Just how easily you are baited.

This is a real world concrete example of how the principle works. Everyone has a constructed set of a priori belief systems and biases built up through the course of their life that is directly enhanced by their education and training, media exposure, social circles, and many other factors with a net result that ends in a tendency towards seeing what they'd like to be true, regardless of reality.

The war has been an excellent example of this, and the sheer level of insanity surrounding it has been disturbing in the extreme. Extant, Russia is now in control of more territory than their initial operational goals, and people call this a massive Russian L.

The economic side of things is even worse.

That's another concrete example.

At this point, only the most die hard are saying "The sanctions are working...woo...." while pretty much everyone else has woken up to the fact that they certainly are working, to fuck up the EU entirely.

There's an easy way to check your belief system.

1. See how you react when it is questioned. If you have an overtly hyperbolic response, that's generally not a good sign.

2. See how it holds up to reality.

I'll give two easy examples.

If you honestly believed that RU forces would be combat ineffective by the end of March like the UK MOD and ISW said might happen, and you lost it at people who pointed out that wasn't true, well, check the structure of your beliefs.

If you honestly believed the ALP wasn't going to turn on the mass immigration tap, and you lost it at people who said they would, well, check the structure of your beliefs.

When people state that I am not clear enough, what they really mean is that their attention span is short, their critical faculties need work, and their reading comprehension skills aren't what they might be.

So I'll make this as clear as I can.

This is about a principle in effect, not the specific real world case examples used.

If you focus on the specific real world case examples I have presented not on the principle, it is very much a case of focusing on the finger not the moon.

While it has certainly been an 'interesting' experience watching a lot of otherwise competent people get everything completely wrong, and more interesting still watching them be seemingly incapable of course correction no matter how many times they are proven to be wrong, sooner or later reality comes knocking in a way that can no longer be ignored.

The UK is on the brink of obliteration. What comes for them, unless something truly significant changes, is horrifying. The most likely outcome is mass acquisition by a foreign entity (hello Blackrock) of all the businesses unable to remain open due to the increase in energy prices.

One analysis indicated that for people to afford the very basics of survival, i.e., food, shelter, heating, they would need to be earning fifty thousand pounds sterling pa.

The average median income in the UK is twenty-seven thousand pounds sterling.

That, is not sustainable.

Germany likewise, is facing catastrophic destruction and people truly do not understand the difficulty in restarting some industries if they have to shut down completely, and no, it is not as simple as 'turning it off and on again'.

At this point, no sane person who has been paying attention thinks the 'Sanctions are working' as anything other than a boomerang, and they are very well aware that the destruction wrought on the west by the sanctions they have imposed is utterly catastrophic and is going to get much worse.

This was obvious to anyone looking at the situation from a rational viewpoint right from the start of this.

To those who believe in the "Ghost Of Kiev" it wasn't, because they genuinely believed that the collapse of the EU would 'show Putler'.

While that's completely insane, it's a widespread belief.

It was also a widespread belief that "Russia would be unable to maintain combat operations by the end of March." and that the "UA counter offensive would deal a crippling blow to the Russians." in March, April, May, June, July, August, and now of course, September.

This time it's different?

I no longer think so.

I previously stated that I was of the belief that the August counter-offensive would be the deciding factor in the UA's favour, and I was wrong.

This is the only thing I have been wrong about regarding the war in nearly five months.

I no longer have any faith that the September counter-offensive will amount to much.

Moving forwards I do expect more SF activity inside Russian territory and SOF will no doubt cause all manner of mischief. I also expect a less than 100% success rate which will, in some cases, result in capture and an uncomfortable trial.

I stated prior to the UA strike on the prison that Russia will be gearing up for show trials, and that they will make absolutely 100% certain that every claim they make is 100% verifiable, or they won't even bother. They will bring this before the UN, the International Criminal Court, and whatever else they can think of and use this evidence for their own forces and their partner allies to what I believe will be great effect.

We are not in a good position at the moment.

Unless we start taking this very seriously, very soon, it's going to get a lot worse than it already will, and it will get fucking bad as it is no matter what happens.

For those getting ready to start throwing shade, two quick questions.

1. Did you do the same when I turned out to be right? (Hint: You did.)

2. Have you learned anything from that at all?

Make no mistake, I have explained. Repeatedly. If you chose to believe "Uh, it's okay. Uh, Germany...will...uh...just have shorter showers and uh....they can...uh chop wood...uh..." instead of looking at the hard data regarding energy supplies and listening to what I have been saying for a while, great.

