Episode-1660- Nicole Foss on Liquidity Crunch and Economic Depression — 83 Comments

  1. Hey Jack, have you considered either a ahainsaw followed by cleft-grafting or veneer grafting onto your mature Apricot tree?

  2. Pacific Northwesterners tend to have a distinct identity over above and beyond ‘Amurican’ as well.

    The Cascadia Independence Movement was even a thing.

  3. I’m going to have to listen to this 3 times to digest it all. I’m not sure if Nicole is insane or a genius.

  4. Her talk has made me think I’ve made a mistake in moving from Michigan to Missouri. Especially since the money I had would have paid for a home in Detroit, (Not fond of cities) but the thought of urban Permaculture makes it more palatable.

  5. OMG! Haven’t listened yet but I am SO excited you interviewed her! I heard her on the Permaculture Podcast awhile back and I loved it! Can’t wait to listen 🙂

  6. whoa.

    that was intense.

    This is one of the best guests I’ve ever heard on your show Jack.

    Holy cow.

  7. Holy cow is right. I dont believe I have ever heard one person speak on so many varied topics with such clarity, succinctly understanding and explaining the inter-relatedness of these varied disciplines. Modern society is like one of those mobiles over a baby crib… move one piece, and the whole thing moves… all connected. Fascinating, scary, and hopeful at the same time. Build local networks while you can folks!

  8. Is it possible there will be a small-ish group of productive “elites”/haves/whatever that are normal people that keep their jobs while this goes on? And they would represent a customer base to people who choose to think positively, to produce to thrive instead of just survive.

  9. I haven’t been able to listen, yet, but wanted thoughts on Nicole’s negative comments about mortgages. I assume Jack still holds the opinion that if folks buy a productive property, have relatively stable income, and put a sizeable amount down, it’s OK to pull the trigger? I figure when rates rise, housing values will indeed fall. But rates will be higher so it’s a “push” unless you need to turn around and sell during the downturn. Thoughts?

      • Jack,
        My thought on the Mortgage issue if the USD would collapse would be that the banks would re-peg the mortgage with a different value. See I hear from people that when the USD goes belly up and hyper inflates they will take their gold and or silver and payoff they mortgage….Say a couple of oz of gold priced at $50,000 per oz for example. I don’t think that will play out……Basically they will have something else in place before that happens and either way you better believe it will be a wealth grab by the system. Let’s say it grabs the Fed by surprise, I don’t see how, and the USD goes into hyperinflation with no new currency system ready and an oz of gold is $50,000 and you owe $100,000 on your mortgage. So you say hey here is two oz of gold I would like to payoff my mortgage. The bank then says no because it’s not fair value for the lien that was on the property and says that when you signed the mortgage gold was $1,000 per oz so you sir are 98 oz short of paying back your debt. I could easily see them doing something along those lines. See I view gold and silver as the best hedge against USD (and yes I own both), not as a get rich quick investment as some people believe it would be. The folks that think they have 500 oz of silver and will buy up 10,000 acres of land when the collapse happens are foolish IMO. As for people getting a Mortgage today I’m all for it if you do it right. I myself have one and we have a home with 2.5 acres that we produce food off of and we owe a 100k. I’m very comfortable with that.

    • It is the one big disagreement we have. If I agreed with her on how fast everything is going to fall, I would agree with the mortgage thing too though. I get why she feels this way.

      I think people like her realize the depth of the problem, like I do but because they do so they can’t begin to see us going forward for more then a few years at most.

      Thing is I have seen this problem now for over 25 years, her work began about 5 years ago.

      She was hitting on the why of the can kicking working but hasn’t quite seemed to join the loop yet though. Psychology.

      There will never truly be a final failure of liquidity because the entire system is fake anyway. The elite will only allow as much failure as suits their goals and agenda.

      The goal is to completely change the monetary system and do a currency revaluation. If you go back to 2008-2009 I too had a quicker timeline in mind but that goal was what I said they wanted back then and I still believe it.

      This will go one of four ways

      1. A government controlled bitcoin type currency
      2. The banks are stuff with gold so it could be a gold basis, not gold backed as in one ounce of gold is a basis for 10,000 dollars
      3. A commodity basket – total value of all national resources (the bankers would really own us then)
      4. A hybrid of any two of the above, like say BTC style with a gold basis

      When they roll this out people will just accept it. The government will bring pensions (federal anyway) to par with it, give out a lot of aid, etc.

      Now I am not saying it won’t be catastrophic for many, just it ain’t gonna be TEOTWAWKI either.

      Before we even get there they will loot private pensions, institute a wealth tax (that no really wealthy will pay), cram a mileage tax though, add a VAT tax, etc.

      As I keep saying we are in the event horizon but you can be there a long time.

      • Thanks, Jack. It’s hard to make decisions confidently when there are so many plausible outcomes, each with different consequences. We just got a good deal on a diverse and potentially phenomenal 10 acres with a house that gives us room to take in aging parents eventually. We stretched a bit (relative to past homes), so there’s some anxiety. But renting and/or putting my family in a shipping container off grid just don’t seem like solutions to us. Time to get to work and ramp up production in all things. May as well go down swinging.

