Generational Dynamics World View News

[utahbob]

John,
I concur with your analysis that we are entering a deflationary period. My take is because baby boomers are retiring and will be dying off. Many who I work with, amazingly never really saved for retirement or got out of debt. Since they are not working and producing taxable income, they will burn through their assets and not generate any new money or M2 as you point out.
The younger generation is not getting married, producing children and purchasing houses or generating demand for big purchases (cars, mini vans or luxury items) that traditionally pushed the economy. This is throwing a wrench in a few people who are trying to sell their houses.
Society is changing and the rules for the economy will not, as most people think.

[John]

> call me crazy, but I've been thinking about Trump & Putin.

OK. You're crazy.

> You no doubt have heard about the Presidential Daily Briefing in
> which Trump went off-topic and said that North Korea did NOT have
> the capability to launch a missile to reach the US
> mainland...because Putin told him so! This has been portrayed as
> yet another example of Putin's hold over Trump, and Trump's lack
> of confidence in our own intelligence community, but I wonder...

> Russia does share a border with NK, so they would have reasonable
> "on-the-ground" spying capabilities, in addition to satellites
> etc. So, what has Russia to gain from this statement?
> Possibilities: (1) Putin is lying. (what does that get him? My
> admittedly weak game theory chops don't show this as profitable
> path.)

> (2) Putin is telling the truth. (He doesn't want Trump to launch a
> nuclear attack on NK? He wants him to see that NK is actually in a
> much weaker bargaining positioin that it projects? Maybe he wants
> Trump to invade NK and rid Russia of that nagging irritant on its
> far eastern coast?)

> (3)Putin is either lying or telling the truth, the point is to sow
> doubt in Trump's mind about the US intelligence community.

> I favor (3), but let me know what you think.

I favor option (4): Trump said that to baffle and mislead the idiots
in the media, and to reduce the sentiment for a military attack on
North Korea.

The media obsession with Putin is truly idiotic, as shown by
two years of dozens of "explosive" revelations, all of which
have turned out to be nothing.

Trump, who is much smarter than anyone in the media or any
of the Democrats in Congress, uses the left's obsession with
Russia to his advantage by invoking it whenever he wants to
control the news coverage, by directing the credulous reporters
in a different direction. That's clearly what happened in
this case.

Did Putin really say that? Maybe he did, or maybe he said
"I don't think ...." Whatever he said, Trump found it
convenient to quote it.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, nobody knows whether North Korea has
developed missiles that can reach the US mainland, and as far as I
know, US intelligence has not officially said it has.

Also, N. Korea's real target is not the US. It's Japan, and their
missiles can clearly reach Japan. It will be very convenient for both
China and North Korea that one can attack Japan while the other
attacks the US.

The media are completely baffled by Trump's foreign policy, but
everything makes sense when you understand that Trump believes the
Generational Dynamics prediction that we're headed for war with China.
He's taking steps to avoid or postpone that war. I've said many times
that I'm not going to criticize Trump for taking steps to prevent WW
III, even if WW III is 100% certain, no matter what Trump does.

[John]

> You and I will face financial ruin long before the banks do. They
> will see to this under almost any scenario. Even if Hyperinflation
> happens, the banks will change the rules so that you can no longer
> pay them back in currency. Instead, your loans and debts will be
> pegged to some non-inflating asset, like gold. So they will say,
> you borrowed the equivalent of so many ounces of gold way back
> when, and that is all that they will accept in payment. So no
> paying off your mortgage years later with what’s in your
> wallet. Instead, people will become “debt slaves” once a financial
> crisis hits. They will be unable to pay back their debts, and like
> a lot of students, they won’t be able to get rid of them through
> bankruptcy, as this won’t be allowed.

> A financial crisis is going to happen, and when it does, it will
> happen faster than you or I can respond. This is because of
> computer trading. You will not be able to get your money out of
> stocks. You won’t be able to sell your real estate because almost
> everyone will be trying to do the same thing. And the banks will
> make sure that YOU will have to pay your debts.

There won't be hyperinflation in a deflationary period, but people
in debt will be reduced to poverty and homelessness, as you say.