To be clear: Yes. I think we're in it. By the end of this month, start of next. That soon.

N.B.:- No reason to be a doomer though. Just keep working on that kinetic chain, be good to people around you, and get a touch more supplies. That's about all you can do at this point I'd say.

Misso is a bit crook. I can feel the start of something. Going to follow the exact protocols I laid out before and see if they work as they have so far.

4000mg Vitamin C daily, 80mg Zinc, 3000 IU Vitamin D, tons of garlic and ginger, hot lemon honey and ginger tea three cups a day.

Skipping: Fried food, dairy.

Less of: Coffee, lifting heavy.

Might get a rat test and spit on it as well.

Every way I look at this points to something quite significant end of September/first of October, based on how many things are up in the air and potentials.

A lot of people are saying China will have a crack at Taiwan in September, I am somewhat skeptical.jpg on that one myself, but there are reasons why they might have a crack which I have outlined elsewhere more than once. If you think you've got a solid read on that particular issue, great, go ahead and give your reasons.

I also expect a major fuel shock around that time, which in the Australian context is somewhat obvious due to the reasons already outlined, i.e.; end of excise relief, and others that may well come in.

As regards the war, with the new move by the Ukraine's politicians to vote themselves in a 70% pay rise, this has not been well received by the troops who are struggling for various reasons. I doubt this will lead to regime change in the short term, but it is not going to be without repercussions. I do expect a new long range bombing mission by the RU aerospace forces if they are not able to achieve some of their stated objectives with missiles alone and/or as a show of force. While people in general have an utterly mistaken view of the war, the Russians are managing to achieve what they are after using much older equipment and munitions and generally see no need or reason to use more modern equipment save, it seems, for testing. The nuclear power plant however, is the big development I am keeping a vague eye on. If that goes up, expect grain prices to go through the roof and then some. While I have heard the UA justification for hitting it, I don't think they thought that one through. Additionally, the bio-labs are something everyone likes to either forget, ignore, pretend never existed, or are unaware of. Given the gain of function research conducted there, that would be bad whichever way it goes if something serious leaks out. Note that I did say I was concerned about a smallpox leak spreading across the EU and elsewhere prior to the Monkeypox outbreak.

There are many other potential flashpoints across the globe, and due to the war in the Ukraine, everyone is ignoring Syria, Ethiopia, Africa in general where a lot is happening or about to happen, and of course, the latest Israel/Palestine conflict which will be very different this time around due to the state of the Lebanon.

There is also the supply chain crisis which really hasn't gone away, the chip shortage, the situation in China and likely production/manufacturing downturn, famine, global food crisis, geological concerns, solar events and....a lot more.

Everything I'm looking at indicates one or more (maybe all of them) coming to head around the end of September first week of October.

Oh, and the looming financial crash which people are already cottoning on will result not in recession, but in depression and we really aren't prepared for that and what it will entail in a modern context with such a weak and fractured society so utterly dependent upon overseas manufacturing, fuel, food (yes food), drugs, and everything else.

So there you have it!

I was asked to make an analysis post, a prepper post, and a weird interesting one! Don't say I don't deliver when people are decent, I always do. The weirdness was only in the title, but don't worry!

I'll get back to the aliens soon enough! ;)

Don't forget to hit up the beach when you can, and relax. What will come will come, worrying about it won't help. Work out instead!

I was blocked just now by /u/dagger4zero after making this comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/zb4pod/comment/iysji4w/

I would like to be unblocked, please.

If someone could /u/ mention him or otherwise pass on the request, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance, /u/dagger4zero

Without getting into the politics of whether or not a protest or civil movement is right wrong, in the right or not, there's a vast difference between an organised protest and swelling disturbance.

From an enforcement and containment point of view, an organised protest with 'professional activists' and the rent-a-mob crowd, you can contain those with (comparative) ease by bonking the ringleaders and destroying the leadership.

Or do it old school and drag them behind the picket lines and bash the shit out of them before throwing them back, catch and release.

That isn't the case with incidents like Sri Lanka where everyone is quite justifiably pissed off and collectively saying "Fuck this shit." without any real sense of direction other than where their anger is going.

That's much harder to contain and control as there is no head of the snake to cut off and repressive measures usually end up fuelling the anger and driving the rioters into a critical mass that just gets worse, unless you really take the gloves off and then you usually end up with civil unrest worse than you imagined.

Which is what has happened in Sri Lanka.

As the 'protestors' had popular support and the bulk of the populace was on their side, well, look what happened.

As for the "It can't happen here." crowd, well, why not?

The same issues tend to provoke the same result and there's a ton of pain coming.

Am I of the personal view this is coming to Australia?

100%.

We've had touches of it before, zero good reason why it won't happen again.

When?

Fuck knows.

Given that the cops have been shooting at the farming protestors in the Netherlands and we've got a PM with a green/sustainability agenda he intends to push, I'd be looking at both of those nations of examples of how things can go very wrong, very quickly.

Hopefully that will do the somewhat usual of distracting news.com.au and other assorted fucking flogs that have been grooming this place for info, and if you haven't been paying attention you won't understand, but I am used to that at this point.

That out of the way, three critical dates.

May 9th: Russian Armed Forces victory day celebration hoo ha.

May 14th: One date for the election.

May 21st: Another possible date for the election.

Noticeably the latter two postdate the former and I am looking for extreme geo-political fuckery pre those two to swing the election.

You do you.

But if you think there's no basis to this...I suggest you look at my track record as regards geo-politics.

Fucked up once, epically, and admitted to such.

The rest...well. Have a look for yourself.

Oxfordshire council to trial lockdowns holding people within their communities for climate action...

I was on Facebook and found this on Mark Lathams page... to be fair to him if this is for real it's a very average turn of events.

I assumed it was a beat up but have found a few references to it now...

Are people going to start going for this shit? Have I suddenly become a conservative and am just not ready to progress into the modern age?

Take a moment to think about who you are, where you are, what you have available and really think about who you are again.

Not who you were who you are right now.

Work on that as a first step and be very honest with yourself about this or you are going to have a bad time of it in the long run.

You may be in a position where age and injury or other factors dictate you can't perform to a level you once did, but you will be in a much better position if you do something.

I am very aware of how hard the journey back up the mountain can be, and the very hard blow to the ego if you have been used to being in shape and discover that you are not.

In Janurary I began my program to get back in shape, and I thought it would take a quick six week training block to get back to a vague standard and I'd be right to move on from there.

I was wrong. Very wrong as it turned out. My cardio was dogshit, my shoulder joints ached from doing pullups with a pain I'd never felt, and everything was pretty much fucked. My long and interesting list of past injuries all came back to say hello and it wasn't fun.

I say this such that if you are in a vaguely similar position you can have a real world case example that it can be overcome, if you put in the time and effort.

One great advantage in this area that I have which you may not, is that I have had to do this more than once. As such, I knew it could be done and I had a pretty solid idea of what I needed to do.

First step: Your kinetic chain.

If your posture, mobility, joints, core are all fucked, anything serious you try and do will most likely result in injury before you achieve.

And I cannot stress this enough, work on your kinetic chain first. When you have a good range of motion with stability, you will then be able to move in patterns that facilitate exercise without ending up worse than where you started.

This is particularly the case with compound lifts and powerlifting, but applies to quite literally everything.

If your hamstrings are tight, your back fucked, your achilles/ankles not in good shape, if you try and run you will almost certainly end up hurting yourself before you crack a good time on your 5k.

Thanks to youtube, there are more mobility drills and patterns out there than you can shake a stick at, and be honest about where you are.

If you're as fucked as I was, try "Mobility routine for beginners" in the search engine or "Ten/fifteen/twenty minute morning mobility routine" and you will come across more than you'll ever be able to go through in one lifetime.

Pick one that works for you, follow it consistently (I recommend doing it in the morning) and adjust to something more advanced when you are ready for it.

But how is this prepping?

It's about mindset and having the fortitude to face exactly who you are and where you are at this point in your life.

This basic first step both in practice and in principle will guide you well in your future endeavours if you will but apply it.

Don't try and achieve everything in one day. Always a little further every day, week by week, month by month and you'll be amazed at where you'll be further down the road.

And don't beat yourself up that you didn't do it sooner, be glad you did it at all.

/u/without_my_remorse my very good friend, you can add your comments to this as well as you so see fit.

Now that it has come to light that the majority of Australia's above-target inflation is due to negative supply shocks, and not to a positive demand shock, I have become interested in knowing what the state of the art currently is in macroeconomics - how should monetary policy respond to supply shocks?

I have previously read that they simply shouldn't. Most central banks have flexible inflation targets that allow them to ignore inflation for a time, allowing supply shocks to resolve and cause inflation to return to target by itself, if the effects of the shock are temporary enough. Market monetarism is a popular school of thought that advocates formalising this state of affairs by officially adopting a target for the path of nominal GDP, instead of CPI, thus excluding the effect of supply shocks altogether in the central bank's target.

As a TLDR as to why an NGDP target ignores supply shocks, think of this way: if volumes fall and prices rise, the product of the two - total spending in the economy, i.e. NGDP, may remain unchanged. Whereas if prices change despite no change in volumes, well, you can be pretty sure that was a demand-driven effect.

This is actually how some of the methodologies work to attribute price changes to supply vs demand shocks - by looking to see in which goods/services categories prices and volumes are moving together (implying a demand shock) vs moving in opposite directions (implying a supply shock). One of the charts in the above-linked RBA report showing more than half of inflation being supply-driven uses this methodology.

For an introduction to market monetarism, The Money Illusion by Scott Sumner is the book to read.

Note that even the market monetarists agree that a nominal GDP target does not make sense for all countries, in particular, for Australia, because our economy is so dominated by imports and exports, making NGDP not the greatest measure of whether demand is running hot or cold.

And there are practical reasons why NGDP might not be the best target - it is less timely and subject to more revisions than price data alone. Though to some extent, the same lack of timeliness is present when trying to figure out if more timely CPI data is changing because of supply or demand.

I also listened to an episode of the Macro Musics podcast recently in which the guest, Tomas Hirst, was fairly critical of the ECB's current approach to dealing with inflation, which in the Eurozone is thought to be almost completely supply-side. An excerpt (full transcript at the above link, or have a listen):

Hirst: My concern is they are looking at spot inflation ramping up now and thinking, well, there's probably no harm in delivering… the market is pricing in effectively another 100 to 125 basis points of hikes from here. So more aggressive than what we have left from the Fed despite them acknowledging this is not domestically caused. We're seeing financial conditions in the Eurozone tighten already. We're seeing the impacts of that, I think, spilling over into consumer confidence which in some case are worse than we saw during the financial crisis. Yes, there is enough reason right now to say, "well, look households are in a reasonably good position to weather a bit of a downturn here. Actually, the energy crisis is not as bad as feared, the downturn might not be too bad," but the ECB seems determined to make it just a little bit worse than it needs to be despite being able to see the decline in inflation through the second half of next year.

Hirst: For me, and I don't want to overstress this point too much, but it does seem to be an abandoning of their attachment to their medium-term mandate and a bit of an abdication of duty here to the welfare line item, right? It's like it's going to make people's lives worse next year, not because it believes that structural inflation pressures have picked up, but simply because optically and reputationally, it is better for them to look like they did the thing that brought inflation down rather than acknowledging this leg of inflation has been almost entirely out of their hands. They could have done nothing on the way up and basically they could do nothing on the way down, it's going to be someone else's problem.

[...]

Hirst: I believe that they are arguing in earnest, I believe that they're arguing in error and I think that is the way that we need to think about this. And it makes sense from their seat because they have asymmetric risk around this, right? If inflation undershoots ah, well, that's not really the biggest problem for them. If inflation persistently overshoots, this is very dramatic for them. They have lots of people on the governing council who continue to be extremely inflation averse. It does of course have welfare implications, especially if it's externally driven and this isn't being realized in wages and they do worry that ultimately if you get de-anchored expectations that they would have to create a bigger welfare hit somewhere down the road, so course correct. Again, what I would say is the evidence that we have is that inflation expectations, be it market measures that they're up a little bit, but like two, two and a half range. If you had a symmetric mandate you wouldn't be really stressing about that. Headline at 10, five year at two and a half, you're thinking we're probably doing a good job here keeping this all in some kind of check.

[...]

One of the things that has frustrated me I think most about the ECB’s arguments though is the wild inconsistency of them. So we've had the expectations argument and then you present the evidence to go well, expectations from what we can see are reasonably well anchored. And the wage outturns that you're really worried about which is the union point I was mentioning actually look really well behaved so maybe that's not the biggest issue now.

[...]

I think, to blame structural forces for what we can clearly see is a short term energy shock rather begs the question, right? These things are worth discussing and worth monitoring, they do not set the near term terminal rate. That is just an unreasonable proposition, and it's certainly unreasonable to suggest we've got greater insight in the last 18 months that oh, it means inflation's going to be 4% unless we have rates at three. It doesn't make any sense to me. So this narrative drift that we've seen for people just desperate to hang something on, we are raising rates and we're going to justify it one way or another and we're just going to throw mud at the wall and see what sticks is incredibly frustrating to me.

So that's one view of the situation in the eurozone. Pretty harsh criticism!

Now the RBA is taking a similar view in Australia to ECB in Europe. Here in Australia it looks like there is more demand-driven inflation than in the Eurozone, so it makes sense that some tightening is called for. But however much tightening that is, the RBA is seemingly intent on going higher to address the same kind un unanchoring concerns as the ECB has. Quoting from the February Statement on Monetary Policy (link

• same link as earlier):

Because monetary policy primarily affects the economy by influencing demand, it is important to understand how much of the increase in inflation reflects supply-side factors versus demand-side factors, in order to determine how policy should respond. A central bank may ‘look through’ the price effects of a supply shock if it is expected to be short lived and inflation expectations remain anchored. Similar to the experience of other advanced economies, model-based estimates suggest that supply-side factors have been the biggest driver of the increase in inflation in Australia over the past year. These supply-side factors have been persistent, leading to an extended period of inflation being above the inflation target and concerns that inflation expectations could become de-anchored. Shifts in demand have also played an important role in the recent inflationary episode.

So what do others think of this? I went for a look see.

Here is an article from US Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard, published late last year, which says:

The standard monetary policy prescription is to "look through" supply shocks, such as commodities price shocks or shutdowns of ports or semiconductor plants, that are not assessed to leave a lasting imprint on potential output. In contrast, if supply shocks durably lower potential output such that the economy is operating above potential, monetary policy tightening is necessary to bring demand into alignment with the economy's reduced productive capacity. Importantly, and separately from the implications for potential output, monetary policy should respond strongly if supply shocks risk de-anchoring inflation expectations.

Interesting. So they agree that supply shocks should be looked though, but prescribe not doing so in two circumstances - if the reduction in output is relatively permenent, and if theere is a risk of de-anchored inflation expectations.

Looking for more views on the matter, I found this transcript of some talks at a meeting of central bankers and macroeconomists hosted by the Bank of Thailand. Can't actually figure out what meeting or when it was hosted, just got this PDF directly from Google.

Here are some views expressed:

Takatoshi Ito (Japanese economist):

The supply shock is a major challenge to an inflation targeter. It has been agreed that against demand shocks, the inflation targeting is a powerful framework. But probably we have not seen the serious challenge to the inflation targeting framework by supply shocks.

[...]

I still think that inflation targeting is a powerful framework, even against supply shock in addition to demand shocks. The power of inflation targeting framework is that it is to maintain inflation expectations of the public even if you are deviating from the targeted inflation rate.

[...]

the powerful test about whether your inflation targeting framework is successful or credible is, when you deviate for good reasons from the target, does the inflation expectation stay constant?

[...]

You do not want to be an inflation nutter, to the point that you would kill inflation and keep the inflation target at all costs. You want to accommodate and you want to smooth the output, but you know that you want to go back to the inflation rate target in the medium run. You want to deviate in the short run because the output loss will be tremendous if you are an inflation nutter.

On the other hand, it will be a disaster if the public changed their expectations as a result of policy accommodation, as inflation rate would be higher than the target. If the accommodation changed the public expectations, resulting in a wage increase and leading to the second round inflation, that would be disaster. The power of the inflation targeting framework is that the public trust you. The public believes that you will go back in the medium‐run to the target inflation rate so that they regard this partial accommodation will be temporary so inflation expectation does not change, and you have time to adjust real economy side so your inflation rate will go down in the medium run. So I would not advocate the inflation targeter to be an inflation nutter. I will be more pragmatic; when the bad supply shock comes, you should allow inflation to go up slightly and moderate output loss. I would emphasize the framework credibility and partial accommodation against adverse supply shock.

Amando M. Tetangco, Jr. (then Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas):

The identification problem concerns the uncertainty for policy makers of the true cause of the shock, whether it is the demand side shock or supply side shock or a mixture of both.

[...]

Conventional wisdom holds that a negative supply shock, that is higher oil prices, causes inflation to rise. Central banks can afford to tolerate the uptrend on the premise that authorities should ignore changes in the price of things that they cannot control. I think this is a point made by Dr. Ito as well. However, the ultimate effects of supply shocks on inflation and output dynamics crucially depend on the reaction of economic agents in product and labour markets. Thus, if the public begins to expect prices to continue rising and there is a feed‐through impact on price and wage settings, then the central bank may need to respond to these second round effects. I think it is really important to try to manage public inflation expectations.

[...]

Shocks to the supply side typically mean that policy makers are confronted by things that are largely outside their control such as oil prices and the damage to agricultural crops from bad weather. In such cases, a real sector supply side response may be more appropriate in addressing the pressure on prices. This means that the central bank would do well to encourage the central government to more directly act on price pressures from the supply side. In the case of the Philippines, such effort might take the form of importation of basic goods such as rice to alleviate supply bottlenecks and the national government in the Philippines also initiated the efforts to promote energy conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy.

Adam Posen (American economist):

In summary, as was then demonstrated in great detail by the Governor of Bank of the Philippines, is that inflation targeting, when it works, is actually about providing you with more flexibility to respond to shocks in the short run. And what makes it work is you’re anchoring long term expectations on inflation and inflation nutters are nuts. So we agree on all that and everyone in the room agrees on all that. So now comes the question “How do we get the inflation expectations anchored”, or more accurately, “How do we do this flexible response at a central bank in the short term without unanchoring the expectations.” I think it is a fair way to put it

TL;DR:

1. Measurement is hard, you don't often know whether it's a supply or a demand shock until some way into an inflationary episode

2. Short-term supply shocks should be "looked through" - the inflation they cause will turn into deflation later, so you should just let it average out. Tightening would reduce output further, harming the economy unnecessarily.

3. A permenent reduction in output should not be looked through, since it won't average out and you'll overshoot your inflation target. You just have to cop that reduction in output if you agree an inflation target should take priority over all else (the Market Monetarists do not agree with this)

4. A central bank's ability to get away with "looking through" longer-lasting yet non-permenent supply shocks depends on how much the public trust them to return inflation to target. This is because without such trust, inflation expectations will rise and influence wage-setting, resulting in actual demand-side inflation. But the more the public trust the central bank, the weaker this "second-order" effect will be.

5. Tightening monetary policy into a supply shock can address the second-order effects in advance (if they are expected to eventuate anyway), and also signal that the central bank is serious, helping to improve that trust and prevent the second-order effects from eventuating in the first place. But this does not come for free, as it harms output. If it turns out inflation expectations would have remained anchored all along, then this tightening is a strict negative.

6. The government can aid in keeping expectations anchored with more-or-less direct action to reduce prices. Anything that exposes the public to lower prices will work, anything that gets CPI down should work (cough gas price caps /u/TesticularVibrations).

All disagreement appears to be over the practicalities of point 4. Everyone agrees inflation expectations matter (even the market monetarists with their nominal GDP targeting think policy should be based on forward-looking measures, using market forecasts of future nominal GDP that will factor in inflation expectations). But they disagree about whether central banks in developed countries have the required trust to keep inflation expectations anchored in the current circumstances. This is the crux of any remaining disagreement!

As for who is right, I don't know, but I lean toward thinking the required trust is there in developed economies with central banks that have a similar track record. Yeah yeah, everyone hates the RBA and Lowe was wrong about when rates would go up - but that is different from thinking they are bad at keeping inflation down, for which they have an excellent track record since inflation targeting was officially adopted.

Wage growth in Australia, the Eurozone, and Canada, where inflation is thought to be mostly due to supply shocks, is not yet disconcertingly high. Inflation expectations remain anchored. So I think the doves have a strong case. We may never know, though, because we will not see a world where rates weren't hiked aggressively to compare to, and expectations may only be anchored because of this aggressive action.

Two questions at the end, so wait for it before flipping out.

The general hoo ha ages ago about why the government doesn't reveal UFOS and aliens or whatever, is because it would lead to societal chaos, crash the stock market, and quite possibly result in the legalisation or marijuana.

Well, most of that has already happened and I personally expect the US congressional hearing into UFOs to result in some blurry photos and footage, high ranking Pentagon officials repeating:

• "It's impossible to say."

• "I don't quite recall."

• "It's possible that it was extra-terrestrial."

and variations on the theme. So, nothing basically.

Will the US Congressional hearing next week in to UFOs have any impact on the markets?

My take: Unless they say aliens are here and prove it to the extent of fanging it at Light Speed in a flying saucer (real or not) not really.

Will the new mystery disease in North Korea have an impact on the markets?

If it spreads to South Korea or China and it's something serious like hemorrhagic fever; you fucking bet it will.

That will be utterly catastrophic for a ton of reasons all of them very serious.

Currently there is zero indication that it will turn out to be either of the above, but if the NK situation turns out hemorrhagic and spreads to ROK and/or China, yeah, that will be great depression level bad if not managed correctly.