        • Here is what you can’t do, fail to act in your own best interest because of what MIGHT HAPPEN.

          Nine Mile Farm would not exist if I took her advice would it?

          Your plan is a model many are going to follow. Returning to the multi generational land holding. More people with more income to service a lower cost place in the first place. And a place that produces food and income.

          As for peak oil, they will burn down the last oak before one person turns off an x-box. Sad but that is the truth.

          She reminds me of Chris Martenson, absolutely comprehending the problem to a level where a way around it seems impossible.

          Hey has he changed his meme at all yet, he was saying any day now back in 08? He started right about the time I did.

        • @ Jack:

          “She reminds me of Chris Martenson, absolutely comprehending the problem to a level where a way around it seems impossible.”

          That’s the curse of being an academic. You’re driven by the need to fully understand/comprehend the problem that, in your endless analysis, you don’t leave room to act or find problems with every possible avenue of action.

          Count yourself lucky that you’re not someone who has to deal with this. I do on a daily basis, and although I’ve gotten better at dealing with it, it still can make things more difficult than they need to be.

        • @ Modern Survival

          I’d really recommend that you read the details around Nicole’s work on peak oil, because she has been studying this subject, in depth, for many years. You know a hell of a lot about a lot of things Jack, but none of us can know everything about everything. Nicole’s research on this subject may have helped her develop insights that you do not have.

          “As for peak oil, they will burn down the last oak before one person turns off an x-box. Sad but that is the truth.”

          What you are saying here only takes into account the amount of raw energy still left in the ground. It does not take into account the net energy (ERoEI) required to run a modern industrial economy (8-12 to 1) which is currently higher than what we get from shale oil or tar sands, the decline in exports as oil-producing nations experience increased domestic consumption at the same time their overall production declines (Jeffrey Brown’s Land-Export model), the manner in which a crash in the oil price actually stunts future supply by drying up funds for exploration and development in the near term (as Nicole has discussed), nor the manner in which the destruction of massive amounts of credit affects the ability of firms to develop marginal resources such as shale oil.

          To put it another way, ultimately it comes down not to what we WANT to do, but what we are ABLE to do. And even if we want to do the oil extraction equivalent of cutting down that last oak tree to fire up an X-Box, we may not be able to do so.

        • In 1984 in my science text book in 8th grade that was published in 1979 it showed that we at that time had 35 years of oil left. Total, not to peak but TOTAL, 2015 – 1979 = 36 years so I guess for the past year we have been running on whale and walrus blubber?

          Seriously it isn’t that peak oil isn’t a thing, it is just the alarmism and timeline are over hyped. Your right I do know a lot of things, I understand everything you said, perfectly. That is why I don’t agree with you.

        • @ Modern Survival

          The Forbes piece doesn’t really discuss anything that isn’t already known to anyone who has studied this issue with any depth. The point that is lost on many people (and perhaps this is the misconception you have with my view, I don’t know) is that peak oil means we still have 50% of the oil left in the ground, not that we suddenly “run out of oil”. Where I initially may have freaked out and assumed the latter, be assured that I’m very much aware that peak oil does not mean the end of the age of oil — but it does mean that it’s in inexorable decline.

          Whether or not we are actually at peak oil (based on industry figures, it appears we hit peak conventional crude in 2005-06), I think that it’s increasingly clear that we’re on the other side of peak CHEAP oil because the reserves we are increasingly going after are more expensive and have a much lower ERoEI. If we add into that the fact that all life forms tend to access the easier to get forms of energy first before moving on to more difficult ones, then the idea of peak oil vs. peak cheap oil may be little more than semantics in the long run.

          I appreciate your views, but as I’ve studied this subject in some considerable detail for about 11-12 years now, it’s apparent that it’s something that we’re just going to disagree on. But since it’s really an item of circle of concern rather than circle of influence, that’s OK — I can turn my attention toward scaling up my composting operation with chickens to become my community’s version of Karl Hammer. And that drive is something that you’ve influenced me in a great deal, regardless of the fact that I don’t see peak oil the same way as you.

        • 11-12 years, I see. Interesting number. I wonder how soon it was all going to hit us when you were say 3 years into it, I wonder how much we might disagree in another 10 years.

          Now peak CHEAP oil is a different animal, totally different. But that isn’t what you said and it damn sure ain’t what she said.

          More for you to chew on and just write off,

          Again when you have been hearing this for about 30 years, you start to see it differently.

        • @ Modern Survival:

          I just listened to the beginning of the next episode and have a better understanding of where you’re coming from. And as someone who dove into peak oil a decade-plus back, I have to reluctantly agree with much of what you say “underwrites” that process. Even if I still don’t fully agree with you on the projections.

        • @ Modern Survival

          Yes, you are correct that when I was 2-3 years into peak oil I thought that it was much more imminent. I actually was laughing when I listened to the follow-up episode when you were describing the “process,” because it fit me to a T.

