Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.
Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?
In the last ten years, as I have been writing about the historical extremes of the current global debt bubble, I have noticed the lack of perspective of the general public in regard to the current extremes. Let’s compare a few examples of history.
In the case of current times, people get loans based on their current income as well as their credit history. That is only extreme when we compare it to historical norms.
Normally, people would only get large loans (in contrast to short-term “pay-day loans”) if they had collateral. In other words, AFTER they own real estate free and clear, then they could RISK their ownership with a “title loan” or equity loan, like people might do if they own an automobile free and clear. That is “normal” historically, like loans from pawn shops.
So, there is a limited amount of resources available- like if you had 100,000 of something and someone came to you and wanted to borrow a bunch of it from you, then you would want to know that they ALREADY OWNED something that was worth MUCH MORE than whatever they were borrowing from you and have them sign a contract that prevents them from selling it without you getting paid your debt. Think again about a title loan on a car. The lender gets listed on the certificate of title issued by the state. The state promises to use military force to protect the legal rights of the lender. (Note by the way that in some countries, one particular group of people may be allowed to lend at interest, while for all other people, it is illegal as in CRIMINAL to lend money at interest- at least for anyone without the permission or licensure of the ruling class!)
In lending, court systems are important. The court systems are the military organization that enforces debts, like repossessions of cars and foreclosures and evictions from real estate. Courts also create currency systems through their military power.
This is another simple point that many people do not get. Courts dictate debts that the public owe to the courts. These are called taxes. The courts also dictate what form of payment is acceptable for payment of taxes. That is the foundation of public demand for government currency (to pay the tax debt claims that the governments invent and impose by military force on the masses).
So, many people are very focused on access to credit. That is typically a sign of how poor they are. If they had loads of cash, they would not care much about credit. They would not need it. They would not be desperate and anxious and frightened. They would not complain that politicians were threatening them. They would realize that all systems of invented tax claims are inherently threats and not complain about it, but accept it and adapt to it.
That reminds me of another traditional method of obtaining loans. Imagine that the US military lined up a lot of tanks on the border of Canada (or Iran) and then asked for a huge loan from the government of Canada (or Iran).
That is also normal historically. People focusing on income-based borrowing is simply not normal.
The US military may ask for a tax treaty by which the Canadian government promises to give the US 1% or 10% of all revenues or whatever. Again, that is totally normal historically (not specifically in the history of the US and Canada, but like between various nations and tribal gangs across the last few thousand years).
When the US Treasury borrows money from someone (called the sale of a treasury bond), then ALL of the underwriters (taxpayers) are responsible for paying back that debt. The US court system is responsible for extracting that wealth from the public. Or, if the US military lines up tanks on the border of Iran or Canada and “offers” a “rescue loan package,” then every inhabitant of the “occupied colony” is targeted for repayment of the war reparations or loans or whatever name is used.
So, what is going on with the huge marketing campaign to get the masses of the US in to massive debt (for mortgages, etc)? Some people emphasize that a lot of the lending is coming from China. Because of the massive trade deficit which the US keeps growing with China, China has been lending the US money (including through the mortgage industry) to continue the rapid transfer of wealth from the US to China. Whether this is a sign of Chinese wisdom or just the military intimidation of the US is to me rather obvious (military intimidation).
However, when people are desperate, they may be very hysterical in their willingness to vilify the rope salesman for selling them the rope with which they hang themselves. If China is being bullied by the US in to lending money to the US middle classes, why? Because the court system itself will benefit from a massive wave of foreclosures. Further, if the federal government “rescues everyone” from a massive wave of foreclosures, they may do so by basically nationalizing real estate (confiscating it).
Forecasting exactly how things will go involves some amount of speculation. Noticing that the current historical extremes of income-based lending (rather than collateral-based lending) are historical extremes that can return quickly to historical norms involves very little speculation. In contrast, people who blindly presume that the current historical extremes will endure another decade or even a full year are the ones who may find that their speculations are extremely naive.
Why did the global financial bubble grow so much in the 20th century (at least for the US and Europe, etc?) The prices of fossil fuels, on the whole, plummeted from the 19th century until 1999 (with a brief rise in the 1970s when the US increased consumption of fossil fuels so fast that it began importing rather than just using up what was produced in the US). With the advance of industrial civilization due to fossil fuels (plus computer technology), the effectiveness of global military operations rose in efficiency so much that court systems of organized coercion globalized.
