poland's.

Another thing worth mentioning is the level of activism in Western Europe. They are not afraid to riot and stand up for what they believe in (be it for better or worse) and as such could prove very powerful if united to common causes.

You need more than one 'aggressive' (wanting to invade etc) nation these days and in the future to really cause long term problems for a host of others. This was one of my criticisms of Friedman when I suggested he saw things with a 19th to 20th century linear perspective. A threatening nuclear country is a different story, but thank God we have the US and a coalition of other nations like England, France, etc etc to oversea, and if need be, protect or retaliate if ever the need arises.

I think the ability of the UN to prevent conflicts is over estimated by people for a couple of reasons.
1. The ability of the US and other security council members being able to exert pressure for their own ends (not the ends of the entire voting bloc of the UN). This enables them to give the impression to global citizens that they are united and dealing with issues that arise on a humanitarian basis where this is clearly not the case (ie. No action in Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, North Korea). Once people/nations wake up to this it shifts the goal posts.
2. The growth in living standards since the end of WW2. Once conflicts arise that seriously threaten a semi powerful (and previously aligned) nations ability to function the UN will crumble much the same way as the League of Nations.

I'm struggling to follow your thought process on critiquing Friedman for his linear approach. My response (to what I think you are getting at) would be to say that war is always linear. One (or more) nation(s) has an issue with another(or more) nation(s) and when it can't be solved diplomatically the disputing nations draw up sides and attempt to gain as much support as necessary in order to obtain victory. I may be wrong, but your opinion may be hampered by your inability to see just how good the US has been at doing this since the end of WW2. The fact that they have been able to curry favour with most of the other world powers by strategically picking targets that the international community is wary of (and also in a position to benefit from) is part of the trick. The ability to ward off attacks either through diplomacy or pre-emptive strikes (or by letting the occasional limited attack suceed *9/11*) are others.

Japan, I'm sure is being looked at closely and the treaties it signed just after WW11 will still apply. Any attempt to break those treaties, even gradually, would send alarm bells ringing throughout the world. However, as a key strategic economic powerhouse for the west, Japan and Korea even will be supported by key nations in the west, as there would be no point in letting Japan suffer any long-term economic hardships. I'm positive Japan would be leading the way in developing and marketing non hydrocarbon type fuels for the next century onwards. I think China will be a key player in this development too. Energy is all around us and tapping into these resources, like gaining it from ocean turbines and powerful ocean currents or from utilizing solar power with next generation solar cells, might not be as difficult as it seems. So does a country like Japan go the way it did before and during WW11 by trying to overpower countries and take what it lacks, or does it see better opportunities out there like, for example, developing wind and ocean powered turbines etc to power generators and grids? I think the latter even if is a different type of method/fuel etc. I'm sure there is more than one way to generate large and sustainable volumes of electricity. The world is full of energy that can be used to create electricity.

Agree with you here Konkon. Japan will be leading the world in sustainable energy because they will be forced to due to their lack of non-renewable resources. They will definitely try to go about things a different way to last century. The one problem they may face though, and I don't think I highlighted it last post, will be that they will not have access to enough food sources. That is why they may see bountiful mainland China as area to exploit. It will be a balancing act though as China is not the minnow it was last century.

I grant you that countries like Turkey may surprise many and may become an aggressive state if it needed to. Out of all of the ones mentioned by Friedman, Turkey could for some time be a real threat to neighbouring countries. But a unified Europe will mean that Turkey doesn't head west all that much. Not sure about some of the Greek islands though. But will the EU survive over the next few decades? It's biggest problem will be the volumes of debt it won't be able to honor. But then again, this is a world wide phenomenon. A restructuring of debt or to be more to the point, of creditor and debtor relations, equations and dynamics in the world could become a catalyst for major conflicts in the next decade onwards. Hopefully not, but it looks like it may head that way to some extent. Hopefully those in their think tanks are trying to work out ways to avoid this. It comes down to what action would a creditor nation take if it can't be paid at all or within a given time-frame. Many might not do much at all, but it might come down to two or three powerful-enough countries wanting some form of compensation and their debtors pretty much showing them the proverbial finger. The economic consequences or sanctions for a debtor nation might also be a real problem in the not so distant future. Not being actively involved in the world economy like it perhaps was would lead to all sorts of problems and perhaps conflicts.