          I remember reading the second article you cited when it came out several weeks ago. First, I agree with the premise in it that the real question is whether or not we can PAY to extract the oil, at least in the more near term. But when the article went on to cite CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates) they went off the rails, IMO. CERA is known for being a shill for the most optimistic, cornucopian fantasies out there — in the early 2000s their founder, Daniel Yergin, went on the record claiming that oil would never surpass $35/bbl, and they have been some of the most outspoken antagonists against the very idea of peak oil. I still maintain my conclusion that the increase in energy needed to access energy is eating away at the rest of the economy, and is a manifestation of being near or at the peak in petroleum extraction rates.

          As for the first article you posted, my main problem with the author’s premise is that it treats industrial technology as an independent phenomenon, when in fact it is a phenomenon fully dependent upon extreme levels of socioeconomic complexity, which is ultimately dependent upon the amount of available energy. In short, it ends up fulfilling the red queen curse, where you’re running faster and harder just to stay in place — and eventually you can’t go any faster, which is when it all really starts to unravel.

          But like anything else, the collapse is actually a PROCESS not an EVENT (I’m sure you’d agree on this), and it’s often difficult to tell that you’re in the middle of it when it is happening. I think that peak oil is like that — that the peak in cheap oil and all petroleum products really aren’t that far apart in the longer view, and we’re actually in the midst of it right now. That doesn’t mean that everything will fall apart tomorrow, or even the day after — but rather TPTB will continue to slough off greater and greater portions of the populace as unnecessary toward maintaining the status quo, throwing more and more people into their own personal collapse.

          As a corollary, one of the most influential sources in shaping my views around socioeconomic complexity and the relationship between complexity and energy is “The Collapse of Complex Societies” by Joseph A. Tainter. If you’ve never heard of it, I suggest checking it out. It’s very academic in its approach, but interesting if you can get past that way of writing. You can find many of Tainter’s presentations on this material on YouTube as well.

  10. I have been listening to Nicole Foss for several years. You can do a search on google and bring up several of her talks. She is so easy to listen to and keeps your attention. Her information is a lot to digest. The first time I heard her, I had to listen several times to understand. But the more you listen to her, the more you will get it. I agree she is one of the best guests that Jack has had. She is on a documentary that is supposed to air in spring 2016. I think it will be on public tv. In April I believe.

  11. Jack — Thanks so much for having Nicole on as a guest. I’ve been following her work for several years now and attended an event at which she spoke in NYC a few years back. She is, undoubtedly, one of the most insightful analysts in the intersection of finance, energy and the environment that I’ve ever come across. Probably even more beneficial to much of the audience here, she comes at these subjects from a decidedly different starting point — which helps to lend even more credence to the fact that you and she seem to come to very similar conclusions.

    If you just do a search for her on Google you’ll come up with tons of videos featuring her talks.

  12. Jack, Thanks for the thought provoking and scary interview. From what she had to say, sounds like practical survivalism or preparedness a la Jack Spirko is the way to. People in our community should be somewhat along the protection path she outlined.

  13. I agreed with a lot of what she said, but the peak oil seems faulty. We’ve been hearing about peak oil for as long as I can remember, and every prediction has proven wrong because we keep finding ways to extract more. To me a more realistic situation is slowly rising prices over many years because it becomes more and more expensive to extract oil, rather than the radical drop in availability that peak oil seems to predict.

    • All these alternative methods become progressively more and more energy intensive, to where the energy yield actually is at a peak.

      We may have just as much remaining oil as we’ve already used thus far in human history, but eventually the pendulum is going to swing too far and extracting that oil will require more energy than it provides.

      • “All these alternative methods become progressively more and more energy intensive, to where the energy yield is actually at a peak.”

        DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner!

        What most people fail to consider when talking about energy is that it isn’t ultimately about the raw amount of energy you get. Rather, it’s about the NET energy you get, after accounting for the energy used to get that energy. In more scientific terms, Energy Return on Energy Invested, or ERoEI.

        Nicole understands this feature of energy — I recommend checking out some of her other online presentations to see how this comes into play in the modern era.

        When we were literally sticking straws into the ground and up came a-bubblin’ crude, we were getting ERoEI in excess of 100-to-1. Now, all of those fields are declining in productive capacity, and we’re increasingly relying on sources like deepwater and arctic (15-20 to 1), shale oil (5-8 to 1) and tar sands (3-5 to 1). The one thing that can keep these latter sources looking like a solution for a while is cheap credit — particularly in the case of shale oil, soon to be subject a pending wave of defaults in the coming year. But the problem here is that the very act of finding, drilling, and extracting energy takes an increasing share of energy away from the rest of the economy, causing it to sputter and falter. And you then have the rest of the economy go down, which dries up demand for oil, which in turn destroys credit through default, and discourages further investment in exploration. I believe this is why in spite of the decline in oil prices, we have not seen any kind of surge in economic activity — but rather quite the opposite. The economy was already hit hard by not having as much energy available to put toward activities outside of energy exploration and production, and money is being destroyed through the process of credit destruction so there isn’t the capital available to be put to use capitalizing on lower energy prices. Once economic activity picks back up again, more energy is taken away for energy exploration and extraction, and the cycle repeats itself.

