Page 7 of 16

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:33 pm
by Gumby
Libertarian666 wrote:
All we are saying is that Austrian economics is using an obsolete framework that doesn't apply to an autonomous debt-based fiat currency issuer. Surely you can have a conversation about that, tech.
Certainly, as soon as you acknowledge that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god.
Well, if you want to be narrow-minded and not explore how our debt-based fiat monetary system really works, that's your prerogative. Your loss.

Personally, if it were my money, I'd want to explore all of the contrarian scenarios to make sure I wasn't doing something totally stupid (like listening to inflationists who have been wrong for decades).

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:38 pm
by Xan
Libertarian666 wrote:Certainly, as long as you can have a conversation that acknowledges that I am right about everything and that any disagreement with me is heresy.
There certainly was a major change in the nature of money in 1972, when gold officially became decoupled from the dollar.  We went from a federal government that couldn't create money out of thin air to one that could.

If a school of monetary thought didn't undergo a major change right along with it, then it's pretty obvious that school is not going to have predictive power under the new regime.

That isn't at all saying that they were wrong about anything.  The principles and consequences could all be absolutely correct.  It's just that they now describe a different universe from the one that we now occupy.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:40 pm
by Libertarian666
Gumby wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
All we are saying is that Austrian economics is using an obsolete framework that doesn't apply to an autonomous debt-based fiat currency issuer. Surely you can have a conversation about that, tech.
Certainly, as soon as you acknowledge that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god.
Well, if you want to be narrow-minded and not explore how our debt-based fiat monetary system really works, that's your prerogative. Your loss.

Personally, if it were my money, I'd want to explore all of the contrarian scenarios to make sure I wasn't doing something totally stupid (like listening to inflationists who have been wrong for decades).
Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a contrarian view as well. That doesn't make it correct or sensible. After reading all the posts about "monetary realism", I have exactly the same respect for it as I do for the FSM.

And as for inflationists having been wrong for decades, the reason I could retire early was because of a gold-heavy portfolio that STILL is outperforming the PP in the long term (15 years) after the recent unpleasantness. So if that is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:41 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote:
Gumby wrote:
MediumTex wrote:Please understand that recognizing that the current system is based upon a monetary realism model doesn't mean any of us is saying it's a good idea.  It's just acknowledging reality as it currently exists.
Exactly. Nobody here thinks that MR somehow proves that a debt-based fiat monetary system is some kind of perfection. From my perspective, it causes all sorts of problems in the long run. All MR does is describe the system as it is — flaws and all.

All we are saying is that Austrian economics is using an obsolete framework that doesn't apply to an autonomous debt-based fiat currency issuer. Surely you can have a conversation about that, tech.
Certainly, as long as you can have a conversation that acknowledges that I am right about everything and that any disagreement with me is heresy.
I assume that's a joke.

Seriously, though, what about the explanation that is being provided about how the current system works do you disagree with?

For example, we may both agree that Britney Spears' music is crappy (with the obvious exception of "Baby One More Time":)) ), but that doesn't mean that conclusions regarding the musical structure of her songs should be dismissed as nonsense.  The product itself may be nonsense, but it still has an internal structure and logic, whether you like it or not.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:45 pm
by Libertarian666
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
Gumby wrote: Exactly. Nobody here thinks that MR somehow proves that a debt-based fiat monetary system is some kind of perfection. From my perspective, it causes all sorts of problems in the long run. All MR does is describe the system as it is — flaws and all.

All we are saying is that Austrian economics is using an obsolete framework that doesn't apply to an autonomous debt-based fiat currency issuer. Surely you can have a conversation about that, tech.
Certainly, as long as you can have a conversation that acknowledges that I am right about everything and that any disagreement with me is heresy.
I assume that's a joke.

Seriously, though, what about the explanation that is being provided about how the current system works do you disagree with?

For example, we may both agree that Britney Spears' music is crappy (with the obvious exception of "Baby One More Time":)) ), but that doesn't mean that conclusions regarding the musical structure of her songs should be dismissed as nonsense.  The product itself may be nonsense, but it still has an internal structure and logic, whether you like it or not.
No, it is not a joke, but a reductio ad absurdum. Continuing a conversation that requires one to agree to a proposition that one finds absurd is nonsensical. Why would anyone do that?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:46 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote: After reading all the posts about "monetary realism", I have exactly the same respect for it as I do for the FSM.
But in what ways does monetary realism fail to correctly identify the current monetary arrangement in the U.S.?

