James Quinn

Winter's Coming for the Boomers: Part 1

You mean your manifesto answers? You haven't read the book. You googled 4th Turning and now you're an expert. I love when people take shots at an article and are outraged when I fire back at them. You and Freya are little thin skinned. I don't give a crap what SA does with my responses. If you don't like it, don't read my articles.


On Jul 14 12:56 PM Clobbersaurus wrote:

> Have you read my response???
>
> Thanks to Freya for pointing out some important facts via good checking.
>
>
> Truth be told, I have not read the entire book. I have done my research
> on it. And if I need to read an ENTIRE BOOK to understand a theory,
> it is not a theory - more like a....manifesto?

Winter's Coming for the Boomers: Part 1

Have you read the book?


On Jul 14 12:06 PM Clobbersaurus wrote:

> I very much do understand the theory. The theory is quite simple:
> time is cyclical, and is keyed on events that are reflected in a
> certain 'type' of person. It's like a mix of many Eastern philosophies
> and Nietzsche (the 'superman' idea). Please, seriously, read about
> Historicism and then try and come back and think about this theory.
>
>
> My reference to Obama is simple logic - not a comprehension problem.
> You've set up, essentially, four boxes and then try to squeeze people
> into them by selecting, oh, this attribute here and then a little
> bit of that one there until - voila! Obama is a Nomad, and a "Prophet"
> will lead us out of the next "Crisis". The Prophet, of course, will
> fit your vague descriptions of a personality. Of course, none of
> these definitions work in advance - only in retrospect. You have
> selected ONE and made him a representation of the WHOLE. That is
> a logical and scientific fallacy. I'm a "Hero", but what if I want
> to be a "Prophet" and start to follow that definition? Am I not allowed
> to because I wasn't raised during a certain epoch? Why can't I "emerge
> wiser" or be as sensitive as an Artist? Where are my CHOICES? Unless
> you don't believe in choices, your model is thus broken...and now
> you should see the problem with this "cyclical" and predictive model
> - there is no Free Will.
>
> Gee, that's great. No Free Will. Let's just drift along from Crisis
> to Awakening to whatever else it is. I'm really not trying to mock
> this theory, but your responses have little to do with logic and
> consistently consist of "you do not understand the theory".
>
> You, of course, may be right about Obama being replaced. It would
> NOTHING to do with the fact that he is a "Nomad" making way for the
> "Prophet". It would have to do with the fact that he made crappy
> choices and lost his support.
>
> Everyone's got a theory. If it makes you feel better, great. Just
> don't come on an economics board with an esoteric philosophical argument
> and not expect people to reject it. I also worry that some of our
> economic minds use this as a basis for their financial planning.
> Aren't the Prophets supposed to "emerg[e] as wise elders guiding
> the next Crisis". Newsflash - we're in it, pal. It may not seem like
> a Crisis to you, but then again, I doubt you're a recent grad and
> thus a member of the demographic hardest hit by this "Unraveling".
> But that would be playing into the whole generational thing, wouldn't
> it?
>
> On Jul 14 10:49 AM James Quinn wrote:

Winter's Coming for the Boomers: Part 1

Have you read the 4th Turning? If not, then your analysis is not complete. You can't dismiss a theory you know nothing about.

Don't assume what I think. You clearly don't understand the theory by your reference of Obama being elected. The leader in all past Crisis periods has been a Prophet, not a Nomad. That is why I find it likely that Obama will be replaced by a Boomer in 2012.


On Jul 14 09:54 AM Clobbersaurus wrote:

> See "Historicism" by either Popper or (Leo) Strauss.
>
> You're playing a dangerous game by looking back through the frosted
> windows of history, trying to draw patterns. Then, you take those
> patterns and attempt to derive the "laws of human existence" or the
> "laws of republics". I understand what this is: it's a call for clarity
> in uncertain times. Now, more than ever, we don't know where we are
> headed, so we naturally try and look back through history to categorize,
> organize and 'lay the tracks' so that the current situation will
> go along on rails (so to speak).
>
> Making statements like "humans have always been oligarchial" is cynical
> and depressing - and most likely a symptom of the times. That's all
> the "mass psychology" I'm going to try and do. Just please don't
> try and shout down your detractors because they point out an exception
> or disagree with you.
>
> See also "confirmation bias" (referencing Part 2). Attempting to
> place Barack Obama as the "Nomad" only works IF he's elected. If
> McCain had been elected, you probably couldn't make the same claim.
> Hence, you will now either claim that it was "pre-ordained" by history
> or be subject to the truth that your "Nomad" claim can ONLY be made
> in retrospect (see again "historicism"). Thus, you are stuck between
> choosing Historicism or Pre-Destination. You claim to know the cycles
> of history - why are you telling us?
>
> Finally, quit it with "Peak Oil". This is probably the most controversial
> part of this response. I don't believe in these Malthusian Points
> because they don't exist. They are constantly shifting along with
> innovation, and a proper human response is inevitable. Circumstances
> in the present will never equate to those in the past. As Mark Twain
> said, "History doesn't repeat itself - but it rhymes".
>
> Call me an optimist, I guess.