Well articulated and important point. Biggest issue in the next 20 years without doubt. What happens when the music stops and you're not getting repaid for taking another nation's debt? Unprecedented issue that will play a large part in shaping the century. The only possible way it plays out friendly is if it is the US that defaults, profusely apologises and there is no uproar because they are the single biggest military power. It becomes infinitely trickier if the battle is played out between other major players not involving the US, causing the US decide whether to choose sides or return to it's former isolationist policy.

to be continued...

Will reply to your second post soon.

 

[financialdonk]

This report brings up interesting challenges for the medium term future as demand begins to overrun supply globally for the first time in quite a while.

I believe it is in some way what you were referring to in your second post Konkon. I just managed to stumble upon it this afternoon noon!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59489177/When-Demand-Outstrips-Supply-Copy

 

[konkon]

Another worthwhile reply financialdonk. I want to read the Societe Generale article and, hopefully, I will reply to most of your comments later this evening. There are a couple of things I want to expand on from my previous two posts, that have been bugging me for some time.

One issue in the markets that I feel needs to be addressed (and it may not be anything at all, just something that's bugging me) is if we're all getting use to high commodity/energy prices now, even with a global slowdown, then we better get use to the idea of much higher prices when things are picking up in the world economy even if this pickup is slow and distorted by only really factoring-in things like better employment numbers. So those estimates of $200 a barrel of Brent Oil, for example, might play-out. My point earlier was that the basis of this was driven by speculation, price-cornering, stockpiling and monopolistic algorithmic trading computers that even today seem to be doing the majority of high end trades.

Any guy on Wall Street would then be able to 'justify' why all soft and hard commodities would have to keep going up in price on wholesale markets and of course the retail side too. One comment might be: "Hey, you had oil at $115 a barrel during the slowdown and now (maybe in 2013+ or even earlier) you have better employment figures, 'growth' (their idea might differ to mine on overall net growth, all things considered; USD, debt to equity etc) and therefore you must have oil at $160+. I don't think this is a justification, but it seems a likely outcome for world markets and consumers around the world; pricing-out scenarios seem likely and this has already occurred around the world. This too may be a catalyst for future (economic and not necessarily physical) conflicts.

Demand destruction may not mean very much in the future either, not like it fundamentally did in history. So the idea that prices will themselves correct to more 'normal' or lower levels, will not be the case. Hey, watch out for all the new norm talk! Demand destruction would not occur because of some of the reasons previously mentioned like "...the sheer numbers and the level of sophistication involved [in trading on the upside] and the sheer lack of opposition to these moves. Add to this the algorithmic trading computers, government and private industry (banks) cornering of commodity markets, mass purchasing and price moving abilities.....physical stockpiling to control supply and demand dynamics by countries..." my quote in an earlier post.

Now, birds of a feather tend to flock together, so in the long run expect all types of commodities to move on the upside even if there is an abundance of a set at any given time.

Under this model, if it pans-out this way, your elite and 'the' owners of a big chunk of the world's wealth will get wealthier and more powerful. I think that the middle-classes around the world (wherever they are nowdays) will have an uphill battle. I think that a majority of them will struggle to add to their net wealth or whatever is left of it. Your property and land holders overall will do better especially those that have few debts. A tricky conclusion or opinion here, but I think the US will do much better overall than nearly all other countries. Large US multinationals and banks (including the Federal Reserve) will do the best as their net positions would be at a real peak. However the biggest problem for the US will be the struggling middle classes (and lower ones too). This (the middle class) for the US is the heart of taxation with representation and the main source for all forms of public sector income.