I would say that MR differs from FSM in that FSM doesn't provide me with a coherent explanation for the current nature of any aspects of reality, while MR does.

Do you agree with my distinction between MR and FSM?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:48 pm
by Libertarian666
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: After reading all the posts about "monetary realism", I have exactly the same respect for it as I do for the FSM.
But in what ways does monetary realism fail to correctly identify the current monetary arrangement in the U.S.?

I would say that MR differs from FSM in that FSM doesn't provide me with a coherent explanation for the current nature of any aspects of reality, while MR does.

Do you agree with my distinction between MR and FSM?
No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:50 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote: No, it is not a joke, but a reductio ad absurdum. Continuing a conversation that requires one to agree to a proposition that one finds absurd is nonsensical. Why would anyone do that?
Fair enough, but what proposition exactly do you find to be absurd?  If you find all of MR to be absurd, then why does it seem to so clearly and coherently describe the current system?  You may say that the entire current system is absurd (and I would agree with you), but notwithstanding its overall absurdity, it's still important to understand how it works if you want to have an investment strategy that is based upon reality as it is, as opposed to how we would like it to be or wish it to be.

If MR's explanation of the current monetary system is wrong, what would be a correct explanation?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:52 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: After reading all the posts about "monetary realism", I have exactly the same respect for it as I do for the FSM.
But in what ways does monetary realism fail to correctly identify the current monetary arrangement in the U.S.?

I would say that MR differs from FSM in that FSM doesn't provide me with a coherent explanation for the current nature of any aspects of reality, while MR does.

Do you agree with my distinction between MR and FSM?
No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.
You don't see the deflationary risk in an MR model if policymakers choose not to provide liquidity in response to a credit crisis?

This risk would seem to be of great interest to a gold enthusiast.  Why is it of no interest to you?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:53 pm
by systemskeptic
MediumTex wrote: The PP is premised upon the following assumptions:

1. At a given point in time, the economy can only be on an expansion trajectory or a contraction trajectory.  It's possible for the economy to be neither expanding nor contracting, but such a condition rarely lasts for very long.

2. At a given point in time, price levels across the whole economy are either increasing or declining.  It's possible for the price level to be neither increasing nor declining, but such a condition rarely lasts for very long.

What combination of economic conditions can you visualize that wouldn't fit into one of the four combinations of conditions based upon the assumptions above?
There are dozens of scenarios, but here is one which seems contrary to your above statements:
1. US Economic stagnation/contraction (poor performance on US stocks)
2. Low real rates in $USD (poor performance on USG cash/bonds)
3. Positive real rates in other currencies (per performance on gold and/or $USD)

You don't necessarily have to have a crisis for the market favor to shift from one region to another.  So over the last 40 years, is the performance of the PP due to it covering all economic conditions, or it covering all economic conditions of a strong region?

Also, is it possible for a region-specific permanent portfolio to perform well if the overall prosperity / world presence of that region is declining / shifting to different areas?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:57 pm
by Libertarian666
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: No, it is not a joke, but a reductio ad absurdum. Continuing a conversation that requires one to agree to a proposition that one finds absurd is nonsensical. Why would anyone do that?
Fair enough, but what proposition exactly do you find to be absurd?  If you find all of MR to be absurd, then why does it seem to so clearly and coherently describe the current system?  You may say that the entire current system is absurd (and I would agree with you), but notwithstanding its overall absurdity, it's still important to understand how it works if you want to have an investment strategy that is based upon reality as it is, as opposed to how we would like it to be or wish it to be.

If MR's explanation of the current monetary system is wrong, what would be a correct explanation?
The Austrian explanation.
But of course you knew that already.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:00 pm
by MediumTex
systemskeptic wrote:
MediumTex wrote: The PP is premised upon the following assumptions:

1. At a given point in time, the economy can only be on an expansion trajectory or a contraction trajectory.  It's possible for the economy to be neither expanding nor contracting, but such a condition rarely lasts for very long.

2. At a given point in time, price levels across the whole economy are either increasing or declining.  It's possible for the price level to be neither increasing nor declining, but such a condition rarely lasts for very long.