        In short, we’re in a whole new paradigm so far as energy goes.

        • Brent — JMG has also been a major influence on my thinking around these issues. One thing that he riffs on and is RARELY broached by anyone else is the way that the decline of the US Empire will severely inhibit our ability to just continue to force other countries to buy Treasuries in order to import resources (esp. oil) from the rest of the world. And the thing about empires is that they tend to seem like they’re going well on the surface, and then just collapse all at once. It’s worth remembering that in 1938 Britain was, at least on paper, still the ruler of about 1/3 of the globe, and by 1946 it was essentially a protectorate of the US. The Soviet menace was supposedly in ascendancy during the 1980s, and by 1991 it collapsed in upon itself.

          I often think nowadays, looking at the events unfolding around Syria over the past couple of years and how Russia has successfully undercut our standing several times, if we are witnessing the spreading of cracks through the imperial facade in real time.

  14. It was serendipitous that your interview with Nicole followed your show about the economy. This was a really great interview Jack.

  15. The mortgage thing:

    The issue with a mortgage, is that if you don’t continue to make the payments, you lose the property (even if you only have 5 payments left).

    If you’re in a depression, selling your property to extract your equity isn’t a possibility (no market for property and/or value of property has fallen destroying all equity).

    And CASH to pay the mortgage is extremely hard to come by.

    So, you have a productive/profitable farm, when you can sell duck eggs for $5/dozen.. but now you can only get $0.50/dozen (deflation).

    IMO, your world can be absolutely fine in this scenario, except for:
    1) debt denominated in dollars (which is all of it in the US)
    2) taxes denominated in dollars

    Both of these are your real problem as you can’t ‘manufacture dollars’ on your homestead. And failing to come up with dollars to meet these (potentially) rising demands becomes more and more difficult.

    [Taxes, especially local taxes, will rise as your local buearacracies scramble to stay alive. They will drain all of the remaining blood from the corpse before they expire.]

    Selling assets to meet these obligations can happen, but asset valuations will be extremely low. To include precious metals. This is just a reality of deflation (no buyers, not much cash).

    The ‘winners’ in this scenario are those who CAN ‘manufacture dollars’.

    Thinking about this made me realize there are some holes in the Harrison Bergeron story. What were the unemployed 85% of the population doing (welfare?)?

    If you look at the great depression, many of the people that lost their land/homes became nomads living in tent cities or temporary slums. But that’s not really possible for the BULK of the population. Simply because the mechanisms for controlling the population are insufficient to control them if bread and circuses aren’t keeping them ‘entertained’.

    So how does the fictional America AFTER the 2nd American Revolution? Everybody is dumbed down so now they’re employed? The 50’s they felt was the golden age that they reverted to was ‘full employment’ (originally) because the US was exporting everything it could manufacture to all of the destroyed economies of the world. So in Harrison’s world, the solution was..?

    I was reading a section of the Durant’s ‘Heroes of History’ this morning talking about Greece, and how it had reached a similar state to where we are today. Round one of their solutions, the laws of Draco (where the term ‘draconion’ comes from) to try and control the population.

    But the thing that ‘saved’ Greece and ushered in the Golden age?
    Solon coming in and wiping out all of the debt on the books, and returning some political power to the people.

    • What trips people up is the entire system is fake. When you really understand that it all makes sense.

      Like I said in my show about that movie, we will never get there because society will shift in adaptation.

      As to your comments on a mortgage, they are actually not relevant because of the above. You are going to pay almost as much to rent as I am as a buyer. I an accelerate my payments when ever I want. I pay less taxes because I own vs. rent.

      In the end, if I loose, I can get SOMETHING out of my property or if it gets as bad as doomers predict they can’t even foreclose on everyone, so they have to do something, anything. Just like 08 which wasn’t even really that bad.

      In the end those that buy smart loose not much even if they loose the farm. You take everything of real value with you and move on. You are then in the same boat as a renter.

      Oh and consider this, as a buyer I control my destiny. If I go broke so be it but I deal with the bank, I can influence the outcome.

      As a renter your land lord can go broke and YOU can’t do anything about that. You can end up tossed out just as easy. People say you can just move, really in a total shit hit the fan, where?

      Renting and buying are both strategies and neither is the better way, it is all situational. If things ever get as bad as some predict, I will likely be spending Texas Dollars.

    • To say this (maybe) more simply:

      A lack of ‘Money’ is not the problem as you can create your own money in your local economy (scrip, electronic currency, etc.) or barter

      You can even make the argument that city & county taxes/payroll could be paid in your local currency.

      A lack of US Dollars (or your countries ‘officially sanctioned’ currency) IS a problem, as failure to pay your extortion (taxes) will result in the seizure of your assets at the point of a gun.