The various military leaders across the world began to organize a union. They formed organizations like the league of nations and the united nations. These organizations promote “peace” in the sense of a well-organized system of global coercion. Rather than competing gangs and systems of coercion, there is a single network of the operations of coercion which dominate the masses. Instead of ruling classes across the planet competing with each other, there is a single ruling class forming.
The debt crisis in Europe (and, to a lesser extent, in the US and Japan) represents a massive transfer of resource control from the masses to the ruling class. Governments will “be forced” to raise taxes, which will rocket the demand for cash (to pay taxes) and crush the already weakening financial bubble. People who have been speculating that credit will be easier and easier to access will shift from complacency and occasional complaints about politics to terror and panic.
EXACTLY how society will return toward a collateral-based pattern of lending is not really that important of a question to me. Will the masses be allowed to continue private ownership of collateral at all? For how long? How will the masses resist the military dominance of the global ruling class? Given that the masses seem completely hypnotized by the propaganda mythology of the ruling class (publicized through socialist institutions like public schooling), will the masses even resist at all? For now, the masses continue to chase debt (and credit) in a mad rush for bankruptcy that marks the crowning achievement of the marketing profession: “Borrow! Consume!”
The religion of consumerism is not intended to last forever. It is just a means to an end. The holy temples of Rome (Egypt, Babylon, etc) became the courthouses and government agencies of the West (and even the stock market building in Brussels looks like a Roman baking temple).
As the global debt bubble deflates, the masses will wake up to the foundation of all currency systems: military force (which create public demand for currency through the tax extortion systems of the ruling military class). For now, have you noticed that the myth that a relatively unimportant substance like gold or silver is the basis of human systems of social domination is soaring in popularity (due to massive marketing campaigns)?
Interesting talk here. This guy is a biochemistry professor and “not the best speaker” for undergraduate or lower level biochemistry enthusiasts, but I did get one very simple and profound thing in the 28th minute: eating lots of carbohydrates results in such a huge flood of insulin that the insulin receptors in the brain TOTALLY withdraw.
What does that mean in human experience? With all the insulin receptors withdrawn, the brain will always signal to the body “you are still hungry.” Eating too much carbohydrates BLOCKS the brain’s ability to sense when it should stop eating.
Why? Because the brain is hungry for fat. The only people who eat grain-based diets (when high quality fats are available) do so based on intensive cultural programming (like public schooling, TV ads, propaganda from the religion of the FDA, indoctrination from doctors licensed by the same network of religious institutions, etc).
Why does a high-carb diet result in insulin receptors withdrawing (what evolutionary purpose does it serve)? To prepare for winter periods of hibernation. When a human is eating lots of carbs, the brain interprets that as a signal to go in to an emergency mode to prevent starvation. Hunger signals are constant. Fat is conserved. The “obesity” of bears fattening up for winter is based on eating lots of carbs (to the best of my knowledge). When the bears resume “normal” diets in the spring (wtih increased levels of fat), then the starvation mode reverses and the insulin receptors extend back out to “normal” (non-emergency) receptivity.
So, “insulin resistance” is a rather imprecise label. High carbs diets lead to rocketing rates of obesity because those diets interfere with the brain’s ability to feel full (satisfied or “satiated“). High carb diets increase the experience of hunger. High carb diets lead to a hormonal panic of conserving fat to prepare for winter. Paleo diets (with complex carbs but not a lot of simple carbs) do not trigger the “prepare for hibernation” obesity response.
When people are interested in improving their investment results, what do they want more of? Typically, they want more of two things: stability and total gains.
Stability means that the total value or account balance will consistently rise with only very small declines. (That is also known as “wealth preservation” and the most common strategy for preserving wealth is diversifying across the most stable trends and markets.)
Total gains of course means that whenever you choose to withdraw money from your investment accounts, there is a lot more money there then what you put in. So, in summary, we value gains that are not just consistent, but also large.
Now, for some added perspective, let’s look quickly at the best-performing group of stocks in the US stock market last decade: the HUI sector. Note that most investors and even investing professionals have never heard of that group of stocks (because most people including financial professionals have not been focusing on the best results that are easily available to them- they either try too hard or not hard enough).
The above chart shows the performance of the stock prices of that group of 15 US companies. From a low of $35 in late 2000, the price of the HUI sector increased tenfold by 2006, gaining over 1600% by 2010.
