The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Laws of Heaven

Friday Morning Highlights and Lowlifes

~by Sean Paul Kelley

Couple of random notes this Friday morning, mostly economics related, some silver news and my personal reaction to portions of the discusssion in Ian’s “Is Virtue An Advantage Or Disadvantage For Societies?” post.

First, econonomics. It looks more and more like we are heading into a 2008-style credit crisis/crunch.

Don’t believe me? Well, the FED flooded the US banking system with $18.5 billion to ease liquidity concerns during the week of Feb. 17 because cockroaches be busting out of just about every private equity/credit shop present. And we all know, if you just don’t turn on the lights, you don’t see roaches.

These kind of economic events don’t do what you think they are going to do. Many people assume any economic crisis in the US will lead to a rapid dollar hegemony collapse. But as I explain, the dollar will actually get stronger:

“[W]hen the credit crunch gets a full head of steam it won’t lead to reserve status collapse of the dollar. It will, counter-intuitively, but inexorably pump the dollar higher and stronger as NYC becomes a 2008-like Black Hole for cash allocated dollars world wide desperate to fill potential insolvency holes in banks and shadow-banks/private equity credit boutiques . . . . “

That’s what happened in 2008. As I conclude, “Dollar reserve collpase will be a result of national insolvency, not a global credit-crisis/crunch.”

Basically what End Game Macro is saying in this post is the following: the economy grew little to naught post-COVID to present. It basically did what equity markets sometimes do: trade sideways for years, decades even. For example, after the 2008 Financial Crisis the S&P 500 traded sideways for four years until it broke out in late 2012, early 2013. That’w what the US economy has done since 2020: move sideways, although Biden-inspired over-immigration skewed the growth numbers, as End Game Macro notes:

From 2021 to 2024 the U.S. saw over 11 million arrivals, more than 3 million in 2023, and net migration around 2.4 million per year in 2021 to 2023. That can lift GDP and payrolls while masking weaker per capita momentum. As the surge cools, the masking fades.”

I’m not being anti-immigrant here, I’m just stating the facts. As Trump dug his heels in and unleashed his ICE goons, the econ surge faded, and fast. End Game Macro also notes, a lá 2008 that system-wide credit stress is popping up whack-a-mole like in almost every category:

“As of February 2026 serious delinquency is flashing late cycle strain. Auto loans 5.2 percent, credit cards 12.7 percent, student loans 9.6 percent 90+ days past due with estimates as high as 16.3 percent turning delinquent late 2025, and FHA delinquency 11.52 percent. Job quality also reflects strain.”

And I’m not even going to touch on the downward revisions to US employment except to say we’ve not gained a single job, but actually lost millions. The BLS hints at the size of the disaster in jobs “recovery.”

Last econ note: big move in India just confirms my thesis/argument/assertion that the combined wealth of the West is undergoing a multi-decade transfer back to the East:

For decades, the price of silver in India—the “diamond hands” of the silver world—was dictated by a small group in London and USA. Indian ETFs used the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) prices, which often had nothing to do with the actual physical demand on the ground in India.

The Move:

On February 26, 2026, SEBI officially announced that starting April 1, 2026, Indian mutual funds and ETFs will no longer rely solely on London’s “AM fixing” prices. Instead, valuation will be based on polled spot prices from recognized domestic exchanges like the MCX.”

That’s one serious high hard one to the Comex and LBMA! This is a big fucking deal.

Next up: war in the Ukraine.

I’ve repeatedly argued that the Ukraine has lost all any and all possibility of regaining strategic initiative, and this reinforces it, way wickedly:

As I have noted ad nauseam for months now: the #Ukraine has lost any chance to sieze the initiative on the battlefield. All the #AFU can do is ineffectively counter-attack like a punch-drunk boxer. Trading lives for time will not work out for #Zelensky in the end and the end is coming sooner than he thinks.

On that note, the Red Cross confirms the Ukrainian to Russian KIA ratio. And it is bloody awful: 34/1. People often tell me that my belief in realism in foreign affairs is deeply immoral. Fuck that shit. International liberal hegemony is 100% at fault for all the deaths in the Ukraine. All. Of. Them. The denizens of Davos are uttely complicit.

In another grim note: Russia is in the initial stages of attacking The Big Banana. For the first time artillery shells are falling down with impunity on the city of Kramatorsk, like rain does on an average Portland Wednesday.

In regards to the conversation on Virtue and especially regarding the 800,000,000 number of Chinese lifted out of poverty. Well, Ian is correct. I did the numbers here back in September.