What combination of economic conditions can you visualize that wouldn't fit into one of the four combinations of conditions based upon the assumptions above?
There are dozens of scenarios, but here is one which seems contrary to your above statements:
1. US Economic stagnation/contraction (poor performance on US stocks)
2. Low real rates in $USD (poor performance on USG cash/bonds)
3. Positive real rates in other currencies (per performance on gold and/or $USD)
What would price levels across the whole U.S. economy be doing in your example above?  Would it be rising or falling?  It must be one or the other.
You don't necessarily have to have a crisis for the market favor to shift from one region to another.  So over the last 40 years, is the performance of the PP due to it covering all economic conditions, or it covering all economic conditions of a strong region?
I don't know.  The PP tests pretty well in any economy that has at least some diversification and a reasonable stable currency.  I don't know how well a Zimbabwe PP would work.
Also, is it possible for a region-specific permanent portfolio to perform well if the overall prosperity / world presence of that region is declining / shifting to different areas?
I assume you aren't talking about the United States, which is the largest economy in the world.  If a tectonic shift occurred, the U.S. would still be a top 5 world economy.  I don't see the U.S.'s many structural economic advantages coming unraveled as quickly as many doomsters seem to imagine (though I used to believe that a fast collapse was possible and even likely, but I no longer feel that way).

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:01 pm
by moda0306
Libertarian666 wrote: Ok, so then this would be an acceptable post? If you say so.

-------------------
I really think if "monetary realists" didn't have such a deep reluctance to admit the tail risks they are ignoring, they would have a much easier time seeing the light.

They are literally being blinded by their inability to admit that their portfolio could be demolished by a freeze-up of the US financial system.  I mean if you've gone your whole life thinking you're essentially safe in believing that the US empire is different from every other one in history, it can be hard to look at the system as one that could collapse without warning and leave your "safe portfolio" in ruins.

Admitting Austrian economics is correct would mean that a "monetary realist's" belief in the stability of the financial system was mostly a myth.  People don't like to concede that kind of "wrongness," especially if we've held these views for a long time. 

I'm not saying there isn't some life left in the current system, but it becomes a lot more of a nuanced discussion rather than "tail risks in the current system can be safely ignored" or whatever the common wisdom is.
Who's not properly handling tail risks.  Most people here hold 25% of their investment portfolios in an asset that will go absolutely gangbusters, even in real terms, upon the demise of the currency of the most stable legal entity in the world, and the world's reserve currency.

When I say "it's really hard" to change one's opinions when you're emotionally invested, I'm not saying you're emotionally immature, I'm saying you're human.

I could have gone on about similar things among liberals or conservatives.  I've found most MR'ists to have a deep desire to understand the system, not diagnose it before they even understand it.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:03 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: No, it is not a joke, but a reductio ad absurdum. Continuing a conversation that requires one to agree to a proposition that one finds absurd is nonsensical. Why would anyone do that?
Fair enough, but what proposition exactly do you find to be absurd?  If you find all of MR to be absurd, then why does it seem to so clearly and coherently describe the current system?  You may say that the entire current system is absurd (and I would agree with you), but notwithstanding its overall absurdity, it's still important to understand how it works if you want to have an investment strategy that is based upon reality as it is, as opposed to how we would like it to be or wish it to be.

If MR's explanation of the current monetary system is wrong, what would be a correct explanation?
The Austrian explanation.
But of course you knew that already.
But where is the inflation that the Austrians would suggest we should be experiencing?  We are now five years into this crazy Fed intervention, and so far inflation has been very tame.

If we say that the Austrian prediction will eventually come true, that doesn't comfort me if I had already been waiting for it for five years and had sat out stock market gains of almost 100% because I thought the economy had to fully crater before a real recovery was possble.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:06 pm
by moda0306
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: After reading all the posts about "monetary realism", I have exactly the same respect for it as I do for the FSM.
But in what ways does monetary realism fail to correctly identify the current monetary arrangement in the U.S.?

I would say that MR differs from FSM in that FSM doesn't provide me with a coherent explanation for the current nature of any aspects of reality, while MR does.

Do you agree with my distinction between MR and FSM?
No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.
MR dives heavily into productivity, past hyperinflations, and the most meaty assertion (that t-bills and cash are not fundamentally all that different) is absolutely fundamental to your analysis... it might serve you well to at least explore the possibility before addressing it as absolutely absurd.