Did your stock market investments grow that much last decade? Most investors (including in the US) experienced little or no gains overall in their stock investments last decade. In the case of US investors who had been heavily concentrated in US high tech companies such as are found on the US NASDAQ stock exchange, typical returns for the decade were losses of 50% or more. (See chart below.)
In other words, rather than witnessing consistent gains, many investors experienced continuing losses. Still, many of them continued to stay invested in losing methods and strategies for most or even all of the decade.
In fact, you may even be one of them. Whether or not you experienced disappointing investment results last decade, you may be quite interested in producing investment results that are both more stable and more profitable.
However, you may not know how to produce the results that you would value enough to alter your investing method. That is why you are reading this, right?
Before I say more about a simple strategy to consistently produce large gains (while maintaining a stable balance), let’s combine the two charts above to make something very clear. Here are the two charts shown together:
While the large gains of HUI (the tan line) are obviously far better than the large losses of the NASDAQ composite index (“COMP”), we can notice periods when HUI did quite well and periods where it did not gain. In the years 2000, 2004, & 2008, HUI lost value for the year (especially in 2008).
Why do I emphasize this? Because even when investing in 15 companies (which might seem like a lot more diversification than investing in only 1 or 2), there can still be long periods of no gain or even large losses (just like when investing in a bundle of 100 or more stocks like in the US NASDAQ).
Diversification itself does not provide for stability or wealth preservation. The specific method of diversification must fit the goals of the investor, or else that method should be discarded or at least revised.
So, if you want a stable balance or market value (with only very small declines), that requires WISE diversification. Further, that may even mean avoiding illiquid markets like real estate (markets that can be very hard to quickly sell, often taking weeks or even months to exit from the investment).
Wise diversification means having a group of investments that are all consistently increasing in value. If one or two of them briefly fall a few percent or even more than that, that still will not effect the total balance much. Why? because the majority of the investments are still making consistent gains!
Imagine a real estate investor who loses even 10% or 15% in a particular year. If that investor is also investing much more net worth in other investments that are all making large gains (like the best stocks, the best commodities, and the best currencies), then even losses as large as 10% in a year in one investment will not produce an overall net loss. Why? Because that investor was wise enough to diversify in ways that profited from consistent trends in other markets besides real estate.
Now, let’s review my personal background a bit. Then I will reveal the other issue besides diversification that is essential for vast improvements in your investment results. Let’s read a paragraph from an investment commentary published in 2003 on March 3rd:
“Yes, we can profit from the collapse of the credit bubble and the subsequent stock market divestment. However, real estate has not yet joined in a decline of prices fed by selling (and foreclosing). Unless you have a very specific reason to believe that real estate will outperform all other investments for several years, you may deem this prime time to liquidate investment property (for use in more lucrative markets).”
I wrote that. Here is the link to the full article: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/hunn030303.html .
Is it interesting to you that in early 2003, I was referencing that real estate markets would eventually decline in price because of an increase in foreclosures? Is it intriguing to you that I was referencing a collapse of the credit bubble (which means a decrease in the total amount of borrowing and lending, like for mortgages)?
I referenced it being “prime time” to liquidate (sell) property. I emphasized that other markets might be “more lucrative” (more profitable).
What investment markets were I emphasizing in early 2003 as more lucrative than real estate? If you click the link above and scroll down to the end of the article, here is the last image you would see:
That is a chart of the performance of the HUI sector in the two years prior to March 2003. That sector, which went on to gain over 1600% last decade, is the one that most investors ignored in favor of things like real estate and stocks from the US NASDAQ (both of which had their worst decades in a very long time).
I strongly recommended against real estate. I emphasized the gains of over 200% in the prior two years in HUI (which I knew would accelerate if commodity prices continued to outperform most stocks).
What else did I recommend? I noted the multi-year rallies in commodities like Gold and Oil. I also emphasized why I expected most US stocks to do less well than commodities.
“easy credit fed the stock market hysteria…. Many even rushed to refinance homes again (trading equity for cash) to create the final wave of the 90s stock mania.”
Of course, that wave of real estate borrowing did not end in 2003. As it continued, many US stocks eventually recovered from their declines- but not all.