As regards Chinese leaders being better or worse than those in the West, especially the US: Ian, again is correct. The best way to view the argument is by winnowing it down to two prepositions. The Western view of liberty has its origins in peasant upward mobility in the aftermath of the Black Death and the clash of classes. Ergo: in the West we have the freedom “of” speech, assembly, bear arms, etc. . The Chinese view of liberty derives its origins from a long exigetical tradition of the origins and limits of dignity. In essences, the Chinese see liberty as freedom “from” poverty, warlordism, chaos, illness, crime, rapine, etc. . .  Both views are valid. Both views are limited. But at present the Chinese view of liberty is more effective in increasing the common good than that of the West.

On the posssible, now looking more probable, war with Iran, the US has ordered the evacuation of its embassy in Israel. I don’t know what could make it more obvious, you?

More as it happens.

And more happens. This comment by Ray Dalio reminds me when I was a young broker I read Robert Rubin’s memoirs, In an Uncertain World, and took to heart many of his investment rules, going so far as to write many down on old fashioned white catalog cards–this was before the internet, btw! and memorize what I wrote down. Don’t judge me. I was young and dumb.

Love Rubin or hate him, like James Carville said, when I get resurrected I want to come back as thet bond market. Rubin knew how to invest and make consistent returns. So did Barton Biggs, long time chief investment strategist at my alma mater, Morgan Stanley. Those two men shaped my view of economics, markets and political economy more than anyone or anything else. And yes, I read Jesse Livermore’s memoirs. They did little for me precisely because at his heart Livemore was un-disciplined. And discipline is key to making money.

If you take your own advice you’ll do well. If you’re like me and stayed retarded longer than markets remained illogical, well, you’re fucked. If I’d taken my own advice I’d have a small fortune like a handful of former clients do to this day.

One of my key rules: if you want to get rich, speculate in the stock market, but if you want to be truly wealthy, invest in bonds. In other words, the real wealth, massive cash-flow comes from debt service. That’s just an ugly reality humanity has yet to escape.

Another rule to live by: if an investment goes more than 15% against you, cash out. You can recover from a 15% loss, but a 25% or 30% or even 50%? Not a chance in hell. Ever.

Last rule: if you double your money in an investment, sell half of your gain and let the rest ride. I guarantee you’ll never lose a dime on that investment if you follow that rule.

One last comment on Rubin: he was a ‘careful contrarian’ and being a contrarian has served me very, very well. It’s a painful and lonely place to occupy at times so be prepared to man up. In the end recognize when you feel the least amount of risk is the precise moment of the most risk, the instant before you lose your ass.

Maybe more, maybe not. Time dictates all.

So the muse is a fickle-bitch. This analysis of the transcripts of the Trump-Xi phone calls is brutally and hysterically accurate:

This time it’s particularly funny because the Chinese transcript (fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/20) has Xi telling Trump: “It is always right to do a good thing, however small, and always wrong to do a bad thing, however small.” This proverb might not sound like much but it’s actually extremely meaningful when you understand the reference.

The reference comes from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, China’s Illiad and Odyssey plus the Aeneid and a smattering of Dante’s Inferno for good measure. It’s indicative of how urbane and historically literate the Chinese are. And a clear notice that China is what historians, anthropologists and others of such ilk refer to as a “high context” culture: 

China is a High Context culture, a communicated message has different layers of meaning, While America as majority of the West is Low Context. The other culture/language that is High Context is Arabic. To understand the spoken words one need to be deeply rooted in its culture, its history and religious tradition.

Spoken like a true scholar and humble student.

I want the last word. Heh! But seriously, silver trading at the Comex closes the day sharply higher, firmly walking through a wall of resistance at $92, ending the day at $93.06, up 7%. A very bullish closing price for silver. Silver bugs should sleep happy tonight.

 

 

 

Is Virtue An Advantage Or Disadvantage For Societies?

There’s an idea going around that virtues are anti-competitive. That being loyal, honorable, honest, generous, kind, etc… puts you at a disadvantage.

It’s one of those half true statements. It’s true if your society is shit, but in a decent society it can be disadvantage, and if a society has predominantly virtueless people in charge, or as the majority of the population, then the society as a whole is at a disadvantage against virtuous societies.

In a society where everyone is out for themselves or a small group, and where any behaviour is acceptable as long as it “wins”, like the US (notice that even child rape is acceptable to US elites, if it wasn’t, they’d punish it) having morals will hold you back, no question. If you won’t make decisions which impoverish mass numbers of people, or kill them, if it’s in your self interest or the interest of your small group (bank, political party, corporation, family, whatever) then you’re at a disadvantage.

The problem is that such societies self-cannibalize. Instead of growing the pie they fight over who gets how much of a slice, and what they do makes the pie smaller than it otherwise would be. (Ignore every dipshit who tells you how rich the US is. It’s less rich in real terms than it was 60 years ago compared to its competitors and in many cases even to itself. A CT scan in China costs about $50, and you get it the same day.)

