vincecate wrote:Sometimes Generational Dynamics seems like it is what you say it is. For example, your claim that hyperinflation is impossible in a crisis era even though the US has had hyperinflation in 2 crisis eras already. Seems a bit dogmatic and not scientific.
I don't know why I bother answering ANY of your questions, Vince, since you
never even pay attention.
And if you really feel the way you say, then I don't know why you
bother to ask.
I am paying attention. You said "Weimar-like hyperinflation is impossible" but have not explained how you define a "Weimar-like hyperinflation" as different from any other hyperinflation. There was some hint that you mean peacetime hyperinflation, but even that seems odd as Weimar hyperinflation was due to a war. My questions are reasonable questions.
There has never been a deflation like the early 1930s (like over 20%) under pure fiat currency and there have been 100+ cases of hyperinflation under pure fiat currency (period of time where currency became worthless). The conditions for historical cases of hyperinflation is the ability to print money and debt over 80% of GNP and deficit over 40% of spending, which the US has. Still you claim the danger is deflation and hyperinflation is impossible. I don't know the odds, but I am sure impossible is the wrong answer.
vincecate wrote:
> I am paying attention. You said "Weimar-like hyperinflation is
> impossible" but have not explained how you define a "Weimar-like
> hyperinflation" as different from any other hyperinflation.
Yes I did. I clearly distinguished the destruction of financial
centers and widespread loss of civic control with a peacetime
unraveling era. Anyone can understand that clear distinction. But
instead of paying any attention at all, you repeated the same old crap
and started making accusations. Go screw yourself.
Trevor wrote:I personally don't see the war coming for maybe 3-4 years, but I do think it'll happen, and I hope we're at least making some preparations, although considering that I see the heads of the people in charge (of both parties) stuck in a snug place, I'm not real hopeful. We have numerous advantages in this war, and China could delude themselves, same as Japan did, though they will be much tougher to defeat.
It's always been that way. And, contrary to what you would think, it's really better that way. For instance, it was better for the US that Japan sank those battleships in Pearl Harbor. Those battleships were obsolete technology and the US Navy would have never had the political will to eliminate them itself. Had the Japanese not done it the US would have screwed around for years trying to win the war in the Pacific with obsolete technology in a war in which the aircraft carrier dominated.
Now it's entirely possible that the aircraft carrier is obsolete. If so, the best thing that can happen is to cut military spending so as not to waste resources on technology that will only be in the way when war comes. The threat itself will make it clear what's required to survive, and the threat itself will spur the development and production of what will be required.
I actually don't see aircraft carriers as useless now; a 100,000 ton carrier is not that easy to destroy, although modern missiles can make them more vulnerable. If we were prepared and knew that Japan was coming... we'd probably still have lost, though it wouldn't be as one-sided for us as it was. The longer China delays, the more time they have to build up their forces.
Search the Web. There are naval officers who openly state that the large super carriers are obsolete due to missiles that can sink them 900 miles out, which is far beyond aircraft strike range. They do see a role for smaller carriers that are not so juicy targets and which can still be used in smaller scale conflicts.
If you look at every 4th Turning war the US has had, the US was always "caught off-guard" with respect to military preparedness. The US has always won. And it's no accident. It's a fundamental of strategy that the person who moves first becomes the more vulnerable of the contestants. They are much easier to counter because the reveal their intentions and their strengths & weaknesses through their preemptive action. Plus, the one who draws first blood is invariably the overaggressive of the two and the overaggressive is always the most vulnerable.
Really? Being unprepared for war really didn’t help Belgium or the Netherlands or Luxemburg or France or Poland or Britain or The United States. It certainly didn’t help Russia, which lost about 15 percent of their population on the Eastern Front. Nearly everyone in Western Europe was overrun in a matter of weeks once the German war machine was moving. If it wasn’t for the enormous amount of supplies that we were supplying Britain with, they would have lost too, leaving all of Europe for the taking.
As for the Pacific, it’s hard to believe just how unprepared we were or how that could be construed as a good thing for us. It allowed Japan to kill thousands of people, destroy nearly 200 aircraft, and sink several of our ships, since not only were we not prepared militarily, we weren’t even paying attention. Our planes were packed close together and we may as well have painted a red target on them saying “Hit Here”.
It would have been even worse if they had destroyed our oil supply on that island. Had they done so, it would have prohibited any big operations for at least a year, maybe more, before we could rebuild it.
During the Philippine invasion, we didn’t have enough soldiers, and the soldiers we did have were fighting with old equipment. Not only was it old, it was poorly maintained, meaning that a lot of our artillery simply didn’t work because it had rusted. In addition, we had little ammunition for the equipment that did work.
If we were in a different position, say a country with similar capabilities to Japan, we would likely have been knocked out of the war. As things stood, we were several times stronger than Japan, meaning that we had a margin for error. This time around is a different story.
You say we’ve always won a war when we’re unprepared. Well, that’s because we have a couple of big advantages that allowed us to survive.
First of all, look the size of the country. We’re the size of China and compare that to the size of Japan; their entire country is smaller than California. So is Germany, for that matter.
Secondly, we have two big oceans protecting us. That means that it’s very difficult to cause any significant harm to our production capabilities, or at least it was in the Second World War, not to mention that our economy was far bigger than Japan and Germany combined. We’re still better off with it, but it doesn’t provide us with the kind of protection that we had 70 years ago.