> Save what you can. Precious metals are one of the few assets that
> will retain their value through a financial crisis. But even here
> you have to be careful. During the Great Depression, the American
> Government made it illegal to own gold. They made people turn it
> over to them. The same thing can happen again, as the legal
> precedent has already been established.

Keep in mind that gold is in the same bubble as the stock market. I
expect gold to crash to the $200-300 range.

> I concur with your analysis that we are entering a deflationary
> period. My take is because baby boomers are retiring and will be
> dying off. Many who I work with, amazingly never really saved for
> retirement or got out of debt. Since they are not working and
> producing taxable income, they will burn through their assets and
> not generate any new money or M2 as you point out.

> The younger generation is not getting married, producing children
> and purchasing houses or generating demand for big purchases
> (cars, mini vans or luxury items) that traditionally pushed the
> economy. This is throwing a wrench in a few people who are trying
> to sell their houses. Society is changing and the rules for the
> economy will not, as most people think.

All of the things that you're describing are going on, and are
supported by statistics. Also, a lot more people are committing suicide.

[John]

** 5-Mar-2019 Possible scenarios for WW III

> This is a rough response ...

> I don't dispute anything you wrote ...

I've taken your conversation, added some other stuff, to create a
chapter in my book on possible scenarios for WW III. Note, Navigator,
that I included a link to your blog -- I can remove that if you want.
The following are excerpts.

I may leave these as is, or rewrite these excerpts as a narrative.
Let me know your thoughts.


When thousands of Chinese fled through Hong Kong to Formosa in 1949,
they were in the Hokkein (Hakka) ethnic group. I wanted to know
how the Hakka people in Taiwan would react to a Chinese invasion.
A man living in Taiwan with a Hakka wife wrote the following
to me:

> "My wife loves China and seems to be completely blind
> to thier evil. She thinks if they take over, Taiwan could spend
> less on military and would prosper economically. I dont know
> anyone else in Taiwan that holds that opinion, me included.

> The other data point is that Tsai Ing-wen is Hakda and she is very
> against reunification. And she is doing something about it to
> include more weapons and changing military strategy to one of
> fortifying beach head landing sights of which Taiwan has few and
> resistance by guerrilla warfare based in the mountains if the
> beach heads are breached. So I think that may be more indicative
> of the Hakka attitude.

> As I'm sure you know, Taiwan as a whole does not consider itself
> to be a part of China anymore than Chicago is a part of China.
> And that attitude is getting stronger with time. They will not
> willing reunify.

> I think if China wants Taiwan they will have to kill ever last
> Taiwanese to take it. And I am fairly certain Taiwan is a nuclear
> armed country based on facilities I have seen while working for
> thier airforce. A war with China would not be quick and easy. It
> would be long and costly and frankly I dont think China currently
> has the ability to win."

...



For those reasons, many people believe that America would win a war
with China. Of course China would launch thousands of nuclear
missiles targeting American aircraft carriers, bases and cities, but
in the end there would be a ground war that China would lose.

In the Generational Dynamics forum, "Burner Prime" wrote:

> "Despite the loss of life and treasure, the US has
> been honing her fighting skills since Gulf War I. Prior to that
> there were a lot of shortcomings that were only uncovered by field
> operations and actual combat. Now our armor, weapons, tactics and
> electronic coordination, drone use, etc. is superior to any
> adversary. There are major problems with our Navy but those issues
> are known and being addressed."

However, "Navigator," a retired American Army Colonel 30 years
experience as an Army Officer, and with and my secondary career as a
military simulation creator/publisher, and blogs at
http://www.comingstorms.com, posted a response:

> "While our individual Soldiers are brave and
> competent, we will be in big trouble in a real war. We are only
> experienced at fighting counter insurgency, and we did a pretty
> bad job at that. Our Army is very over-reliant on electronics, and
> the Chinese will know how to exploit this. Our military is
> infantry deficient, and over reliant on AirForce ground
> support. Support the Army probably won't have, as the F35 is such
> a lemon, we won't have Air Superiority over the battlefield for
> the first time since 1942. Our force on force tactics have not
> changed much since WW2, and are very "broad front" centric. And
> the Navy is not addressing the disaster of the LCS's and
> over-reliance on extremely vulnerable CV
> battlegroups."

