Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (35.49)

90 Day Countdown

Recs

18

December 27, 2008 – Comments (16)

My guess is that all hell will break loose within 90 days.

The most likely area to start will be Pakistan.....followed by Russia.......followed by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  It could be someplace else...but those are my trifecta choices.....for now.

The premise is simple....the current economic situation is much worse than we are being told.   Demon made a comment in the comments where he indicated nothing was safe.  I thought about it for a few seconds(about as much time as it takes for me to conclusively determine whether a woman is physically attractive to me).....and had to agree.

If my assessment about the current ecnomic conditions is anywhere near accurate...than a major conflict seems likely....at least from this vantage point with my understanding of history.  Do I have any clearer insight than any other nut who spends most of his professional time analyzing businesses and economics....nope!!!!

But it is just the way I see the odds.....................

Pakistan moving troops towards India.................

MOSCOW -- Russia's state natural gas monopoly OAO Gazprom warned Saturday that a pricing dispute with Ukraine could disrupt gas supplies to Europe.

Israeli forces bombing Palestine inflicting significant casualties......likely to escalate retaliation.

And our forces right in the center with an armada parked in the Gulf.

Will this be a happy New Year?  I hope I am wrong and it is party like we've never partied before.

Demon....you still think you are more bearish than me??????????????? 

Now the question is which region of the world is safe................geographically?????

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 27, 2008 at 11:44 PM, alstry (35.49) wrote:

LONDON (AP) -- About 200 Woolworths stores in Britain have shut their doors for good.

The stores that closed Saturday represent about a quarter of the company's shops. The rest of the stores are to close within about a week unless a last-minute buyer is found for the failed retailer. It filed for a form of bankruptcy protection last month.

About 27,000 people are expected to lose their jobs.....

Seriously folks, what is 27K in light of the BIG picture???

Report this comment
#2) On December 27, 2008 at 11:48 PM, alstry (35.49) wrote:

In case you think Healthcare is immune, the virus is SPREADING!!!!!!!!!

Hospitals ill from more bad debt, credit troubles
Saturday December 27, 9:31 pm ET
By Linda A. Johnson, AP Business Writer Hospitals ailing from fewer paying patients, investment losses, tight credit and other ills

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Gainesville's first community hospital has been on life support since the Shands Healthcare system in northern Florida bought it a dozen years ago.

Now, because of the recession, the plug is being pulled on 80-year-old, money-losing Shands AGH. Next fall, its eight-hospital not-for-profit parent company will shut the 220-bed hospital and shift staff and patients to a newer, bigger teaching hospital nearby as part of an effort to save $65 million over three years across the system.

Like many U.S. hospitals, Shands is being squeezed by tight credit, higher borrowing costs, investment losses and a jump in patients -- many recently unemployed or otherwise underinsured -- not paying their bills.

All that has begun to trigger more hospital closings -- from impoverished Newark, N.J., to wealthy Beverly Hills, Calif. -- as well as layoffs, other cost-cutting and scrapping or delaying building projects.

Report this comment
#3) On December 27, 2008 at 11:49 PM, GNUBEE (24.96) wrote:

If you want to make money, buy US arms suppliers. They have done a good job replacing Russia as Indias Go-To supplier and we already know where Israel gets their guns from.

Kinda Ironic because until this year the US would not sell to Pakistan (15 years of policy). But are going to sell fighter jets (Boeing) to BOTH India and Pakistan.

I didn't even realize until recently that the US buys arms from Pakistan for use in Iraq.

I'll take recession/depression over war anyday.

 

Report this comment
#4) On December 28, 2008 at 12:01 AM, uclayoda87 (29.86) wrote:

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > WORLD Israel Vows to Expand Gaza Airstrikes as Death Toll Passes 200

Saturday, December 27, 2008

I vote  Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be the first to happen.

Report this comment
#5) On December 28, 2008 at 12:31 AM, HP2006 (79.13) wrote:

"The premise is simple"  Maybe too simple?  Or rather simplistic?