Skip the next two paragraphs if you don't want to read about my conspiracy theory, but the last two paragraphs are worth a read I think:

Now if I put on my conspiracy theory hat and look at who might be planning to benefit the most from the GFC (I'm sure that some elite 'organizations' knew of a likely GFC! even in 2007) I would point the finger at some nameless and anonymous organization that has some level of control over certain large banks (not talking about banks/employees themselves!). There does appear, to me, to be a great deal of influence of the US economy and markets by very powerful but latent elite operating from outside (and even inside) US borders. Now, one of their intentions may have been to transfer wealth from the middle classes (and this includes creating future debt obligations for the middle classes) to an elite. This transfer of middle class (overall) net wealth has occurred and one of the reasons why simple factors like healthier jobs numbers every month only provides a patch on an overall greater problem. I think that some of this transfer of wealth was intentional. But a byproduct of all this activity means that all of your protective services institutions (the whole lot and in no particular order: military, NSA, FBI, CIA etc etc) may not get all the necessary funding it deserves and needs from the taxation with representation model of the middle classes funding all of these fundamentally important institutions that in turn represents and protects those same middle classes or all Americans. This taxation with representation model was one of the key principles that the founding fathers of the United States had in mind and it should always stand. And in no way should this system be adversely manipulated or intentionally jeopardized.

Now a big part of this transfer of wealth might just be 'Wall Street'/small and large bank recklessness, unrealistic contractual modeling and greed combined with reckless issuance of small to large unpayable debts. This was the driving force, but I still feel like this, to some extent, was engineered by a very powerful elite that stood to gain in more ways than one.

I keep reading and hearing about a need to form one currency perhaps based on a basket of currencies (not the USD) and a need to slowly develop a centralized world government. Both of these mean a transfer of wealth and power from the United States. My view is neither will have legs especially the latter (developing a centralized world government). A basket of currencies as the world's reserve currency may take off for a while, but will not work in the long run. Both of these factors pose a real threat for all forms of US government institutions (including the protective services mentioned earlier; the whole lot one again). Now if you connect the dots of the previous (conspiracy!) points raised before with the desire to create these two new world models, then you have a possible scenario of some, perhaps deliberate, attempt over a period of time being made to destabilize and even weaken US government institutions (I think this has occurred because the middle classes have been screwed and burdened with future perpetual and unpayable debt). Those same key and fundamentally important US gov institutions are a barrier to some attempt to set-up 1. an alternative reserve currency and more importantly 2. another form of world governing body, as or even more powerful than the current US one. Based on this belief and some might see it as a potential threat to the longevity and stability of the US as a whole there should never be an attempt to withdraw or limit funds from these all-important US agencies.

Another important point I think is the Obama administration looking for ways to bypass congress to lift the debt ceiling. I think that it should (even though the Republicans and Tea Party have several plausible points) especially when the US needs to continue to pay all of its protective services agencies (yes, the whole lot!). A very controversial point here, but I think the Obama administration should bypass congress on a whole set of fundamentally important issues and (even though I know very little about the US constitution, but have a great deal of admiration for it) it should base these moves on crucial and fundamental issues protecting the longevity, stability and interests of the US, not to mention congresses' inability to deliver, on time, key unified fundamental changes at a key point in time.

 

[tothemax6]

1. an alternative reserve currency and more importantly

1) Back to the previous one would be great.

I keep reading and hearing about a need to form one currency perhaps based on a basket of currencies (not the USD) and a need to slowly develop a centralized world government.

There would be nothing more evil than a one-world government. It would be like the imperial government of 'star wars', or the three governments of 1984. The further government officials are from their constituents, the more evil, corrupt, and outright damaging the government becomes. The EU is a good example of this. The less able voters are to control their situation, the more they live under a dictatorship with a glazing of democracy. The less centralized government is, the better it is for the common man. Only for the politician-thug, hungry for power and control over other peoples lives, is centralized government an attractive idea.

 

[konkon]

...There would be nothing more evil than a one-world government. It would be like the imperial government of 'star wars', or the three governments of 1984. The further government officials are from their constituents, the more evil, corrupt, and outright damaging the government becomes. The EU is a good example of this. The less able voters are to control their situation, the more they live under a dictatorship with a glazing of democracy...

Well put tothemax6! And a one-world government would not last either if some nasty dictatorship etc, that may have been a traditional enemy to the US, Australia etc fills that inevitable void of world domination!

I just wanted to clarify some potential ambiguity with the next quote, from an earlier post. By 'it' I meant (and you will see it in brackets):

"Based on this belief and some might see it [the perhaps deliberate attempt to transfer wealth from the middle classes and away from US government services of all kinds] as a potential threat to the longevity and stability of the US as a whole there should never be an attempt to withdraw or limit funds from these all-important US agencies."

 

[konkon]

Will reply to your second post soon.

We might go to the football soon, so I will contribute as much as I can now, and continue later this evening.

