page-loading-spinner

Chris Martenson

A new Martenson Report is ready for subscribers.


Link:
Oil – The Coming Supply Crunch (Part I)


A snippet from the opening:

This is one of the most important Martenson Reports I will write this
year.
In this report, I explain
why the global stimulus plan will not succeed at returning the global economy
to a path of sustainable growth or even to its former heights, seen in
2006/2007.

A snippet from the conclusion: 


The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).


The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.


While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.


Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Martenson Report Ready – Oil Shock III

A new Martenson Report is ready for subscribers.


Link:
Oil – The Coming Supply Crunch (Part I)


A snippet from the opening:

This is one of the most important Martenson Reports I will write this
year.
In this report, I explain
why the global stimulus plan will not succeed at returning the global economy
to a path of sustainable growth or even to its former heights, seen in
2006/2007.

A snippet from the conclusion: 


The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).


The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.


While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.


Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Okay, this is really just desperate and sad. No I am not referring to my fixation on parsing government numbers, although I suppose I could be, but instead to government statistical wizardry and the press’ unquestioning rhetorical support for these tortured numbers.

First up, here’s the verbiage:

Durable goods jump 3.4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — New orders for long-lasting manufactured goods unexpectedly rebounded in February, rising for the first time in seven months, according to a government report on Wednesday that could bring some cheer to an economy mired in recession.

Here’s the NY Times’ opening take on the situation:

In a glimmer of surprisingly upbeat economic data, manufacturing orders for goods like metals, machines and military equipment rose last month for the first time after six months of declines, the government reported on Wednesday.

That’s quite amazing. Durables “unexpectedly rebounded,” bringing the cheer of “a glimmer of surprisingly upbeat economic data” to an economy mired in recession.

Well, it turns out that there’s another little game that is frequently played with these numbers and it’s called “the downward revision.” The game is played like this: In a prior month, in this case January, a slightly “better than expected number” is posted, causing the stock market to react with glee (at least temporarily).

More Fuzzy Numbers – Durables

Okay, this is really just desperate and sad. No I am not referring to my fixation on parsing government numbers, although I suppose I could be, but instead to government statistical wizardry and the press’ unquestioning rhetorical support for these tortured numbers.

First up, here’s the verbiage:

Durable goods jump 3.4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — New orders for long-lasting manufactured goods unexpectedly rebounded in February, rising for the first time in seven months, according to a government report on Wednesday that could bring some cheer to an economy mired in recession.

Here’s the NY Times’ opening take on the situation:

In a glimmer of surprisingly upbeat economic data, manufacturing orders for goods like metals, machines and military equipment rose last month for the first time after six months of declines, the government reported on Wednesday.

That’s quite amazing. Durables “unexpectedly rebounded,” bringing the cheer of “a glimmer of surprisingly upbeat economic data” to an economy mired in recession.

Well, it turns out that there’s another little game that is frequently played with these numbers and it’s called “the downward revision.” The game is played like this: In a prior month, in this case January, a slightly “better than expected number” is posted, causing the stock market to react with glee (at least temporarily).

I want to talk about the renewed tendency of the press to reiterate the pronouncements of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) apparantly without consideration for how badly they were bamboozled by the NAR from 2003 to 2008.

Check out this opening paragraph announcing the latest “great news” on existing home sales (emphasis mine):

U.S. Home Resales Unexpectedly Increased in February

March 23 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Sales of previously owned homes unexpectedly climbed in February as record foreclosures brought bargain hunters into the market to take advantage of lower prices.

I am not clear on this “unexpectedly” part. Home sales always rise in February compared to January. That’s just part of the seasonal dynamic of home sales.

Fuzzy Reporting – Press Helps to Distort Housing Data

I want to talk about the renewed tendency of the press to reiterate the pronouncements of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) apparantly without consideration for how badly they were bamboozled by the NAR from 2003 to 2008.

Check out this opening paragraph announcing the latest “great news” on existing home sales (emphasis mine):

U.S. Home Resales Unexpectedly Increased in February

March 23 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Sales of previously owned homes unexpectedly climbed in February as record foreclosures brought bargain hunters into the market to take advantage of lower prices.

I am not clear on this “unexpectedly” part. Home sales always rise in February compared to January. That’s just part of the seasonal dynamic of home sales.

This report for subscribers goes hand-in-hand with the Rolling Stone article linked and discussed below. Together, they point out the urgency of our current situation and that the continuation of the status quo behaviors of protecting the banking profits of well-connected insiders and continuing to be less than forthright with ourselves (Fuzzy Numbers) are rapidly diminishing the prospects for a gentle and favorable outcome.

Here’s the opening:

Executive Summary

  • US federal deficits reported to be $9.3 trillion over the next decade
  • Fuzzy Accounting means these deficits are actually vastly under reported
  • Actual deficits closer to $6 trillion per year, or $60 trillion over the next decade
  • Deficits defined and explained
  • Risk of a dollar collapse only increasing
  • You need to step up your personal efforts at mitigating the potential impacts of a US currency crisis

The Congressional Budget Office just announced that the fiscal deficits of the federal government are going to be a lot larger than previously estimated. This news was taken in stride by the financial markets, especially the FOREX markets where the dollar is traded, but it will only be a matter of time before these massive deficits are recognized for what they are – signs of terminal illness for the financial prospects of the US, and, by extension, the dollar itself.

It is vital that you understand the true extent of the illness, and the ways in which we systematically sugar-coat and under report the true magnitude of the situation by the use of Fuzzy Numbers – in this case, more accurately described as Fuzzy Accounting.

In this report I will explain how to interpret the reported deficit, demonstrate the actual size of the true deficit, and then make the case that you should seriously consider stepping up your personal efforts at preparing for an uncertain future.

New Martenson Report Ready – Tackling the Deficit

This report for subscribers goes hand-in-hand with the Rolling Stone article linked and discussed below. Together, they point out the urgency of our current situation and that the continuation of the status quo behaviors of protecting the banking profits of well-connected insiders and continuing to be less than forthright with ourselves (Fuzzy Numbers) are rapidly diminishing the prospects for a gentle and favorable outcome.

Here’s the opening:

Executive Summary

  • US federal deficits reported to be $9.3 trillion over the next decade
  • Fuzzy Accounting means these deficits are actually vastly under reported
  • Actual deficits closer to $6 trillion per year, or $60 trillion over the next decade
  • Deficits defined and explained
  • Risk of a dollar collapse only increasing
  • You need to step up your personal efforts at mitigating the potential impacts of a US currency crisis

The Congressional Budget Office just announced that the fiscal deficits of the federal government are going to be a lot larger than previously estimated. This news was taken in stride by the financial markets, especially the FOREX markets where the dollar is traded, but it will only be a matter of time before these massive deficits are recognized for what they are – signs of terminal illness for the financial prospects of the US, and, by extension, the dollar itself.

It is vital that you understand the true extent of the illness, and the ways in which we systematically sugar-coat and under report the true magnitude of the situation by the use of Fuzzy Numbers – in this case, more accurately described as Fuzzy Accounting.

In this report I will explain how to interpret the reported deficit, demonstrate the actual size of the true deficit, and then make the case that you should seriously consider stepping up your personal efforts at preparing for an uncertain future.

Total 1968 items