What, truly, is the fundamental difference between a claim on confetti that pays confetti as interest, and the confetti itself? 

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:10 pm
by Libertarian666
moda0306 wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote: But in what ways does monetary realism fail to correctly identify the current monetary arrangement in the U.S.?

I would say that MR differs from FSM in that FSM doesn't provide me with a coherent explanation for the current nature of any aspects of reality, while MR does.

Do you agree with my distinction between MR and FSM?
No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.
MR dives heavily into productivity, past hyperinflations, and the most meaty assertion (that t-bills and cash are not fundamentally all that different) is absolutely fundamental to your analysis... it might serve you well to at least explore the possibility before addressing it as absolutely absurd.

What, truly, is the fundamental difference between a claim on confetti that pays confetti as interest, and the confetti itself?
It is absolutely unimportant to me whether t-bills and cash are the same. They are both devoid of value other than that provided by the "bigger fool" theory, as your equation of them with confetti implicitly admits.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:13 pm
by Libertarian666
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote: Fair enough, but what proposition exactly do you find to be absurd?  If you find all of MR to be absurd, then why does it seem to so clearly and coherently describe the current system?  You may say that the entire current system is absurd (and I would agree with you), but notwithstanding its overall absurdity, it's still important to understand how it works if you want to have an investment strategy that is based upon reality as it is, as opposed to how we would like it to be or wish it to be.

If MR's explanation of the current monetary system is wrong, what would be a correct explanation?
The Austrian explanation.
But of course you knew that already.
But where is the inflation that the Austrians would suggest we should be experiencing?  We are now five years into this crazy Fed intervention, and so far inflation has been very tame.

If we say that the Austrian prediction will eventually come true, that doesn't comfort me if I had already been waiting for it for five years and had sat out stock market gains of almost 100% because I thought the economy had to fully crater before a real recovery was possble.
My investment performance has been quite good over the time that I have had this "delusion", so maybe I don't need to be disabused of it.

As for when the inflation will show up, that will happen when either of these events occurs:
1. The banks start lending
2. Foreigners stop taking dollars

and probably some other events I haven't thought of yet.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:14 pm
by systemskeptic
MediumTex wrote:
What would price levels across the whole U.S. economy be doing in your example above?  Would it be rising or falling?  It must be one or the other.

I assume you aren't talking about the United States, which is the largest economy in the world.  If a tectonic shift occurred, the U.S. would still be a top 5 world economy.  I don't see the U.S.'s many structural economic advantages coming unraveled as quickly as many doomsters seem to imagine (though I used to believe that a fast collapse was possible and even likely, but I no longer feel that way).
What does it matter what price levels are doing if real rates on cash durations < 15 year are near zero or negative? (50% of the PP).  Are you suggesting all currencies must have real rates all the time, or even over long periods?

The US can still be a top 5 economy while experiencing stagnant returns as it shifts even from #1 to #2.  At the very least, it will be significantly under-performing if it is losing ground while other economies advance.  It seems rooted in your beliefs that the US can only stay in a top position?

Lastly, it is already established that you do not believe in any scenarios other than the PP maintaining it's past performance, so I do not think there is much to gain by further raising and dismissing specific scenarios.

The idea that past returns will continue as they have is a dangerous belief that IMHO anyone should be able to recognize.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:16 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.
MR dives heavily into productivity, past hyperinflations, and the most meaty assertion (that t-bills and cash are not fundamentally all that different) is absolutely fundamental to your analysis... it might serve you well to at least explore the possibility before addressing it as absolutely absurd.

What, truly, is the fundamental difference between a claim on confetti that pays confetti as interest, and the confetti itself?
It is absolutely unimportant to me whether t-bills and cash are the same. They are both devoid of value other than that provided by the "bigger fool" theory, as your equation of them with confetti implicitly admits.
One of the illustrations in the PP book from last year shows a guy checking out in a store, and when he attempts to give the cashier a stock certificate the cashier points to a sign on the wall that says "Cash Only", to which the man replies "But I thought cash was trash."

Regardless of how you feel about fiat money, it still can be exchanged for things of real value.  Do you disagree?

How can a thing be devoid of value if it can be converted into something of value instantly at any time?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:19 pm
by Libertarian666
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote: But in what ways does monetary realism fail to correctly identify the current monetary arrangement in the U.S.?