"If the Eurozone manages to stabilise economically then the goalposts shift and much of what Friedman was referring to will alter....Perhaps they (Britain especially) will grow wary of the EU and focus on strong alliances with the US in order to counter balance increasing German power. Another point worth mentioning is the demographics of Western Europe. As the population becomes older, they become less productive, hence opportunities arise for the Turkey's and Poland's." by financialdonk

No matter what happens, the Germans will be there and will be a powerhouse. Germany during and after both world wars was crippled, devastated, bankrupt, to say the least. It came back stronger than ever. Germany has better years ahead of it, no matter what happens to the Euro-zone and unity within Europe. I don't think Turkey will be 'allowed' and I don't think Turkey would want to progress west and into Europe, like it did in previous centuries. Now if Turkey, like many other nations in the future, need to secure more resources, then Turkey best head north, north east, east and perhaps south east. I'm not saying it should and I don't think it would be 'allowed' either. Why go to Europe?

I think that the US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany (and even the Poles) and many more countries from all over the world will form an even stronger alliance as they will see extremist threats and their (extremist) and their supporters' influence over politics, geopolitics and economies their (US backed alliances) highest priority. Those issues will be a lot more macro in size, and it may become even more clear that they (extremists) are being backed by influential and powerful-enough nations, that really don't like the western model and all that comes with it; various religions included.

I think that political commentators like Glen Beck are right when they comment about state-sponsored extremism becoming an even bigger problem in the future. I think this has to be a focal point and not necessarily old-school type tensions and conflicts between countries like England and Germany; this is one of these linear criticisms made by me - that (and I don't believe this) traditional old scores might resurface because it followed that path during the two world wars. There are definitely different macro dynamics at play here and in the future.

Another 'linear criticism' by me is that Friedman tends to see future conflicts like they were in the previous century, as one aggressive nation physically taking on other (more than one) nations. I'm not saying this is the basis of his arguments, but he does make these suggestions. Future conflicts, I think, will be more sophisticated, macro (involving many countries on both sides) and diluted in nature and the basis of many will be religious as well as resources based ones. Not just resources based conflicts and certainly not between countries that pretty much have very similar religions.

"I'm struggling to follow your thought process on critiquing Friedman for his linear approach. My response (to what I think you are getting at) would be to say that war is always linear. One (or more) nation(s) has an issue with another(or more) nation(s) and when it can't be solved diplomatically the disputing nations draw up sides and attempt to gain as much support as necessary in order to obtain victory." by financialdonk

I think that very few things in the world and universe are linear. They appear to be linear, but are not. One reason is because you can always look at reasons for things in so many different ways. For example, your perception of event A might differ from my perception of the same event (ask people what they think 'caused' WW2, for example). The quantum mechanical 'assessment' of event A would also be different. Classical physics might explain it (event A) differently. A legal, geopolitical or economic interpretation of event A would or might differ too. The human-centric (restrictive) semantical world of explaining things, even event A, might differ from some higher-order way of explaining it. Using previously adhered to models of explaining conflicts, like WW1, WW2, doesn't necessarily mean that these same models are applicable in future conflicts. I just think Friedman draws too many parallels between the reasons behind previous conflicts and future ones and he sees this as moving from a step A to B to C to D... process, and (in his words) the "act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step". pg 11 But I think there are very few logical next steps in the (geo-political, economic) quantum world that forms the basis of all those macro events we perceive and speculate on.

 

[financialdonk]

No matter what happens, the Germans will be there and will be a powerhouse. Germany during and after both world wars was crippled, devastated, bankrupt, to say the least. It came back stronger than ever. Germany has better years ahead of it, no matter what happens to the Euro-zone and unity within Europe. I don't think Turkey will be 'allowed' and I don't think Turkey would want to progress west and into Europe, like it did in previous centuries. Now if Turkey, like many other nations in the future, need to secure more resources, then Turkey best head north, north east, east and perhaps south east. I'm not saying it should and I don't think it would be 'allowed' either. Why go to Europe?

The Allure of heading west for Turkey is greater control of shipping channels. It is always a wise move when expanding to keep your main hub of power (Istanbul) further from your borders. No point spending 30 years rolling east if it can be stopped in an afternoon from an attack to the west.