Burner Prime answered:

> "I don't dispute anything you wrote. I have watched
> many hours of Afghanistan combat footage and the default is "call
> in air strike", where a squad of US infantry can easily get pinned
> down by 2-3 well-hidden shooters. I would mention that despite
> that, China has zero combat experience and as shown throughout
> history, experienced troops and commanders nearly always beat
> inexperienced counterparts. You should also note that every
> deficiency you mentioned has been exposed by actual combat
> operations. China likely has as many or more deficiencies that no
> one, not even their own leaders know about. They won't show up
> until tested in battle. For example maybe their SAM systems
> underperform against the F-35 stealthy lemon. Aside from that a
> world war would not be fought the way US forces have in the Gulf -
> as a counter insurgency. It would be all-out brutal maximized
> carnage without the care to protect life as there is now. Soldiers
> will be expected to engage much more aggressively and the extreme
> care to protect civilians would vanish. I think John has brought
> up this point many times. Battles are fought differently depending
> on the era.

> Actually I would dispute one point: "We are only experienced at
> fighting counter insurgency." I don't believe this is
> correct. Gulf War I was no counter-insurgency. Major head-to-head
> tank battles took place without the benefit of air support. The US
> commanders, crews and equipment performed brilliantly. That is
> only one example. It's true Iraq had old Soviet era tanks and used
> outdated tactics, but they had recent experience fighting the
> Iranians. This did not help them. Since then our armor and
> equipment reliability has improved, and learned lessons
> applied."

Navigator replied:

> "The Gulf War was completely one sided because the
> Iraqi forces were below incompetent. I cannot stress this too
> strongly. There has not been a force on force conventional
> conflict where both sides were competent since 1973 Yom Kippur
> war.

> Our forces learned nothing from the Iraq war regarding
> conventional warfare, because it was so completely one-sided. Our
> tanks are from 1982, and our tactics/operational execution is a
> high tech version of 1944.

> I believe the Chinese will have the same kind of success initially
> that they had when they entered the Korean War in late 1950. They
> will overwhelm whatever we send, though they will suffer high
> casualties."

The preparedness of America's military is widely debated today,
particularly after the government budget sequestration in the early
2010s decade. The above exchange gives a flavor of the debate.

**** China's military strategy

Navigator also provided his thoughts on the details of how a war with
China would proceed:

> "I believe that ground wise the Chinese have 3
> directions they will attempt to go initially.

> 1 - Cross over to Taiwan. They will need to eliminate USN ability
> to intervene, so they will tac nuke the USN carrier groups at sea,
> and possibly those at Pacific ports. However, they do not have the
> ability to sea lift their entire Army, so only a portion of it
> will go this route.

> 2 - Move through North Korea into South Korea, so as to threaten,
> if not attempt to invade Japan. Their Army would try to time
> things so as to be through South Korea by the time the sea lift
> capability used in invading Taiwan would again be available, this
> time for invading Japan.

> 3 - Through Vietnam to get towards Thailand, Malaysia, and
> Indonesia. The idea here would be to punish the Vietnamese, and to
> be able to support/elevate Chinese minorities in SE Asia.

> The Chinese will not be able to contain their "offensive spirit"
> and, I believe, they will also engage India. This will happen both
> in SE Asia (Thailand/Burma) and across the Himalayas, though
> across the mountains is nearly impossible logistically.

> In response, the American ground forces will attempt to deploy to
> Taiwan and South Korea. We would first send the Marines, and then
> the Army. 2 Divisions of Marines and maybe 4-6 Army
> Divisions. These forces are woefully inadequate to deal with the
> overwhelming masses the Chinese will employ, and they will
> probably suffer the same fate as "Task Force Smith" from the early
> days of the Korean War.

> South Korea will fall. I think there is about a 70% chance that
> Taiwan would too. Attacking Taiwan, and dissipating their strength
> into SE Asia would give the US the time to mobilize somewhat and
> do what it could to assist Japan.