During our Civil War, neither side in the conflict was prepared for the large-scale war. The Confederates lost because they were outnumbered over 3-to-1 by the Union.As for our war of Independence, that was where the massive distance came into our favor. It took Britain months to send reinforcements to the continent and by the time they arrived, the strategic situation had changed. In spite of that, though, we would have lost if Britain was determined to keep us whatever the cost. They decided keeping us in their empire was more trouble than it was worth and figured that if we wanted to be independent so badly, fine.
I’ve been researching anti-ship missiles, reading arguments on both sides about the effectiveness of them, the various scenarios, and talked a member of the military that I know personally.
I don’t see aircraft carriers becoming useless in warfare anytime soon. The vulnerabilities that you described can apply to any naval vessel.
However, what I will say is that they are more vulnerable than they were a decade ago, particularly with this new anti-ship missile that I’ve been reading about.
The real danger isn’t that one missile can destroy a carrier because as I previously stated, a ship that size isn’t easy to outright destroy unless you hit it in the right spot. The vulnerability is that defenses can be overwhelmed. Passive and active countermeasures can give us a strong defense, but if the Chinese launch hundreds or thousands of ballistic missiles, and they likely would, it would be enough for some to get through. One won’t be enough, but if you manage to hit a carrier with 5 or 6 of these things, particularly in a vulnerable area, you can cause some serious damage.
I’ll use Midway as an example. The one carrier we did lose had already suffered serious damage and was hastily repaired in preparation. Even so, it took several hits to damage it enough to where it couldn’t be repaired. As for the Japanese carriers, we hit them right when they were reloading their planes, acting almost like a powder keg. If China hits one of our carriers under those circumstances, they’ll probably sink it.
Another point I would add is that you don’t necessarily have to sink a carrier; all that’s necessary is to cripple it enough to where it’ll be out of action for a while, so I don’t agree with either of your points.
During the Second World War, we lost about 2.5% of the soldiers that we enlisted. I would expect the number to be higher this time around, somewhere on the order of 10-15%. We're not going to have the margin of error that we did the last time around. China can match our production, match our capabilities, and have a population over 4 times as large as us. If we let our guard down, we're going to pay for it.
Trevor wrote:
> Just wondering: Is Howe familiar with Generational Dynamics?
I've pretty much given up on all of those guys. They consider
Generational Dynamics to be an apostasy, as if The Fourth Turning
were like the Koran, the inviolable word of Allah.
John
Yeah, I've heard you mention Cassandra. I've mentioned some of the stuff on this website to others and get blown off and shouted at, often because it doesn't fit their political views. There is someone who listens and thinks I have a point, even if he doesn't agree with everything, but he happens to be a late-wave silent; anyone younger is skeptical at best and furious at worst.
It does remind me of the thoughts we had about Japan before Pearl Harbor: "They wouldn't attack us, and even if they do, we could beat them easily." I think it's just because this is not something that people want to believe.
Btw, I did think of a secondary criteria for determining a crisis on non-crisis war. Wars don't always go your way, and eventually, casualties are going to start to mount. In a non-crisis war, there's a growing feeling that the war isn't worth fighting, that the country should negotiate and make peace. In a crisis war, it will only harden their resolve and make the country more determined to win.
I too have quoted/linked to this site in various discussions rooms I sometimes visit and NOBODY seems to want to take GenerationalDynamics seriously because it (GD) does not fit with any particular political agenda.
John... I wonder.... do you find that there is a certain generational segment that takes your research more seriously than another? I'm guessing I'm a silent (at least the son of a silent). I was born in 67. My father was born in 32 an the youngest of 12. My mother in 39, the second youngest of 13. Often wonder if their "silence" has rubbed off on me.
Psalm 34:4 - “I sought the Lord, and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears.”
thomasglee wrote:
> John... I wonder.... do you find that there is a certain
> generational segment that takes your research more seriously than
> another? I'm guessing I'm a silent (at least the son of a
> silent). I was born in 67. My father was born in 32 an the
> youngest of 12. My mother in 39, the second youngest of 13. Often
> wonder if their "silence" has rubbed off on me.
I guess that probably Millennials are most open to understanding
what's going on. They're already aware of how much dysfunc tion there
is in their own lives and in Washington, so they're open to something
that explains what's going on. Also, Millennials tend to be the group
that ask more theoretical questions.
When Gen-Xers or Boomers ask me question, it's usually a question
about surviving or investing or preserving assets. For financial
questions, I usually refer them to the Financial Topics thread.
However, there are tens of thousands of regular web site readers,
and I've heard from only a tiny fraction of them, so I really
have no idea how they break down by generations.
John wrote:I don't know why I bother answering ANY of your questions, Vince, since you never even pay attention.
I am paying attention. You said "Weimar-like hyperinflation is impossible" but have not explained how you define a "Weimar-like hyperinflation" as different from any other hyperinflation.
Vince, seriously, this brought something to mind. I posted some information about the Weimar hyperinflation where it said there was a 50% deflation before the hyperinflation. After that, you said that there has never been a deflation in a fiat currency except for Japan, which has had a mild deflation. Also, about a year ago, I posted some information about a 20-30% deflation in England that occurred while England was off the gold standard in the early 1800s, along with links to the Bank of England web site and a book that had a chart of the deflation.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.