I think that political commentators like Glen Beck are right when they comment about state-sponsored extremism becoming an even bigger problem in the future. I think this has to be a focal point and not necessarily old-school type tensions and conflicts between countries like England and Germany; this is one of these linear criticisms made by me - that (and I don't believe this) traditional old scores might resurface because it followed that path during the two world wars. There are definitely different macro dynamics at play here and in the future.

I see where you are coming from in regards to "old scores" not necessarily occuring. But any new war will be a "new score" and this does not mean that new confrontations will not be linear in nature.

"I'm struggling to follow your thought process on critiquing Friedman for his linear approach. My response (to what I think you are getting at) would be to say that war is always linear. One (or more) nation(s) has an issue with another(or more) nation(s) and when it can't be solved diplomatically the disputing nations draw up sides and attempt to gain as much support as necessary in order to obtain victory." by financialdonk

I think that very few things in the world and universe are linear. They appear to be linear, but are not. One reason is because you can always look at reasons for things in so many different ways. For example, your perception of event A might differ from my perception of the same event (ask people what they think 'caused' WW2, for example). The quantum mechanical 'assessment' of event A would also be different. Classical physics might explain it (event A) differently. A legal, geopolitical or economic interpretation of event A would or might differ too. The human-centric (restrictive) semantical world of explaining things, even event A, might differ from some higher-order way of explaining it. Using previously adhered to models of explaining conflicts, like WW1, WW2, doesn't necessarily mean that these same models are applicable in future conflicts. I just think Friedman draws too many parallels between the reasons behind previous conflicts and future ones and he sees this as moving from a step A to B to C to D... process, and (in his words) the "act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step". pg 11 But I think there are very few logical next steps in the (geo-political, economic) quantum world that forms the basis of all those macro events we perceive and speculate on.

Have to disagree here. They are linear because the universe is limited by time. As long as time is constant (and time travel is not being employed) then all conflicts are linear. Just because people perceive the conflicts as arising over different matters or ending with different resolutions doesn't mean they are non-linear. I would argue that they would be linear parallels, whereby my opinion of events is x and your's is y. They run along the same axis but at different levels.

Put another way, whether events lead to a war due to previous grievances, new grievances, perceived slights (real or unreal) the one thing holds true; There is always an escalation of events and hence always a linear event where a chain reaction is set off that results in war. Even sheer lunacy by a rogue state has a linear story.

It's a very difficult point to argue that world events are not linear because nation-states, religious groups and terrorist cells all act with personal motive. It is the constants of motive and time that gives Friedman (anyone for that matter) the ability to attempt to discuss the past, present and future with a linear story.

 

[konkon]

Have to disagree here. They are linear because the universe is limited by time. As long as time is constant (and time travel is not being employed) then all conflicts are linear. Just because people perceive the conflicts as arising over different matters or ending with different resolutions doesn't mean they are non-linear. I would argue that they would be linear parallels, whereby my opinion of events is x and your's is y. They run along the same axis but at different levels.

Put another way, whether events lead to a war due to previous grievances, new grievances, perceived slights (real or unreal) the one thing holds true; There is always an escalation of events and hence always a linear event where a chain reaction is set off that results in war. Even sheer lunacy by a rogue state has a linear story.

It's a very difficult point to argue that world events are not linear because nation-states, religious groups and terrorist cells all act with personal motive. It is the constants of motive and time that gives Friedman (anyone for that matter) the ability to attempt to discuss the past, present and future with a linear story.

In hindsight the path to an event may be linear but it is technically one of an infinite amount of possibilities that could have arisen, even though reason would allow us to limit these possibilities. The quantum world must prevent us, as speculators on future events, from accurately predicting future events. I just don't see how past events or a set of past events linked somehow, can help you form conclusions about future events. I'm talking about interactions here on Earth and not seeing the sun rise in the east tomorrow morning.

I think that my idea of linear here differs from yours. I understand where you're coming from and these ideas expressed by you relate to physics and all of those data points that make the big bang theory plausible. And there is a fair bit of relativity there too, I guess. That's all good, but I don't think we are able to use any linear model ourselves to predict future complex events accurately all or most of the time, with no apparent pattern. Quantum mechanics, the second law of thermodynamics and perhaps some other form of physics we haven't even 'discovered' yet, must restrict our ability to accurately predict any future event. Once an event has occurred you can form some linear assessment to explain it.