> Secondary Chinese thrusts could be from Taiwan towards the
> Philippines, or more likely, from Malaysia into Indonesia.

> The Philippines would be a good staging area for Americans looking
> to get into China, as would Japan.

> Tactically, the war will be much more like WW1, where defensive
> weapons and tactics are ascendant, than WW2. Meaning that once
> forces become majorly engaged, tactically it becomes a stalemate
> for quite a while.

> Invading China would eventually be attempted, probably at the
> northern peninsulas of either Liaoyang (think Port Arthur) or
> Shandong (think German Tsing-tao) and South at Hainan island
> followed by the peninsula just north of that island.

> However, moving into the heart of China would be beyond
> problematic. Much better to go for a combination of starving China
> and creating internal divisions."

That's how the war might proceed on the ground. Here are the issues
for the war on the sea and in the air:

> "All wars are decided primarily on land. Even in the
> Pacific in WW2. The Naval War there might have been dominant, but
> the navies either allowed (or failed to interdict) land force
> projection. (Japanese in Dutch East Indies, SE Asia and
> Philippines; US in island hopping, New Guinea, Philippines).

> That said, I am actually glad the Chinese are wasting such vast
> resources on building a Navy. I think the strategy is greatly
> misguided and does not play to their primary strengths. I think
> they following the path of the German Kaiser in his pre-World War
> One ideas of becoming a power with global force projection
> capability. The Imperial German fleet, while impressive, and
> certainly highly competent, was a waste of their military
> resources.

> Most of the money we are now spending on our Navy (not unlike much
> of it spent for the Army and Air Force) is being wasted on weapon
> systems designed not for battlefield efficiency but for maximizing
> the profit of defense contractors. We need to pressure our
> representatives in Congress and the appointees in the Defense
> Department to push for truly cost effective weapons, ships and
> aircraft. Our Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen need effective modern
> weapons. The key word being 'effective.'"

> At the start of US involvement in WW2, most of our aircraft were
> substandard (P-39, P-40), our tanks were substandard (M2, some
> M3's), and none of the torpedoes actually worked. We eventually
> developed and fielded great equipment, but it took a while. In
> most cases that development started because the British were
> pushing us for better equipment to buy from us, and we had a
> couple of years to start to get it through development before we
> were actually involved.

> This time we will lose a lot of life and suffer greatly because
> the forces that we will have will be improperly or poorly
> equipped."

[CH86]

For those reasons, many people believe that America would win a war
with China. Of course China would launch thousands of nuclear
missiles targeting American aircraft carriers, bases and cities, but
in the end there would be a ground war that China would lose.

The bolded part is an impossibility. China cannot launch "thousands of nuclear missiles" even in a full scale nuclear total war because those are missiles the Chinese simply don't have. The total size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is around 500 warheads, and that is the consensus assessment of every reliable military-intelligence and independent intelligence analysis regard global military strengths. The Chinese doctrine is NOT that of the cold war soviet doctrine of Mass counter force saturation strike, but of a lean but hardened strike capability. You and others on this site are assuming a Chinese doctrine configuration (old soviet style) that simply is not present.

[John]

** 05-Mar-2019 Analysis of China's military

A lengthy analysis by CNN of China's military says that China is
rapidly building up its armed forces to fight and win wars, but that
its navy and air force are designed mainly to fight wars with
countries in its neighborhood -- which is consistent with my own
analysis.

The following are excerpts from the article.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/asia/chi ... index.html

China's military is going from strength to strength under
Xi Jinping

Under Chinese President Xi Jinping, a revolution has been taking place
inside Beijing's armed forces. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has
grown and modernized rapidly since China reopened to the world in the
1980s, but under Xi that pace has accelerated with a focus on
[1]fighting and winning future wars. Xi has also embarked on a
massive internal reorganization of the PLA, streamlining the
organization and bringing it firmly under his control.

Between 2016 and 2017, [7]32 new ships were commissioned by the PLA,
according to US government reports. In comparison, the US commissioned
13.