      IMO, this is why the income tax came into existence at the same time as the FED. Without it, you could avoid having to ever use/acquire FED dollars. It guarantees that you NEED their product.

      • We agree but here is where it breaks down.

        The scenario drawn out would result in full default by almost everyone.

        I should not really have to say more. Tune in today for follow up.

      • I’m completely not making an ‘anti-mortgage’ argument, just laying out the rationale.

        I think the interviewee’s view might be slanted a bit because she is thinking of housing as a non-productive asset (shelter only). Homesteading is an entirely different matter. IMO You’re going to have an extremely difficult time homesteading effectively on a rental property.

        As for the ‘you might end up in a bad place and need to leave’ argument, that’s true regardless of if you rent or own. Either way, being a refugee sucks. But there’s no way to be 100% certain that you’ve chosen the right place (outside circle of influence).

        Personally, I’d rather be well planted, with deep roots when the storm comes. Rather than be a house plant in a pot. 😉

        But I do think there’s an argument for building up a decent store of CASH, before doing something like accelerating mortgage payments.

        (I think we’re all on board that all the other debt shouldn’t exist)

  16. Great guest and great interview. Except for here peak oil and mortgage views, I agreed with her almost 100%.

  17. I would be happy to engage in a follow up discussion to answer all the points raised. I have written about all these issues for many years and can explain in far greater detail than so far discussed. I think energy, psychology, property leverage and inflation/deflation would be particularly deserving of a follow up.

  18. Wow, really intelligent conversation. Reminds me of listening to Jim Rickards, where you are just blown away by the knowledge and delivery. Then want to jump off a bridge 🙁 Definitely a kindred spirit to Jack for ideas to solve the problems.

    So far technology has overcome resource exhaustion. It will be curious if new farming methods will do the same for farming, whether its permaculture, vertical farming, etc… or in fact if new technology will replace the financial system.

    “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future. “

  19. “Don’t get a mortgage because you lose your house if you can’t pay your mortgage”
    ……….. what happens if you don’t pay your rent?
    Nirvana fallacy, right.

    • =)

      The difference is that a property you own, is an asset. At a minimum you’re losing your down payment. Its likely you also have some equity, and in the case of a homestead that you’ve invested additional money in improving the property.

      If you have an interest only loan, and you got in with no down payment, and did nothing to the property.. yeah, then that’s pretty much the same (except your credit score).

      • That’s exactly what I was thinking. The downside to mortgages are the same as the downsides to renting, but you have upsides if you’re smart about it! I’ll rent to stay mobile, though.

  20. Should we prep? Yes

    Should we panic? No

    Should we panic and not raise our families, build our homes & life?

    Very intelligent data, but needs to be tempered with maturity.

    I could feel the panic in her voice. We have a lot of hope.

    Design your life full of liberty, dedication & freedom!

    Jack, thanks for being mature enough to develop Nicole into a ally of our community!


    • I didn’t pick up on any panic in her voice. This presentation was similar in a lot of ways to her presentations over the last 2-3 years, except modified slightly to include changes in the systems she is describing. Still enjoyable.

  21. Great guest, it was like trying to drink out of a fire hose. Please get her back as a guest.

  22. Today’s show can be summarized as, “Live realistically for the best, but have contingency plans for the worst.” OR “…live a better life if times get tough, or even if they don’t.” Hmm, where did I hear that?

    Jack, what do you think about”Insights for prospering as our world changes”?

    Also what do you think about the site Peak Prosperity where the above tagline comes from; its creator Chris Martenson; and its associated Resiliant Life – How to prepare for a better future? He has some of the same or similar guests on as you including Joel Salatin and others in the Paleo, financial, preparedness and other areas. You even had Martenson on The Survival Podcast in Episode 515 June 21, 2010.

    For those who do not know, Martenson generally focuses on the three areas: the economy, energy and the environment, which he posits are inexorably linked, with current abundant cheap energy being the driving force behind making more of the global population than ever live more like Pharos and kings than ever before. To clarify that, he notes that the energy in a gallon of gasoline that lets you ride for many miles would take many man-hours (or slaves) to accomplish.

    Further, beyond other sources of energy, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal or whatever, he sees oil as the ONLY currently significant energy-dense, widely-available source of energy that can power cars, trucks, ships, airplanes and other mobile equipment, including the vast array of most currently used farm equipment.

    His focus is not on peak oil, but CHEAP peak oil, and heavy crude at that, which can be used to make diesel fuel, which you cannot with the lighter fractions that come out of the Balkins.

    Relating cheap peak oil and the long term trend of the increased cost of extracting any resource, he along with others sees the long term result of driving the global economy down. Indeed, it does make sense that if the global economy, as it exists, is dependent on the constant extraction of resources at an ever-increasing expense, there is no other way for the economy to go but down.

    Some feel Martenson just follows the thinking of Thomas Malthus, 18th century philosopher who posited that that there was a limit to population and both are just “doomers.”