Except briefly before crashing in 2007, the high tech sector of the US NASDAQ exchange was down more than 50% from it’s 2000 peak almost the entire time last decade. The housing sector plummeted in 2005 (“HGX”) and the financial sector (“XLF”) plunged in 2007 (shown below).
So, that is a little background on why you might be especially interested in what I personally can tell you about extraordinary investment strategies. In addition to diversifying, the other simple key to consistent profits is to analyze trends and exit from trends as soon as they weaken.
As an example, let’s look at HUI in 2003. First, here is the “raw” chart:
Here I add one trendline:
Here I add another:
The two lines are obviously parallel, right? That is called a trendchannel. They form very frequently in many price charts, including for bundles of stocks like the HUI sector of 15 US companies.
To a trend analyst, I would notice that when HUI rebounded in early October, that rebound was at a parallel slope (angle) to the three weekly highs from mid-August to mid-September (the green line). So, I would buy HUI and hold it as long as that established uptrend continued.
I would buy between 190 and 200 in early October, then hold and watch very closely in the first week of November for a possible exit at 200. That was the second test of the lower (red) trendline.
In late November, I would exit between 245 & 255 when HUI “broke” out of the trendchannel. I might sell “conservatively” when HUI reached the green line (depending on what other opportunities I noticed in other markets). Or I might hold on while HUI surged up above the trendchannel briefly and only exited when HUI penetrated back in to the trendchannel.
In any case, that would be a gain of over 20% in several weeks. That is better than most people do in a year. Are you interested in results like that?
Then, in December, when HUI reached the lower trendline again, I would be looking for buying in again- but ready to exit with a small gain or even small loss if prices did not continue the upward trend. Here is the same trendchannel plus the next two years of HUI:
Depending on what I saw in other markets, I might not be interested in HUI again until mid-2005 when HUI fell toward 160 (a prior low) or even in November 2005 when it broke above 250 (the brown line).
Maybe you understand the trend analysis referenced above. I picked a relatively simple example, but the point is that there are lots of trends happening all the time. If I find a few of them and trade them conservatively, I will keep my account balance growing steadily. Any particular day or week, there could be a small loss in one or two of the positions, but with several positions all in clear uptrends, the account balance would consistently increase with occasional slight declines (triggering “trailing stop orders” to protect the prior gains).
Why don’t more investors do this? Because it is unfamiliar to them- even complicated and stressful. The research of comparing several markets can be time-consuming and tedious.
Why don’t more professionals offer this? Most investment professionals earn commissions from selling investments, not a percentage of any gains. They have no vested interest (profit-sharing), so their motivation to perform well is minimal if any. They do not suffer any great loss when their clients lose money. They are salespeople, not business partners.
What is different about me? I am open to offering you access to being a partner in my trading business. I am so confident in my results that I only ask for a share of the profits that I will consistently generate for you. Contact me if you are interested in partnering with me so that you can watch your investment account balances consistently multiply.
“Where are all the real men?!?!” some girls say.
“They are only fantasy,” I explained.
You may not like me. That’s not my focus.
You may not love me. That’s not my business.
I am a man. I can be aggressive.
I can be competitive- even repulsive.
For when I crave privacy, I push others away.
I may withdraw. I may criticize.
I may condemn. I may analyze.
I may ignore. I may insist.
I may counter. I may resist.
Some may complain about politicians and lawyers- that they never quite do as you prefer.
If I offer you some pity, will you go away, nerd?
If you want a faithful leader, what do you have to offer?
Oh, and if you stopped trusting socialists finally, welcome to the club, girls! Anyway, no, I don’t need to see your IDs. With dresses that short, legs that long, and no underwear at all, I think I’ve seen all that I need to see. Come right in and have a great night…. Okay, next in line, come forward. Let me see your IDs. Sorry, no, it’s required by law.
By the way, why doesn’t anyone ever ask “where are all the REAL women?”
“If being a vegetarian is a choice, then when did you decide to become an omnivore?” Homosexuality is a type of behavior, not a genetic condition (like one’s natural hair color or skin color). Bisexuality is also a type of behavior, similar to practicing diets that are omnivorous, vegan, carnivorous, etc- although only species that are fundamentally omnivores can “decide” to exclude certain foods (gluten-free, dairy-free, pork-free,etc).
Fundamentally, humans reproduce through heterosexual behavior. So, if someone is celibate, that generally does not qualify them for special status or special rights.
Does practicing bisexuality or homosexuality qualify someone for special rights? When did you choose to be an “oral sexer?” What special political privileges do you want for that?
