Also bear in mind there’s a quote from the author for prediction as well though it is more than a tad offensive to modern sensibilities:
> “If one puts an infinite number of monkeys in front of typewriters, and lets them clap away, there is a certainty that one of them will come out with an exact version of the 'Iliad.”
The idea that somehow we should put more credence on a man speaking on the future of the markets and is calling for a “miracle” who is famous for writing a book about unpredictable events is just hilarious, and my point.
Who else should we take our advice from about the most predictable events of history? Steven Hawking from the grave? Perhaps a successful advice columnist?
Let us not get lost in the obviousness of the prediction or the durability of the prediction of bears when we can enjoy the stupidity of the media presenting an author of a book about unpredictability as some kind of novel expert in the inevitability of the collapse of the western financial system due to unsustainable debts. It’s rich and delicious irony and, especially combined with all of the famous things this man has said that are the opposite of linear predictability being more common than we realize is, as I said earlier, just utterly hilarious.
"predictionism" -- is that a word you just invented? What does it mean?
Respectfully, the contrarian you seek is likely in your mirror.
Here is the definition:
Obviously, a loss of global prestige and reserve currency abandonment could be the result, but if there’s no other country to step in that has that prestige or offers a replacement…
What aee the requirements of debt to suppory a global order? Is it the rise of debt thats the issue or the loss of faith in the global order that that debt represents? People who understand that national debts are a necessary component of reserve currencies get the depth of this question.
Great comment.
I don't think the role of the US dolar as a reserve currency is put into question with a hypothetical default.
The typical impact of a default is that lenders are stiffed out of the money they lended. Some might go bankrupt as a result, but the only consequence to the US government is a hypothetical inability to get further loans at lower rates. This might be problematic for the US if the US federal government still runs a deficit.
Now, there is the question of what would this "inability" mean.
When Greece defaulted on its sovereign debt, their credit rating tanked and the global financial market hiked interest rates for Greek debt to the point they reached double digits. That lead the Greek government to beg the EU and IMF for emergency loans, which were accompanied by fiscal policy changes. I doubt the US would follow a similar pattern, mainly because the IMF does not have funds of this hypothetical magnitude.
Thank you.
Why would it not ? Wasn't that how the previous reserve currencies ended ? Are there many examples of relatively as bad defaults that did not result in such an end ?
Especially when the lenders first to be screwed here are (or at least were in 2020) Japan and China.
Very little if anything was affected.
> Extrapolate the obvious
OK. The list of things that are going to get worse before they get better is going to get longer before it gets shorter. There is a lot that has to change if we want to keep doing what we are doing. We are all in this alone, but we are chained to each other, and we can move only forward. Get used to it.
There's nothing historical or predictive involved that I can see. If a group of people are telling you again and again, for decades, that "we're just not ever going to even slow down the pace we're wracking up unrepayable debt, no matter what", isn't it just a case of take them at their word, and extrapolate to the obvious?
Like, if a car is heading towards a cliff, with the driver loudly yelling out the window "I'm driving off this cliff!", can't we just take him at his word?