Since 2014, China has launched more submarines, warships, principal
amphibious vessels and auxiliaries than the total number of ships
currently serving in the navies of Germany, India, Spain, Taiwan and
the United Kingdom, according to [8]a 2018 report by think tank IISS.
"China's navy is receiving warships so quickly that Chinese sources
liken this to dumping dumplings into soup broth," Erickson said. The
Chinese air force has also been regularly debuting new and improved
planes and weapons, including the twin-engine J-20 stealth fighter.

Beijing's air force is now the largest in Asia and the third largest
in the world, according to the US Defense Department, and is closing
the gap with the US [11]"across a spectrum of capabilities."

While the military strengths of the US and China are often compared,
the two governments ostensibly have built their armed forces to serve
different goals. Washington says it aims to maintain a worldwide
reach for its military to protect allies and American interests
internationally. Beijing claims its interests lie closer to home.

The major scenarios that China's military cares about could be called
"home games, rather than away games," Erickson said. The Chinese
government has built a navy and armed forces designed to protect the
country and exert its influence in the surrounding region, especially
the East and South China seas. The proof is in the military hardware
that the two countries have focused on. While the US has a huge fleet
of 12 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, China has barely one
conventionally powered carrier operating, with another in the
wings. The Type 001A, the country's first homegrown aircraft carrier,
was launched in 2018 but still has not joined the fleet.

While the US has a huge fleet of 12 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers,
China has barely one conventionally powered carrier operating, with
another in the wings. The Type 001A, the country's first homegrown
aircraft carrier, was launched in 2018 but still has not joined the
fleet.

Beijing has, however, rapidly produced Jiangdao-class corvettes, a
small warship generally best suited to fighting close to home.

China has undoubtedly made rapid progress. Some experts, however,
doubt its ability to fight as a coherent force or the experience of
its troops.

[CH86]

These are tactical Assets (corvettes and Missile boats) even if successful in battle these can be negated by escalation. I'm concerned about real dangerous capabilities/ strategic assets (Aircraft carriers, Long Range Subs, etc as well as Air defense assets). A build in tactical assets even offensive ones is far less dangerous than a buildup in strategic assets excluding the tactical: This because what kind of buildup signals what kind of war you intend to be fighting. A build of Assets designed to dominate a battlefield located at or adjacent to your home turf, while a clear threat is much less of a threat than if the buildup is designed for quick victory and deployment into far-flung territories which assets designed to reduce the effects of logistics as much as possible. So far the Chinese seem to be building up for the former type of battlefield (home turf/adjacent turf dominance) than the latter (prepping for an intercontinental battlefield).

[CH86]

** 05-Mar-2019 Analysis of China's military


https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/asia/chi ... index.html

China's military is going from strength to strength under
Xi Jinping

These are tactical Assets (corvettes and Missile boats) even if successful in battle these can be negated by escalation. I'm concerned about real dangerous capabilities/ strategic assets (Aircraft carriers, Long Range Subs, etc as well as Air defense assets). A build in tactical assets even offensive ones is far less dangerous than a buildup in strategic assets excluding the tactical: This because what kind of buildup signals what kind of war you intend to be fighting. A build of Assets designed to dominate a battlefield located at or adjacent to your home turf, while a clear threat is much less of a threat than if the buildup is designed for quick victory and deployment into far-flung territories which assets designed to reduce the effects of logistics as much as possible. So far the Chinese seem to be building up for the former type of battlefield (home turf/adjacent turf dominance) than the latter (prepping for an intercontinental battlefield).

Secondly the following statement of yours is absurd.

A lengthy analysis by CNN of China's military says that China is
rapidly building up its armed forces to fight and win wars, but that
its navy and air force are designed mainly to fight wars with
countries in its neighborhood -- which is consistent with my own
analysis.

That has never been the GD analysis of how China would configure their military for war. The GD analysis is that somehow on the first day of the war Chinese Armies would land and invade territories such as North America, Australia, New Zealand and Africa immediately preceded by conventional and nuclear/WMD strikes all while at the same time not a single shell fired in anger would land on the border countries of China such as Korea, Vietnam, taiwan and india. Xenakis' claims that he envisioned a direct war fundamentally between china and its neighbors that then pulls in the west is directly contradicted by the claims made consistently by John on this site. If the war threat of war breaking out between China and its neighbors the obvious solution is to allow the Neighbors to develop and stockpile their own Nuclear Missiles and Arsenals.