    Also it has been pointed out that if Martenson and others have been predicting economic collapse for some time, why hasn’t it happened? Many, along with Martenson have figured out so far that it seems to be a manipulated controlled descent.

    Both Martenson and Spirko have expressed how money and the perception of a sound economy is manipulated. Some of which expressed by either or both, Chris or Jack include quantitative easing; financial repression; statistics manipulation (GDP, employment numbers, etc.); juggling financials by corporations, big banks, central banks; countries like China; etc.

    However both Martenson and Spirko see countless opportunities, regardless of whatever may come. Jack’s emphasis on all aspects and all sizes of sustainable and regenerative agriculture is just one huge area of opportunity.

  23. OOps I didn’t realize I just put the search in the link. Sorry folks…

    Here is how I put it in facebook.
    Some songs make you smile, some artists make you feel good, but when a song is performed by an artist and his band that expresses their comfort, and joy while performing it, it just becomes a pure delight!

    • It’s the first song off of the Graceland album, which featured a troupe of South African musicians.

      Note that this album came out in 1986, when much of the world was turning against S. Africa due to their policy of racial apartheid. I remember watching a retrospective documentary on the making of the album a while back, and during the process Paul Simon came to realize how radical and influential it was for a successful, world-known musician like him to come together with a troupe of black South African traditional musicians in the face of apartheid.

      BTW- if you’ve never listened to the album in its entirety, FIND A COPY AND LISTEN TO IT ASAP. It is EPIC. The overlaying of Paul and Linda Ronstadt’s voices in “Under African Skies” is almost ethereal, and don’t even get me started on the background vocals of the South African musicians on “Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes”.

  24. I haven’t felt the urge to comment on a show before but this one was great. I hope you get Nicole back on for a follow up where you could have a discussion on a single subject.
    Great to listen to it again as there was a load on here to take in.

  25. peak oil, peak gas…. it’s all bull sh*t. We haven’t even started to explore how to extract the deep ocean frozen methane deposits sitting on the ocean floor. We could fuel the world for hundreds of years if they figure out how to tap the frozen methane.

    • IF they can get a decent return on the energy it takes to extract it.

      If they aren’t getting 5x as much energy as it takes to get it out, it’s not worth doing.

    • Here is what amazes me this is another almost religious issue.

      Two sides,

      The world is ending soon, peak already started, we will not even be able to air condition homes in Florida in a few years.


      There is absolutely no problem.

      I feel like a minority of about half a percent taking a middle position here. Sigh.

  26. Jack 2 thins:

    1 – IMO the most interesting thing she said to me was that we, the general public and I am including this audience and myself in this, don’t see lots of what is happening under the water so-to-speak that will make this economy go boom. As for time frame – Nobody knows – nobody except God himself. I even told Karl Denninger that – NOBODY. She’s a really well spoken and smart lady though so maybe she’s right about the time frame for the boom – a a few years (or less) – only time and God will tell.

    2- Depopulation – watch this – (no it’s not infowars.)
    part 1
    and part 2

    Great show as usual. Thanks.

  27. Hi All,

    I believe history indicates that Nicole’s narrative that the crunch will come like it did during the Tulip Bubble and Great Depression – fairly swiftly and brutally for most (not all) people – is correct.

    However, I have not agreed with Nicole’s view that the real serious break is relatively imminent… which she’s been doing since 2009. I think she assume more rationality in humans than actually exists. In a way, though, she’s been right, but just not all at once. Consider Greece, Cyprus, etc… they were broken a while back and Nicole has always said this collapse will be a process that will progress – and she is right on there.

    But when it finally comes, and I do believe that recent China’s 40% market is a strong indicator is **could be** close, I believe history shows her version will most likely be correct.

    The way this plays out for people with a mortgage depends on a number of things. Some include:

    1. How much does one owe?
    2. What are rents?
    3. Will one lose their job or keep it in the Greatest Depression?
    4. How much is the rental opportunity cost?
    5. Will the proceeds of the house sale be stolen ala Great Depression?
    6. Is the land productive from a survival standpoint.

    One point that few mention is that forgiven debt is normally a taxable event. If someone owes $400k on a home worth $450k right now, there is significant risk to the mortgagor regardless of how one answers the questions above.

    When the house drops below $400k (and it will when the Big Kahuna finally hits), the loss on the home becomes a taxable event when the home is sold. So if the home goes down to $300k (Nicole thinks sub $100k will not be unusual) and one defaults on the mortgage, the federal government considers than as a $100k GAIN in terms of income. Assuming a 40% top marginal tax rate, that means Mr. Bankster IRS will expect a $40k tax payment due December 31st of the same year as the default. This law has not been enforced the past few years, but it is a roll of the dice going forward and one should expect that it will be reinstated.

    This is a BIG ISSUE and all homeowners need to be well aware of it.

    Selling one’s home results in challenges, too – the challenge to keep the proceeds from being confiscated in one of a myriad of ways. Deflations don’t just consist of lower prices. The lower prices are an effect. Deflations consist of monetary asset CONFISCATIONS through bank failures and Debt-Money Monopolist financed and controlled government confiscation from ordinary people (amazingly, the Debt-Money Monopolist oligarch assets are protected).