Winter's Coming for the Boomers: Part 1

Read it before dismissing it. Where did your 90-10 rule come from. Sounds like a theory to me. Human societies have always been oligarchial. Sounds like a theory to me.

No One Saw This Economic Crisis Coming?

Obama is so focused on getting re-elected in 2012 that he doesn't see the big picture. The impending crisis is unavoidable and no one within government is preparing.

theburningplatform.com...

Effects of the Stimulus Package: Felix Salmon Is Uncharacteristically Wrong

The Federal Reserve being too loose with monetary policies during the 1920's is what led to the Great Depression. After 8 years of Keynsian stimulus, unemployment was still 18% in 1939. Intellectuals created the models that destroyed Wall Street. John Meriwether just lost investors more billions.


On Jul 13 02:20 PM American in Paris wrote:

> You need to stop cheap anti-intellectualism.
>
> The last thing you want to do in a recession is encourage aggregate
> demand to fall.
>
> Your advice was the exactly the same advice - do nothing - that led
> to the Great Depression.

Effects of the Stimulus Package: Felix Salmon Is Uncharacteristically Wrong

Borrowing to get out of a crisis caused by too much borrowing is an assanine solution. Only an academic would think it could work. When it fails, the Crisis will begin.

theburningplatform.com...

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

Nothing wrong with those projects, but we shouldn't borrow from the Chinese to pay for them. If a local community decides they are more worthy than a playground and they have the money to do it, go for it.


On Jun 25 08:58 PM Snakeyes wrote:

> Great stuff, but let's not ridicule funding for wildlife underpasses,
> okay? A little less roadkill would be just fine. Same goes for research
> on wind machine impacts on endangered Sage Grouse. It's okay with
> me for my tax money to be used on these projects.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

I think 80% of the work needs to be on the spending side. I think the tax code needs to be dramatically adjusted. Take away all the credits and exemptions and reduce rates. Personally, I'd prefer eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. That would encourage saving and investing versus spending.


On Jun 25 02:23 PM user396040 wrote:

> Agreed. If you are overpaying, this makes all the sense in the world.
> Where do you stand on the question of tax increases (combined with
> spending reductions) to balance the budget?

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

I agree that would be the best solution. I don't see it happening unless the existing structure collapses. My proposal would push us closer to the ultimate solution.


On Jun 25 01:45 PM Think-About-It wrote:

> Mr. Quinn,
>
> Good article but weak "solution." Moving money from 'bad big banks'
> to 'good small banks' will not solve our systemic financial problems.
>
>
> I propose that a grass roots effort to end central banking in America
> would strike at the source of the problem. Hopefully Ron Paul's latest
> book "End the Fed" will have an impact beyond the libertarian niche.
> If we eliminate the Federal Reserve System and fractional banking,
> thereby returning to a pre-1913 banking system, we would experience
> sounder economic growth (based on fundamentals not credit stimulation)
> and mild business cycles similar to our 19th century results. <br/>
>
> For anyone interested in trying to figure out what the next few years
> might look like for the U.S. I recommend reading "America's Great
> Depression" by Murray Rothbard. You will not be dissapointed in the
> content, analysis or applicability to our current situation.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

The average refund was $2,700. If you got a refund this year, you can afford to up your W-4 exemptions. Increasing from 2 to 4 would not risk interest and penalties.


On Jun 25 11:51 AM user396040 wrote:

> I agree with your advice concerning personal finance but I have reservations
> about the doubling down on W-4 exemptions. You would have to pay
> for the undercollection with interest at the end of the year unless
> you intend to become a tax refuser and ultimatey a tenant of the
> federal correctional system. In discussing the deficit, political
> conservatives have generally been very reluctant to confront the
> necessity for tax increases. It is this reluctance(and intellectual
> dishonesty) that has been a big ingredient in the deficit problem.
> After all, we ran surpluses under Clinton and deficits unde Bush
> and Reagan. It is very, very difficult to do the numbers honestly
> and not come away with the conclusion that balancing the budget without
> tax increases is impossible. This is an unpleasant and unpopular
> truth. Our viability as a society depends largely upon our ability
> to face that truth.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

We wouldn't be running a trade deificit if the Fed hadn't printed the money so consumers could borrow in unlimited amounts to buy stuff from China and Japan. It all goes back to debt.