If your concern is that the economic crisis will cause a bigger conflict, then the main issue would be an internal conflict/chaos, civil unrest and perhaps a revolution.  Both Russia and Pakistan could get there soon, which should be cause of grave concern.  The gas supply issue with Russia is far from being the main concern and is nothing we have not seen in the past few years.  I believe that the possibility of a major devaluation and the economic crisis there getting out of control, creating internal chaos and world-wide financial unrest is the real issue.  Not to mention the problem of having a nuclear power spinning out of control...Of course Putin may try to stay in power and may try to divert attention by attacking another country (Ukraine is next?), but that is separate from the gas issue you pointed to.

I understand that you are pessimistic, but I am afraid that your conclusions are a little simplistic.  The current issues are far more complex and require much deeper analysis.  Note that each of the events you mention in your "trifeca" are nothing new:  1) Russia has been warning Ukraine (and Europe) about cutting off the gas supply for the past few winters, it actually did so before; 2) Pakistan and India have been "talking war" for a long time, although the Mumbai attacks may have taken this conflict to a new level, but still mobilizing troops in nothing unheard of; and 3) Israel and Palestine sadly are just back to were they have been on and off for the last few decades...

Finally, I believe CAPS should not be a contest to see who can post more blogs, and brag of being more bearish (others brag about CAPS scores, rankings,etc.), by coming up with simplistic arguments and examples to support "the end of the world" hypothesis.  We will all benefit from reading less blogs that are more thoughtful, supported with strong arguments/evidence, and logical thinking.  Otherwise, we will keep wasting time reading empty blogs.  Clearly less is more in CAPS blogs.  Thank you for keeping this in mind. 

Report this comment
#6) On December 28, 2008 at 12:49 AM, uclayoda87 (29.86) wrote:

Internal conflict within an unstable country is a more likely short-term problem for the world.  I proposed that crude oil prices would be the likely trigger for this unrest.
The game changer: Oil price?!

December 26, 2008 – Comments (4) | ADD RELATED TICKERS

Report this comment
#7) On December 28, 2008 at 12:49 AM, JGus (29.40) wrote:

Ayax - So stop reading Alstry's blogs! Many of us find his blogs very informative and his insights invaluable...why do you think he's one of the most rec'd bloggers on here? The reality is that the events are unfolding so rapidly that multiple blogs in a day are often warranted. I read Alstry because I'd like to be prepared for the 'worst case' scenario and I find his arguments and supporting evidence very compelling.

Report this comment
#8) On December 28, 2008 at 1:53 AM, alstry (35.49) wrote:

Ayax,

Demon and I go back a bit.....like a couple of buddies who have been through a challenge together.  I doubt that there is any bragging in either our perspectives....concern.....definitely!!!

Speaking for myself, when I post it is my sincere position....I appreciate your perspective and the fact that it differs from mine doesn't necessarily make it wrong.....or right.....and gives me and others a chance to weigh it against all known facts.

What escapes me is what idiot would "keep" wasting his time reading empty blogs???? 

 

Report this comment
#9) On December 28, 2008 at 2:29 AM, viconquest (22.74) wrote:

I find it hard to believe that in this day of global real time news and ability for rapid deployment of forces that a significant conflict that arise from these purely economic troubles. Pakistan moving troops towards India; what are they going to do, attack a more powerful India? Russia attacking Ukraine? Ukraine's not Georgia. Israel/Palestine, haven't heard that one before.

 As huge as this crisis is, I don't believe we've reached a boiling point where war is imminent. I agree with uclayoda, the real conflict should be internal where countries will be dealing with civil unrest and widespread discontent. 

Report this comment
#10) On December 28, 2008 at 3:45 AM, starbucks4ever (99.52) wrote:

I am not worried about Russia right now (of course, with someone like Putin you can never be 100% sure). It has proved in 1999-2003 that it can do quite well with oil costing $20 a barrel. After Putin finally realizes that he has lost his bubble, and after the most important cronies are bailed out (it's an ugly process, but no uglier than our own bailout of Paulson's friends), you'll see Russia adopting sensible economic policies, devaluing the ruble, and letting its own RE mini-bubble meet its deserved fate. Ukraine has less currency reserves than Russia, but also less corruption (its three crooked political parties are locked in a power struggle, and as a result none of them is able to steal too much - that's their version of separation of powers and it has been pretty effective). Pakistan I don't know much about. It is the Middle East that's really in deep trouble. Collapsing oil + exploding population + crooked governments + islam = stuff hits the fan. 