    We live in interesting times.

  28. Regarding 911:

    My position is perfectly rational and based on observation and the laws of physics. While people disagree with my evidence based position, THEY NEVER ADDRESS THE ACTUAL OBSERVATION AND PHYSICS.

    Newton’s Third Law recognizes the fact that any applied force has an equal and opposite reaction. When you hit a cue ball, your cue stick decelerates as the force applied to the ball by the cue stick causes a force applied to the cue stick from the cue ball. When the cue ball hits the 8-ball, the cue ball decelerates.

    To argue that neither the cue stick nor the cue ball should have observed deceleration is irrational, absurd and contrary to the laws of physics.

    The WTC North Tower didn’t decelerate (the cue stick, the cue ball!) as it fell through the lower section of the building.

    If there was a “crushing force” from the top section of the building, there would be an equal and opposite force causing the top section of the building to decelerate.

    I don’t have an opinion that 2+2=4. Nor do I have an opinion that the top of WTC North Tower didn’t destroy the lower section of the North Tower. I know both are factually true.

    AitT – Sir Isaac Newton Weighs in on the World Trade Center North Tower Collapse Official Narrative

    Lack of Deceleration of North Tower’s Upper Section Proves Use of Explosives

    You can disagree that 2+2=4, but you can’t logically address the data and logic to validate your irrational point of view.

    You can also disagree with reality as codified in Newton’s Third law, but you can’t explain how there could be a crushing force with no equal and opposite force resulting in a deceleration of the crushing object (no deceleration observed, no force exists).

    But you aren’t being rational, not I. My belief is NOT religious oriented. It is actual science related.

    Now, it is true that ABSOLUTE PROOF will not sway most people. BUT THAT’S THE PROBLEM AND THE REASON WHY NO SOLUTIONS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED. Pretending the root cause of failure to any possible long term solution isn’t the root cause means that THERE ARE NO SOLUTIONS.

    This is why I’m a fan of the Trivium Method of intellectual self-defense. It defines a systematic method of accumulating knowledge.

    Mark Passio – The Trivium

    If you ignore the absolutely provable facts of histories most important events, then you can never truly comprehend how the world actually works. If you don’t know how the world actually works, THERE ARE NO SOLUTIONS to screw up because people get irrationally upset when exposed to the empirical truth.

    2+2 = 4. 2+2 != 5.

    • One can be convinced of absolute proof if one interprets facts incorrectly. Such as the time of the fall based on the video footage that assumes the fall is complete when well, it isn’t and there are about 40 more floors to go. Once one becomes convinced that what they know is absolute fact for that person it stays that way unless they want to consider an alternative. But whatever.

      • ModernSurvival,

        It is duly noted that you did not respond to the data I presented that contradicted Newton’s Third of Law.

        In case you don’t know why you didn’t refute it, it is because you can’t refute it anymore than you can refute 2+2=4.

        Any crushing force would, BY DEFINITION, result in an equal and opposite decelerating force acting on the upper section of the building.

        Since there was no deceleration observed for the top section of the building, there was no decelerating force and, therefore, there was no crushing force.

        I have no idea what straw man argument you are using to avoid the specific argument I’m making… because it isn’t relevant.

        And it isn’t “whatever,” at least for people who care about others, as the oligarchs find it so easy to manipulate and control us because we don’t employ a rational thought process in order to discern that which is real from that which is propaganda bull espoused by people with a vested interest in the outcome.

        • I didn’t refute it because there is no point, your assertion of Newton’s law is not proof of anything regarding the WTC.

          I know people like you if God himself told you to your face you were wrong, you still would not believe it. So what is there in wasting time trying to explain to you that which you refuse to comprehend?

          Answer is none, and that is a fact.

      • >>I didn’t refute it because there is no point, your assertion of Newton’s law is not proof of anything regarding the WTC.<<

        You didn't refute it because you can't refute it anymore than you can refute 2+2=4.

        Note that I include all evidence and argue logic. All my data is out there and available for critique – but nobody every critiques it… you included. Everyone has an excuse, though. -lol-

        Contrast that to your method of making declarations without any kind of evidence or logical argument. Can I critique the evidence and logic that supports your claim? Heck no – you offered none couched with a patently false assertion acting as an excuse to justify coming up empty… again.

        Since there was no equal and opposite deceleration force acting on the top section of the North Tower as it fell through the lower section of the building then there was no crushing force from the top section acting on the lower section of the building.

        PERIOD. To claim this isn't the case is to brandish a HUGE ignorance of basic physics.

        That is what the observable EVIDENCE and LOGIC proves beyond any and all doubt.

        It is not easy to battle reality… you need excuses… but you can't have actual evidence and logic because that would lead to reality… exactly as I outlined above.

        Now, I'm always open to missing something or being wrong. If someone doesn't think 2+2=4, then I'm all ears.