Whatever one thinks of China, the fact is that its elites concentrate on making the population more prosperous and the country stronger in real terms. They aren’t offshoring their steel production. They can build ships. They lift people out of poverty, they don’t shove people into it. There aren’t massive homeless encampments everywhere. They arrest senior party members and billionaires for corruption and even execute them for crimes.

They are better people than Americans. Doubtless that will outrage many, but if you think otherwise you’re engaged in special pleading. How many countries have they invaded and destroyed? How many people have they killed or impoverished, including their own people? They’re expanding education and healthcare, working hard to make housing cheaper, etc, etc…

This is an old observation. Societies which work for more people out-compete those that don’t. Lee Kuan Yee, the founder of Singapore was massively impressed with the Britain of the 30s and 40s because he saw, for example, that newspapers were simply left in a pile, people would take one and leave money and no one cheated. They dynamism of 50s thru 90s America (all a result of post-war government spending, by the way, the internet is a government creation all the way up and down) massively impressed him as well.

Good is stronger than evil. It always has been, because cooperative societies defeat societies which are competitive in the wrong ways. It’s alright to have some competition, but when it becomes existential and unbounded by ethics, it damages the host society. America can’t even ramp up weapons production any more because the firms in the business want to charge 10x what weapons cost. Russia and China, no problem increasing production if they choose.

None of this is to say that being evil doesn’t have advantages. Of course it does. But evil, as Tolkien observed, consumes itself over time: it is a war of all against all, with any alliances temporary and untrustworthy.

This is true even when dealing with “evil” societies. It isn’t the evil which makes them effective, it’s the parts they have that are good. Mongol loyalty and discipline and bravery, for example. Genghis Khan never had a single senior general or administrator turn on him. Not one. At the very least a nation needs to be good to more of its own members than than its opponents, but even this has problems, because what you do to external enemies eventually seems reasonable to do internally.

Good isn’t weak. Instead it’s hard. It’s easy to be evil, to betray, to hurt and to take advantage. But if you run your group or your society that way you will weaken it and in time that weakness will lead to destruction.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

What Is Society For & What Makes A Society Good? (Laws of Heaven)

Before I give my answers, I’d appreciate if you, the reader, would consider these three questions yourself. In the West:

  1. What is society for? What is it set up to do?
  2. What should society be for?
  3. What makes a society or group good?

Some years ago I considered the issue of who is let in to Heaven.

Good people, only.

That seemed pretty awful to me. No one wants to go to a hell and I don’t want even bad people to suffer.

But then I asked myself the question, “what makes a society or group good?” I thought back on my own experiences and I came to a simple conclusion: it’s always the people which make a group, of any size, good or bad.

Bad people. Bad group. It is really that simple. Leaders have an outsize influence, but leaders require buy-in from society, at least from the coercive elements and often from much more than that. (See my politics series for more on that.)

People who are cruel, power-hungry, greed, selfish or otherwise have nasty vices or personalities make a group hell. People who are kind, generous, humble and so on make a group good.

Again, it’s that simple.

So the conclusion I came to is that if heavens exist, they don’t let in bad people (or very few) because if they did, they soon wouldn’t be heavens. Bad people go to places with other bad people, and that’s what makes such places hell.

Now let’s move back to the first of our questions. What are our Western societies for. I think it’s close to inarguable that under neoliberal ideology, they exist to make sure that those with power and money retain their power and money and increase it. That premise predicts almost all the actions our societies have taken since around 1979 or so.

If you’re rich and powerful, you run the society and you run it for your own good.

This brings us to our second question. What should a society be for? This is a prescriptive question, there is no “correct” answer. The Pharoah, or Barack Obama or Elon Musk are going to give different questions than you or I, odds are (their true answer, not the one they tell suckers) and so is the Pope, let alone Torquemada. Mennonites have their answer, and so on.

My answer is a simple one. A society, or any group, should make its members happy, good, and if they are happy and good, it should make them strong. It should do that, as much as is possible, for as many of its members as possible and any society which doesn’t is a bad society.

Certainly it is impossible to create a lasting good society if the primary virtues of the society are greed and selfishness, as they generally are under capitalism and as they specifically are under neoliberalism. (New Deal capitalism did not exalt greed and selfishness.)

This is the start of a new series, “The Laws of Heaven”, where we’ll discuss the laws, principles and methods of creating good societies and groups. There is no current possibility of these principles being followed, but knowing what they are is important and opens up the possibility of a better future.

I hope you’ll join me in this exploration.

 

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén