|
| Thanks, I'll look at it.
Just a thought - I do not believe that it *must be* and "either/or" thing, however. Why would it have to be one of the extremes? They make the rules, and they can change them. The one thing I'm sure of is that whatever happens, it will be a surprise to us.
I agree that the "h" word leads to misunderstanding. I remember Martin actually defining that word once - if I run across it again, I'll post his definition. We could easily see something like France did in the early 60s, and that still would not be labeled with the "h" word, IMO.
We need to remember that, while we may disagree on details, what is happening is not sustainable. IMHO, no one says that more clearly than Armstrong. I really enjoy reading his parallels with past economies, especially Roman times. As he says over and over - if people would just look at history, they would know that what they are doing *will not work*.
There are a couple of ways I disagree with him, however. First, I think he is getting a little too confident - and, IMHO, that is poison. (but explainable with his successes in calling major market trends recently) Second, he does not seem to see the dangers of the extreme concentration of wealth and what that might lead to. I think it can be just as bad for most of us as the road on the Left. | |
|
John - inflation/deflation - probably one after the other