I would say that MR differs from FSM in that FSM doesn't provide me with a coherent explanation for the current nature of any aspects of reality, while MR does.

Do you agree with my distinction between MR and FSM?
No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.
You don't see the deflationary risk in an MR model if policymakers choose not to provide liquidity in response to a credit crisis?

This risk would seem to be of great interest to a gold enthusiast.  Why is it of no interest to you?
I don't need MR to know about that risk; it is implicit in the Austrian model as well.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:22 pm
by MediumTex
systemskeptic wrote: At the very least, it will be significantly under-performing if it is losing ground while other economies advance.  It seems rooted in your beliefs that the US can only stay in a top position?
I do not have that belief at all.  I just recognize that the U.S. is currently in the top position and I must respect that as long as it is the case--i.e., I should assume that I can't accurately predict when this will change, though my gold holdings would protect me when and if this transition occurred.
Lastly, it is already established that you do not believe in any scenarios other than the PP maintaining it's past performance, so I do not think there is much to gain by further raising and dismissing specific scenarios.
But you haven't told me of a scenario that would be outside the economy expanding or contracting and the general price level increasing or declining.

I'm listening, though, if you can think of one.  The one you posted above didn't address whether the U.S. price level was rising or falling.  If you could provide that information I can respond to your post.
The idea that past returns will continue as they have is a dangerous belief that IMHO anyone should be able to recognize.
Obviously, and I have always gone to great lengths to emphasize that past performance can help to validate a theory, but past performance on its own should never be used to predict future performance.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:26 pm
by Libertarian666
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
moda0306 wrote: MR dives heavily into productivity, past hyperinflations, and the most meaty assertion (that t-bills and cash are not fundamentally all that different) is absolutely fundamental to your analysis... it might serve you well to at least explore the possibility before addressing it as absolutely absurd.

What, truly, is the fundamental difference between a claim on confetti that pays confetti as interest, and the confetti itself?
It is absolutely unimportant to me whether t-bills and cash are the same. They are both devoid of value other than that provided by the "bigger fool" theory, as your equation of them with confetti implicitly admits.
One of the illustrations in the PP book from last year shows a guy checking out in a store, and when he attempts to give the cashier a stock certificate the cashier points to a sign on the wall that says "Cash Only", to which the man replies "But I thought cash was trash."

Regardless of how you feel about fiat money, it still can be exchanged for things of real value.  Do you disagree?

How can a thing be devoid of value if it can be converted into something of value instantly at any time?
It can be converted into something of value... until it can't. See "Zimbabwe dollar", Weimar mark, and hundreds of other examples.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:27 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: No. MR provides absolutely no value regarding the financial risks I am concerned with, as the FSM provides absolutely no value for me in the spiritual realm.
You don't see the deflationary risk in an MR model if policymakers choose not to provide liquidity in response to a credit crisis?

This risk would seem to be of great interest to a gold enthusiast.  Why is it of no interest to you?
I don't need MR to know about that risk; it is implicit in the Austrian model as well.
Do you think that going off of the gold standard in any way affected the validity or applicability of predictions that Austrian economics would make about the economy?

When the U.S. ended gold convertibility, would Austrian economics have predicted that the following 30 years would be the most prosperous in U.S. history, with most of the those years seeing relatively low inflation even though the money supply was increasing more or less continuously?

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:31 pm
by MediumTex
Libertarian666 wrote: It can be converted into something of value... until it can't. See "Zimbabwe dollar", Weimar mark, and hundreds of other examples.
Zimbabwe's hyperinflation resulted from racially motivated theft of private property that resulted in dramatic capital flight from the country.  This scenario has no applicability to the U.S.

Weimar Germany's hyperinflation was the result of war reparations following its loss in WWI.  This scenario has no applicability to the U.S.

I understand your concern about the U.S. dollar, but it seems to me that there are countless currencies that will collapse long before the U.S. dollar, in part because the U.S. is a vastly more productive economy and has a more stable government than you see in almost any other part of the world.

Re: Not Even Harry Browne Thought It Was Going To Be This Bad

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:46 pm
by moda0306
Lastly, it is already established that you do not believe in any scenarios other than the PP maintaining it's past performance, so I do not think there is much to gain by further raising and dismissing specific scenarios.
I don't think MT ever said that.