 

[financialdonk]

In hindsight the path to an event may be linear but it is technically one of an infinite amount of possibilities that could have arisen, even though reason would allow us to limit these possibilities. The quantum world must prevent us, as speculators on future events, from accurately predicting future events. I just don't see how past events or a set of past events linked somehow, can help you form conclusions about future events. I'm talking about interactions here on Earth and not seeing the sun rise in the east tomorrow morning.

I think that my idea of linear here differs from yours. I understand where you're coming from and these ideas expressed by you relate to physics and all of those data points that make the big bang theory plausible. And there is a fair bit of relativity there too, I guess. That's all good, but I don't think we are able to use any linear model ourselves to predict future complex events accurately all or most of the time, with no apparent pattern. Quantum mechanics, the second law of thermodynamics and perhaps some other form of physics we haven't even 'discovered' yet, must restrict our ability to accurately predict any future event. Once an event has occurred you can form some linear assessment to explain it.

Haha my head is about to explode. This really isn't an area of expertise for me (Physics).

I think it the attempting to discuss and predict future occurrences that is important. Someone predicting is closer than someone not predicting. Someone that claims to profess minuscule details that will occur is bound to wind up having egg on their face.


There are many events that are quite plausible though and then one works around a continually changing framework. IE. The US will be the sole superpower of the 21st century. Certain interest groups don't like being subject to external pressures from nation states. Ergo there will be parties (nation states, religions, terror cells) that rise up against the US.

Not sure I have much more to add as I think we have covered most of the ground surrounding this particular topic.

 

[konkon]

A friend of mine thinks that all this talk of the US and its high-end protective services agencies (NSA, CIA, FBI, defense etc) having its funds etc cut (or potentially cut soon), is not that important an issue, as I make it out to be. He, and a journalist on TV before, seem to think that these agencies (and many more we take for granted, or don't know even exist) are somewhere on the periphery of things, with respect to the US economy, and not at its core, like I 'know' is the case.

I do strongly believe there are shadow groups (not belonging to only one country) that have control of the international banking conglomerates, that are trying to destabilize the US, through its economy (and this has been going on for perhaps a decade); add to this the number of countries that don't like the US and you have a real problem. There was more to the GFC (and we haven't left it yet) than the issuance of bad loans. Being swept with more debt than one can handle and pay-off with revenue (not more debt!) was an inevitable course. The motivation was there and the outcomes were to benefit those that can only benefit from issuing more and more debt.

Now, why is the US and all of its high-end (as mentioned before) defense agencies a hurdle or barrier for these shadowy groups and their banking cartels? Well, controlling the world's economy for one, with limitless and borderless financing of all and any nation/country on earth, no matter who they are(!) at all levels. These shadowy groups and co. probably see the US and its defense organizations as a barrier to increasing the level of investments etc 10 fold.

Now this all might sound like a good idea at first, but there is a reason why the US has to police the world to the extent it has to. If you allow free-for-all financing at an unprecedented, extreme, macro level to take place at the potential magnitude mentioned, with very little restriction, it may appear to work well for a couple of years or so, but you would have allowed all kinds of potentially irreversible scenarios to take-place. One would be the financing and refinancing of two and even more hostile countries, that have been covertly financing their own agendas, defenses and aggressive stance on geopolitical issues.

These same shadowy organizations are well aware of the fact that if you cut funding from someone, group, organization etc, then you have weakened them to some extent. A net loss is easily a net gain for these shadowy groups and co and all hostile nations to the US. Or just some nation that (short-sightedly) sees more opportunities if the US wasn't in control.

You cannot, in this world, have a cooperating world like many people believe. The void will always be there for one or more countries to stick their necks out and go for world domination; I guess we could all unite if we saw a threat from some alien attack, but that's not likely to happen.

The US will create money from thin air if it needs to in the future if it finds it is losing its control of the currencies, markets, seas, skies etc etc; just a note, it may happen gradually in this order too if many shadow groups and the international banking cartels have their way. Protecting the USD, the markets is crucial for the US if it needs to keep controlling the seas and skies etc over the long term. I just wish Congress and high end US corporations would realize this! Creating money out of thin air (or just keeping the printing presses going at a far greater rate than today) would have dire consequences for most countries outside of the US. So if you think there will be an easy transition if the US loses its grip on the reserve currency status, world markets, the seas etc, then think again! Bet on this happening and you're bound to lose sleep at night worrying about your long term investments.