Report this comment
#11) On December 28, 2008 at 9:37 AM, alstry (35.49) wrote:

All of you above have valid points.......the purpose of my blog is to stimulate thoughts, debunk myths, and provide a variety of perspectives on a the same issue.

89 days to go.......

Report this comment
#12) On December 28, 2008 at 10:23 AM, johnw106 (61.35) wrote:

Times change. Technology changes. Fashion changes.
People do not.

History shows very clearly that in times of great economic strife and civil unrest governments turn to war. It has several major benefits.
First, it switches public consumption of produced goods to a model of military consumption of goods. This has and will always have the effect of keeping the working class happy. They want a steady pay check. It makes no difference to them if they are making tanks or toys for children. Its all the same.
Second it creates demand for imports of resources that are not native. This benefits netrual partys and allies alike. The USA made a fortune doing this in the late 1930's and early 1940's by selling machinery and supplies to Europe.
Third it kills people. And in a major war the numbers can add up quickly. Reducing the population of any given country by several thousands frees up resources for the surviours.

Those who think economic troubles and internal stress are not a major contributor to war between nations are living in a fantasy world.

Report this comment
#13) On December 28, 2008 at 1:30 PM, dwot (99.49) wrote:

When I read viconquest's comment I wonder how belief systems can be so utterly different. 

I believe that all conflict has economics as the root cause.  Securing resources and inequitable distribution of resources is the root cause of all disputes and the inequities have grown to unpresidented levels so conflict is far more likely.

Add in gross under investment in human capital (education) and you have a cheap and willing army.

Report this comment
#14) On December 28, 2008 at 6:32 PM, starbucks4ever (99.52) wrote:

Economics can enhance a mass psychosis, but you can have mass psychosis without economic underpinnings...

Report this comment
#15) On December 28, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Mary953 (40.07) wrote:

Johnw106 is on the money as far as economic reasons for war are concerned.  Let me add a few more.

Things are going badly at home, a three year famine in France for example.  People become angry and wish to turn on Someone.  The government is a great scapegoat.  Our example here becomes the French Revolution. (3 year famine, civil unrest, high unemployment, starvation, very unequal distribution of wealth, a king and queen providing figureheads that could be blamed).  Civil wars, "grass is greener on the other side of the border" wars, imperialist wars, wars for slaves all can find beginnings in the rage at some prevailing discontent, or at economic trouble, or agricultural (which in earlier times were also viewed as economic) perilous times.

Poor leaders have been using wars as distractions for centuries.  To take a very recent example, Sadaam Hussein spent the first year as the Iraqi President (King for Life? Despot? Tyrant?) in a land at peace.  He was such an outrageously bad leader that he was almost kicked out of office.  He put the country into a war with that most hated and evil nation Iran.  The war ran for 11 years, after which he attacked Kuwait, apparently because he believed that we did not care if he had control of the largest army in the region and 40% or so of the oil in the world (of the discovered, easily pumped oil at that time).  He was wrong.  However, he was right that while his citizens were busy with the Great Satans of Iraq and then the US, they had less time to concern themselves about his governing style or him.

As to where a worldwide conflict would begin, I would cast my vote for an internal squabble in an area that is centrally located. I would look somewhere in a powder keg region, one that historically ignites the countries around it.  My choice would be the broad area that includes (and these names are all the same region but the region tends to change names with the years) Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Herzogobinia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Checkoslovakia.(Apologies for the spelling)  For some reason, problems here seem to grow to involve other countries and swell into world wars.

One thing for certain is this.  If we cannot pay our way and no one is interested in helping to foot the bill, we need to stop being the world police except in areas that pose a clear and present danger to the USA.  If we are not to be the dominant world power, let the "pretender to the throne" try on the responsibility for a bit. And perhaps, as we once did, some other countries might be willing to forgive a few debts.  I know, I'm not holding my breath for that either.

 

Report this comment
#16) On March 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM, tommycarstensen (23.80) wrote:

Are you sure Woolsworth filed for bankruptcy???

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement