Kyle Bass, Martin Armstrong, Larry Edelson, Charles Nenner, James Dines, Nouriel Roubini, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber and Jim Rickards Warn of War

We’re already at war in numerous countries all over the world.

But top economic advisers warn that economic factors could lead to a new world war.

Kyle Bass writes:

Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.

Martin Armstrong writes this week:

CycleOfWar-2014

We will be updating the Cycle of War. Obviously, it is time once again. Especially since that model also hit to the day 3 times in a row.

Similarly, Larry Edelson wrote an email to subscribers entitled “What the “Cycles of War” are saying for 2013″, which states:

Since the 1980s, I’ve been studying the so-called “cycles of war” — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war.

I’m certainly not the first person to examine these very distinctive patterns in history. There have been many before me, notably, Raymond Wheeler, who published the most authoritative chronicle of war ever, covering a period of 2,600 years of data.

However, there are very few people who are willing to even discuss the issue right now. And based on what I’m seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge in 2013.

Former Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner – who has made some big accurate calls, and counts major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients – says there will be “a major war starting at the end of 2012 to 2013”, which will drive the Dow to 5,000.

Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a war is epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East.

Nouriel Roubini has warned of war with Iran. And when Roubini was asked:

Where does this all lead us? The risk in your view is of another Great Depression. But even respectable European politicians are talking not just an economic depression but possibly even worse consequences over the next decade or so. Bearing European history in mind, where does this take us?

He responded:

In the 1930s, because we made a major policy mistake, we went through financial instability, defaults, currency devaluations, printing money, capital controls, trade wars, populism, a bunch of radical, populist, aggressive regimes coming to power from Germany to Italy to Spain to Japan, and then we ended up with World War II.

Now I’m not predicting World War III but seriously, if there was a global financial crisis after the first one, then we go into depression: the political and social instability in Europe and other advanced economies is going to become extremely severe. And that’s something we have to worry about.

Billionaire investor Jim Rogers notes:

A continuation of bailouts in Europe could ultimately spark another world war, says international investor Jim Rogers.

***

“Add debt, the situation gets worse, and eventually it just collapses. Then everybody is looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we’re in World War II or World War whatever.”

Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:

We’re in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. And Brazilian president-elect Rousseff said in 2010:

The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations … it ended in world war two.

Jim Rickards agrees:

Currency wars lead to trade wars, which often lead to hot wars. In 2009, Rickards participated in the Pentagon’s first-ever “financial” war games. While expressing confidence in America’s ability to defeat any other nation-state in battle, Rickards says the U.S. could get dragged into “asymmetric warfare,” if currency wars lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty.

As does Jim Rogers:

Trade wars always lead to wars.

And given that many influential economists wrongly believe that war is good for the economy … many are overtly or quietly pushing for war.

Moreover, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that the Iraq war was really about oil , and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And see this and this. If that war was for petroleum, other oil-rich countries might be invaded as well.

And the American policy of using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence – and of considering economic rivalry to be a basis for war – are creating a tinderbox.

Finally, multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

What happened to [Libya's] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.

Indeed, senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

Indeed, some say that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking.

Many Warn of Unrest

Numerous economic organizations and economists also warn of crash-induced unrest, including:

Category: Think Tank, War/Defense

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

11 Responses to “Top Economic Advisers Forecast War and Unrest”

  1. socaljoe says:

    Seems to me you could pick just about any date in the last 100 years and find a war going on somewhere.

  2. postpartisandepression says:

    Pretty sad and very indicative of our political elite that these guys don’t realize that we are currently at war and have been since George Bush retaliated in Afghanistan in 2001 and then invaded Iraq in 2003. Maybe someone shoudl explain this to them.

  3. Greg0658 says:

    add my name.
    and what is the proper tit for tat to an EMP (electro magnetic pulse) (electronics disruptor) going off ?
    can’t do another one – there’s no baby step forward going there

  4. Init4good says:

    We have been involved in a pretty big war now, as far as dollars go, for about 10+yrs now, as post partisan said. The dollar value in relation to GDP that has been spent so far is roughly equivalent to the 2nd world war, is it not? Our all volunteer forces along with private sector components cause this most recent war to be nearly invisible to the general public, which is sad indeed, b/c the treasure spent and lives being lost are very real if you care to look. I hope there is some evidence of a larger benefit yet to come,but right now all we have to show for it is the relatively small number of defense sector jobs and a lot of bases to man and maintain.

  5. louiswi says:

    With all the discussion about bigtime war again, there seems to be a lack of discussion about one important aspect of war which is that it is just plain fun! Who among us hasn’t enjoyed the nightly news showing stuff blowing up everywhere and body counts on an almost hourly basis.
    However, to get into big time war again, we will almost certainly have to institute the draft again as that is the only way to get the really cheap help to do all the killing. We can count on the killing machinery industry and we can count on the media industry and we can count on the citizens as long as we don’t make them pay for the war but not sure how we count on folks being forced to send their children for another big time war. Looks like a pesky issue or two that needs to be worked out before we “get ‘er goin’ agin”.

  6. Theravadin says:

    The thing with all these pronouncements of coming war and doom is that they follow a multi-thousand year old tradition of eschatology – “the end of the world is nigh!”… and sometimes those thoughts become self fulfilling prophesies. It’s be a lot more useful if all these big name luminaries were talking about what we have to do not to go to war… but I suppose that is too much like hard work…

  7. sherparick says:

    Yea, it is kind of funny that all of these guys have been somewhere else the last 10 years. Besides the almost 7,000 dead service members, about the 2,000 or so dead contractors, and about 1,000 allied soldiers (and this does not count the other side or the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani civilians who are collateral damage). http://icasualties.org/. And of course these little wars have cost 2 Trillion dollars and counting (which makes me chuckle when one of the Republican war supportings talk about “out of control Government spending”). http://rt.com/usa/us-wars-most-expensive-109/

    One thing about these wars, when compared to Vietnam is that one can watch Faux News, Faux Business News, CNBC, and most network shows and never see a story on Iraq or Afghanistan. If you go to BBC World and Al Jazzeera, you actually catch stories on the war a regular basis. But U.S. media (even the “Liberal MSNBC”), Nada. For those of us old enough to remember, a Vietnam story was on every night on all three network shows (and of course, there were only three networks to watch). And of course there was the draft, although if you were wealthy and well connected, there were good alternatives. After all, in late 20th century and early 21st century America, only the “litttle people” pay taxes and die for their cournty.

    The war cycle thing is bit of a joke, since war, or rumor of wars have been the normal condition of mankind since the beginning of the neolithic. And something elses the above people have missed, besides Iraq and Afghanistan, is that much of the area from Morrocco to to Kashmir is in some sort of conflict, most intense being in Mali and Syria right now, while Eastern Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda conflicts have killed about 1,000,000 people the last 15 years. But because it is the Wogs, I guess it does not count.

    If a war does come ot Europe in the next 10 years, it will be something like Yugoslavia, as multi-ethnic states, or states with strong regional attractions break-up and civil war engulfs places like Greece, Spain, and Italy,

  8. Jim in Chiang Mai says:

    Sadly the United States stopped declaring war a long time ago. One needs to ask why.

    My contention is the reason we have not declared war since World War Two is because the laws, written before and during WWII, state there shall be no unreasonable profits in a time of war. If I understand correctly a reasonable profit by the military industrial Congressional complex (Ike’s speech draft included “Congressional”) would be in the range of 15% maximum. Seems we go to war for profit … at least for the profit of that “complex” … at taxpayers’ expense, and most assuredly as history has proven, we do not go to undeclared war to win. The objective is never to win. The objective to to stretch it all out for endless profit.

    Can you imagine for a minute, the mindset on Wall Street, if on April 12, 2001 president Bush and Congress had achieved a declaration of war? Wall Street, Halliburton, and KBR, etc, would be required to limit themselves to a 15% profit, rather than endless war starting each time with no-bid contracts (that often were/are subcontracted numerous times and never fulfilled)? If we had gone to war over bin Laden, Goldman Sachs would have demanded bin Laden’s head on a silver plater (oops too close to history … don’t go there … do not research that subject) … Afghanistan would have been conquered in 90 days without boots on the ground (since nuking Japan we have always had the ability to win wars quickly, but some say we can’t afford the political fall-out), and the war would have ended … and American business would have returned to normal … building more stuff for more wars …. at taxpayers’ expense. The new twist was/is we don’t put the war in the budget or tell the taxpayer how much is actually part of the secret budget …. we just borrow the money.

    We deluded ourselves a long time ago when we spun the name of the War Department to the Defense Department … because of that part in the Constitution about “standing armies” … well the document is as outdated as slavery, and white male land owners only being able to vote; and in these modern times Congress can not get together and debate while missiles are fired in our direction; but be assured … debt is slavery, and we have had time to debate that.

    “Please pass the ketchup, and I’ll have another helping of trickle-down permanent tax relief for the wealthy, thank you.” Or, maybe I’ll just expatriate, and skip the slavery, thank you.

  9. Mattw says:

    Your other commenters aren’t all that concerned about a big war. This attitude is typical before an approaching Black Swan. Most won’t believe and most of the rest won’t do anything – deer in headlights.

    Let’s say a war really is approaching. How would you know? Do you think there would be signs?

    I run a blog on emerging risks. There seems to be a large amount of information pointing toward war. The most recent flash point is over the Senkaku Islands. However, one must first understand that the world is at a tipping point. If you don’t get that then discussing war is pointless.

  10. Init4good says:

    Mattw: The other commenters are actually the ones who felt concerned enough to comment, and what appears above represents their most lucid thinking on the subject. I think you can summarize the comments above by saying – There is already a large war happening; it has not been noticed (other than vague mmm talk of debt) by the avg american; things have not changed much for the avg american who remains indifferent to the wars going on now; wars are used to the advantage of profiteers (and always will be) and lastly, there will always be wars.

    Further I believe the US does evrything in its power to pre-empt large scale wars and for the most part, besides the outright invasions of Iraq and Afghan, has been “successful” in that arena. Success, however, does not equal completely clean and just – on the contrary these pre-emptions are very dirty and nasty to say the least. A great place to start reviewing the history of the many covert actions that have stalled or avoided major wars is “Overthrow” by Stephen Kinzer and many other good books.

  11. rj chicago says:

    Let’s see who can add to this list I am starting:
    a) Peter Gabriel – Games without Frontiers
    b) XTC – Generals and Majors
    ……