One of the things that's worrying me about Wall Street these days is many indicators like the Dow, that have traditionally reflected the status of the domestic US economy, is now reflecting a general path that we may be taking, that relates to the comments about shadowy groups trying to transfer power and wealth from the US and all its markets and agencies etc. The Dow and many other indicators are reflecting a gradual transfer of power and wealth from the US, although on the surface these indicators would be suggesting better than expected forecasts and earnings. We are being disillusioned by all this pseudo euphoria and the hope that things will get better, and many don't see these indicators as a sign of transformation. This is not a sign of real wealth in the US nor is it a sign that things will get better in the US like many economists believe. Multinationals are giving up on the US and are sourcing their wealth from outside the US. Now this all doesn't seem to fit in with the taxation with representation principles that the founding fathers strongly believed in! Wealth is being distributed outside of the US and there is a real lack of representing the US domestically.

Congress must support and not only fund, but continue to boost spending on higher-end defense and protective services agencies of all kind! I think many members seem to think that these agencies don't play a central role in protecting the US in all ways and their (Congresses') asses too. I don't know much about US federal law, but I wonder if there is some way to enable defense, for example, to gain access to funds from the Treasury perhaps, as a matter of national importance of the highest level. It could be based on some technical indicative measurements that put the US in (potential) harms way and that those key levels need to be maintained and reinforced. And I'm not talking about Martial Law here; US citizens have nothing to do with this calamity. Now I'm bound to hear 'in a democracy we don't...', but realize this, that there may not be a democracy left the way you think it should exist, if all of those protective services agencies lose funding and their capacity to uphold and protect these principles. I guess we could always believe economists and Wall Street when they tell us the US economy will get better and the signs are there. No they are not! The only signs are the ones pointing the way to where the money is flowing - and it ain't going into the US!

Add to this that we are always in a state of conflict, although we go to sleep at night not thinking or knowing about it. It doesn't always come in the physical sense and I'm not talking about this here. It is played-out in the international markets every day, for example, and without US's (and all its allies') protection, as mentioned before, the scales will most likely tip in favor of foreign interests, heavily backed by those shadowy organizations, the international banking cartels and those that don't like the US led model! Ask yourself if you would want to live under this system and look at how your life may change for the worse in the long run. So who will protect us form all this occurring? Wall Street, bankers, multinationals, congress or the so-called 'free' markets etc? No way! It has to start from the President, his network/team and all protective services agencies.

Going back to an earlier point, Congress, and dare I say it, the courts should not be in a position to prevent and overrule any technical basis for insuring that those protective services agencies (NSA, CIA, military etc) should get all the funding they need to reinforce the US's long stance of controlling the reserve currency, markets, seas, skies, electromagnetic world etc.


Another issue that I need to get right is: don't back football games (ie. scoring over/under a given future score) on previous form, stats etc alone (especially if you don't know much about the teams etc)! The inconsistency in the AFL on the main bell curve side suggests a roulette (black or white) approach with the laws of probability thrown in as well. Yes, a different approach this weekend, indeed!

 

[Knobby22]

I do strongly believe there are shadow groups (not belonging to only one country) that have control of the international banking conglomerates, that are trying to destabilize the US, through its economy:

Seriously, its not a shadow group, its the Republicans and their aim is to make sure they make Obama a one term President, and they are doing it in full view.

 

[Glen48]

Seems to me all are keen to make Obama a oncer and because he is coloured he must not be in control however no one is looking at the big picture only tall poppies.

Obama didn't cause the problem only help it along it has been stewing for decades and Bun Liner had the most effect on driving USA down.

If you spent $30 Million a day everyday back to the birth of JC you will have spent the USA debt as it stands now.
No one can save USA it is finished and therefore no political party can turn around the sinking ship all they can do is point score as they go under..

OZ is doing the same watch what happens in USA to see where we will end up.
There is no guarantee for any country to become top dog as things like Earthquakes, weather, political events such as assignations can skew the picture over night etc