When did you choose to get a tattoo? What special privileges do you want?
What about people who “are” vegetarian and gay (but only oral sex, not anal) and smoke and have tattoos? What special protections do we need to emphasize so that insurance companies do not discriminate against people who are genetically smokers? Why don’t people understand that smokers want to be considered “fundamentally different ” when they claim to have the right to smoke in my kid’s classroom or my living room, but then they want to be considered “fundamentally the same” in regard to health insurance premiums? What if two smokers are legally married to each other in a gay marriage though?
And why are all these pregnant women claiming that they should have special protections and privileges in regard to the father of their children? Don’t they understand the different political rights of pregnant lacto-ovo vegetarians and pregnant vegans?Are bisexual pregnant women more or less pregnant than heterosexual pregnant women?
I wrote this in facebook in agroup called “Mooji Sangha,” tagging Daniel in a post of the video below:
Daniel Fritschler, I love this. Always remember that Advaita should be very intriguing to 4 year-olds and anyone who does not like Advaita must not be a true 4 year-old.
Forget karma. It is some foreign word. I am not fluent in foreign words. I am clueless. What does it mean? What does “satchitananda” mean? What does “craving concepts” mean? What is the best flavor of ice cream to eat, sensei, if I am about to wear a blue t-shirt on a Tuesday?
Tell me, are presumptions karmic or is karma presumptuous?
But how do I stop playing the mind game? How can I finally win it?
You know, once and for all!
Is it knowing the right flavor of ice cream? I am clueless about which presumptions are the most important and holy and sacred.
I give up. I thought you could help me fix my problem of agonizing about being clueless about the right way to just notice the how ice cream punctuates, but I am beginning to questions whether or not you have a clue about that or if you are just playing mind games against me. Ttyl
Lauryn Hill was sentenced for non-compliance with a tax extortion racket as well as for her resentment and contempt and arrogance and shame, not for inaccurate theories of conspiracy. Of course her ancestors were oppressed. What is unusual about that?
Should Native Americans be exempt from income taxes because the US stole their ancestral lands and nearly decimated their tribes? Should the Japanese and German people have the “legal right” to evict the US military from the bases in the various US colonies throughout the planet? What kind of precedent would that set for Iraq and Diego Garcia and the Native American tribes? Should anyone in North America with any portion of European ancestry go back to Europe and give their real estate back to the full-blooded natives? Most people in North America are so steeped in the fanatical idealisms of National Socialism that they would not know a Nazional Socialist empire if they had been living in one their entire life.
Consider that belief systems are cultivated by authoritative institutions, such as the core institution of modern socialist imperialism: public schooling. As for the idea that force and coercion only work “for a limited amount of time,” the last several thousand years have included a “notable” amount of organized coercion, including by a very popular form of social institution called “courts” (as established by kings and pharaohs and popes and other ruling classes of governing the masses). Courts dictate liabilities that the masses owe to them, called taxes (AKA extortion), and then dictate what form of payment is accepted (which is called legal tender or currency), and then set exchange rates, like the money changers at the government temple may give you a single metal coin at a rate of 2 healthy sheep per ounce of coin.
Why did the court systems pick (for use in currency tokens) rare or “precious” metals that only they had access to mining? Perhaps because only they had access to mining the metals made in to the “legal tender” coins- so they could trade a few dozen sheep to soldiers and miners in exchange for exclusive access to some rare metal that they could force the masses to “buy” (for use in paying invented tax liabilities and tithes and so on) at a rate of thousands of sheep… for the same amount of metal that only cost them a few dozen sheep to access. That’s been an extremely lucrative business… though it can be “a bit bloody” at times.
Using language, we can isolate two categorical groupings consisting of different formations in language. We can call one category “accurate” and the other category “inaccurate.” For instance, we could list a few statements and sort them for logical “accuracy:”
The greatest taboo
In the tradition of bribing children in to conforming to desired behavior through the story of Santa Claus, we can recognize a deceptive method of influencing the behavior of others (those who are relatively naive or unperceptive) through indoctrinating the children with mythical language that obscures the outright bribery which we also may practice quite openly in other cases. In other cases, indoctrination in regard to promoting false expectations takes the form of other religious programming, public school programming, and mass media programming (including marketing). Programs in language influence attention, which influences perception, which influences behavior.