Finally in a largely non-subject note: I see that you are quoting from CNN, a news station that revealed itself as a globalist brownnoser back in 2015 and 2016 when CNN prostituted itself on behalf of the Clinton Machine. I find it ironic that a self-proclaimed Conservative quotes from the globalist CNN.

[John]

** 5-Mar-2019 China's 'Human Wave' war doctrine

> The bolded part is an impossibility. China cannot launch
> "thousands of nuclear missiles" even in a full scale nuclear total
> war because those are missiles the Chinese simply don't have. The
> total size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is around 500 warheads,
> and that is the consensus assessment of every reliable
> military-intelligence and independent intelligence analysis regard
> global military strengths. The Chinese doctrine is NOT that of the
> cold war soviet doctrine of Mass counter force saturation strike,
> but of a lean but hardened strike capability. You and others on
> this site are assuming a Chinese doctrine configuration (old
> soviet style) that simply is not present.

If China has 500 warheads today, it could have thousands by the time
the war ends. Factories that produce these missiles are hidden, and
they won't be found because China will launch attacks to knock all
American spy satellites out of the sky.

With a population of 1.4 billion, China does everything in
huge masses. This is certainly going to be true of
missiles.

As a separate but related manner, here's a description of how
the Chinese invaded Vietnam in the 1979 war:

> Owning to its large population and the huge disparity in economic
> and military capacity vis-à-vis Vietnam, the PLA relied on “human
> waves” of ragtag soldiers, a tactic used nearly three decades
> before during the Korean War, and a “scorched-earth” policy to
> conquer Vietnam. These tactics enabled Chinese soldiers to
> completely [7]destroy everything in their paths, overrun
> population centers, and occupy strategically important mountainous
> areas and high spots along the boundary. These areas then became
> sites of [8]low-profile yet deadly conflicts, which took place
> throughout the following decade.
> https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/the-bit ... etnam-war/

This "human wave" concept is part of every Chinese doctrine, whether
military or not. Another example is CHina's fleet of thousands of
fishing boats -- all of which have been militarized to use as spy
ships and possibly combat ships.

Finally I'll repeat this 2006 quote from Sha Zukang, China's UN
ambassador, saying the following, which I transcribed from a BBC
interview:

> "The moment that Taiwan declares independence, supported by
> whomever, China will have no choice but to [use] whatever means
> available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on
> that. ...

> It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one INCH of
> the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people."

> [With regard to the U.S.'s constant criticism of China's rapid
> militarization:] It's better for the U.S. to shut up, keep quiet.
> That's much, much better. China's population is 6 times or 5
> times the United States. Why blame China? No. forget it. It's
> high time to shut up. It's a nation's sovereign right to do what
> is good for them. But don't tell us what's good for China. Thank
> you very much."

So I guess I disagree with your characterization of China's war
doctrine is of a "lean but hardened strike capability," but rather a
"massive and overwhelming strike capability."

[John]

> That has never been the GD analysis of how China would configure
> their military for war. The GD analysis is that somehow on the
> first day of the war Chinese Armies would land and invade
> territories such as North America, Australia, New Zealand and
> Africa immediately preceded by conventional and nuclear/WMD
> strikes all while at the same time not a single shell fired in
> anger would land on the border countries of China such as Korea,
> Vietnam, taiwan and india. Xenakis' claims that he envisioned a
> direct war fundamentally between china and its neighbors that then
> pulls in the west is directly contradicted by the claims made
> consistently by John on this site. If the war threat of war
> breaking out between China and its neighbors the obvious solution
> is to allow the Neighbors to develop and stockpile their own
> Nuclear Missiles and Arsenals.

You do not have even the vaguest clue or understanding of Generational
Dynamics analysis. After 15 years on the Fourth Turning site, you
don't even have a clue about the difference between a crisis war and a
non-crisis war.