On Jun 25 10:15 AM EMS News wrote:

> James, you cannot ignore the trade deficit. Even when you replied
> to me, you ignored my main point which is, the real killer here is
> our trade deficit. Nixon cut the gold peg not because of domestic
> overspending.
>
> He cut it because the Vietnam War spending sent a lot of our overspending
> to Asia. And in turn, we began to run a persistent trade deficit
> with Japan. Japan has never, ever had an open market and has always
> used every possible means to prevent foreign domination of domestic
> Japanese markets. To this day, they do this.
>
> You mention that 50% of our national debt overruns are sold to foreigners.
> You forgot to mention that the money used to buy these bonds is the
> result of our trade deficit.
>
> Nixon cut the gold peg because our allies were sucking down Cold
> War and Vietnam War dollars and using these to raid Fort Knox. Our
> gold reserves fell by 75% from WWII highs. Nixon had to do something,
> fast.
>
> Up until the Plaza Accords, the US negotiators at least pretended
> to be protecting us from trade deficits. After the Plaza Accords,
> all pretense was dropped and our negotiators actively worked to create
> a bigger and bigger deficit which ballooned.
>
> We would have no budget deficit if we had tariffs. This is the key
> issue here.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

The author can't address every issue in every article. If you want my take on the military idunstrial complex see this article:


seekingalpha.com/artic...

On Jun 25 09:37 AM EMS News wrote:

> Not one peep about the trade deficit? When Nixon cut the gold peg,
> our trade deficit, which was still relatively small, took off like
> a rocket. More so than our budget deficit.
>
> In 1990, Bush Sr. sold our military to Kuwait so the money he got
> for this mercenary sale balanced our trade for exactly one year.
> But from 1971 to today, aside from that singular year, we have run
> trade deficits!
>
> We can't balance our government budget if we continue to run trade
> deficits! If we try balancing it by cutting services and spending
> at home, all we do is strangle ourselves further, if we don't also
> impose tariffs and barriers on international trade.
>
> The #1 thing to fix is our trade deficit. Once upon a time, long
> ago, before we had a Federal Reserve and an Income Tax, our entire
> national government was funded by tariffs! Imagine that.
>
> Now, we get zero funding this way and the entire world flooded us
> with imports and we offshored many many millions of US jobs. Now,
> many more millions of US office jobs are being exported and even
> with a global depression roaring along, we still run a mega-billion
> dollar trade deficit.
>
> In the past, when we had very bad recessions, our trade deficit nearly
> vanished. Now, even with a global depression, it barely gets smaller.
> This is a very dangerous sign!
>
> Fixing things is worthless if you don't fix the most pressing problems.
> If we balance our budget like we did in 1999, but double our trade
> deficit, we go bankrupt!
>
> During the Clinton years, due to the GOP Congress fighting with the
> President, we saw public spending fall rapidly. But we saw trade
> deficits grow. Clinton signed significant trade bills and supported
> 'free trade' at every turn and Bush Jr. doubled this business. So
> here we are: the former creditor nation that was the world's biggest
> industrial power is now a debtor nation with virtually no native-owned
> industrial base outside of the very expensive military industrial
> complex.
>
> Which is one of the reasons why we are going bankrupt! Much of our
> industry is actually military-related which means, it is funded by
> public debt! Note how the author of today's stories here ignores
> the issue of how military spending has warped our industries. We
> can't fix our deficits while running a global empire that hops from
> war to war to war.
>
> So: we must end our imperialist wars. We must embrace protectionism.
> And we must raise taxes, especially taxes on energy imports. Anyone
> talking about doing this is called a kook or Ron Paul. :)

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

I've heaped plenty of blame on Bush & Cheney. Check out some of my previous articles. They're are gone. Our future is in the hands of Obama.


On Jun 25 08:24 AM Ken Fleming wrote:

> Thanks James for your excellent, passionate article. You heap much
> blame on the current administration and Congress, yet spare the previous
> administration from direct criticism. Weren't they the "leaders"
> that launched the two endless wars, swapped a budget deficit for
> a budget surplus, and perpetuated the faleshood that bank self-regulation
> was best?

The Treasury and the Federal Reserve: This Day in Lobbying

Everything is back to normal.

theburningplatform.com...