        If you think a crushing force down doesn't necessitate an decelerating force up, then I'm all ears.

        But, alas, you don't want to say that and try to support it (you subconsciously know you can't or you would try… but you won't!), nor do you want to admit to admit the ramifications of what your subconscious knows to be true.

        This is classic cognitive dissonance.

        It is also classic crimestop…

        crimestop – Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity."

        It also includes avoiding the actual evidence and making excuses to pretend that avoidance is justified.

        If you are going to declare this isn't true, then you need to explain exactly how there was no equal and opposite force decelerating the top section of the building as it applied a force to crush the lower section of the building.

        You won't do it, though. You can't do it. Nobody can. That's the point. I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm not so self-absorbed as to think my the truth cares one wit about my personal feelings.

        Until people can set their emotions aside and look at the evidence and go where it leads, we are meat on the table for the oligarchy that has been punking ordinary people for well over 100 years in America (and thousands of years all over the world before that).

        But you want go after the EVIDENCE.

        The only question that remains… is how you will avoid the EVIDENCE this time.

        • 2+2=4 is fact, 2+2=4 can be refuted if the person using the equation miss applies it to try to prove that say 2×6=4 simply because 2+2 does. Go away and bother someone that will buy into your bullshit.

      • Did you even review the material originally posted?

        AitT – Sir Isaac Newton Weighs in on the World Trade Center North Tower Collapse Official Narrative

        Lack of Deceleration of North Tower’s Upper Section Proves Use of Explosives

        Now, you appear to be claiming that Newton’s Third Law was misapplied in this evidence, but AGAIN, YOU DON’T PROVIDE ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM.

        If someone made a claim to you and refused to substantiate it, even after repeatedly being asked to do so, would you simply believe it or would you consider doing so to be foolish?

        Maybe there is an error in the evidence and the logic… you claim there is, BUT YOU NEVER PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE SO THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO VALIDATE YOUR CLAIM.

        You are far too “street smart” to believe making unsupported claims and repeatedly refusing to support them is an “intellectual endeavor.”

        Do the intellectual thing and explain how Newton’s Third was misapplied.

        While I could be wrong, and only data and logic can reasonably prove that to be the case (not repeatedly unsubstantiated claims), if I had to guess the following three conditions are true:

        1. You never reviewed the materials in the original videos up to this point, Did you? Your answer is sufficient evidence to answer this in my mind because I don’t think you’d lie about it. Now, be honest – don’t watch the videos now and claim you watched them. 😉 If you have not watched them by the time you are reading this, admit to it. If this is true, then you might want to start explaining how you can address a claim without reviewing the PRESENTED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
        2. You have already made you mind up on the 911 “big picture,” so your mind is closed to new evidence. This is what you and Nicole spoke about during your interview. Exactly. This is why people don’t change their minds – it is because they don’t evaluate evidence on its merits, rather, they first reach a conclusion and then filter the actual evidence, however irrationally (and it is irrational of you to repeatedly make claims and disregard requests to support your claims – and I think you are “street smart” enough to know this… in fact, I know it. If you “play dumb” here then crimestop is ruling the day and not your intellect), to conform to their prejudices (prejudge BEFORE reviewing all the evidence). This includes simply avoiding actual hard evidence contrary to your preconceived notion and, if the evidence is beyond any and all doubt, then you will just deny it while NEVER producing any evidence to back up your denial.
        3. You **STILL** won’t lay out the premise of your claimed argument (I argue you can’t, so you won’t!).

        Here’s a tip – there are ZERO contradictions in reality. In court, the alibi can act as a contradiction to 10 lbs of paper evidence pointing towards guilt – and correctly so.

        Imagine a prosecuting attorney doing what you are doing… declaring the alibi is false without providing a shred of evidence to counter the evidence of the alibi.

        Is that rational?

        Is that the side of reality you want to inhabit?

        Now, IF you really have analyzed the claim I’ve made, that no decelerating force existed on the top section of the building (equal and opposite to crushing force) because there was no crushing force exerted by the top of the building on the lower section of the building, the best thing you could do is share your analyses.

        You either can or you can’t. You can’t fool me by continuing to claim you know something that you don’t know – that’s fundamentally dishonest.

        If you know my original claim was wrong, EXPLAIN WHY! If not, any reasonable person would conclude you are lying about your claim and don’t back it up because you can’t.

        If you can’t back it up, THEN YOU CAN’T KNOW IT, and representing that you do is bearing false witness.

        So, which is it? Can you back it up with EVIDENCE and REASON or are you bearing false witness?

      • Oh, and your answer to the question as to how you will AVOID PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE is to 1. make another evidence free claim that the physics was misapplied, 2. tell me, actually, the argument that you can’t refute USING EVIDENCE, to go away, 3. make another evidence free claim that the argument I made is “bullshit.”

        Again, no evidence from Jack. Just more unsupported claims (bearing false witness?) and attacks using logical fallacy.

        My guess is you continue to get more angry as your irrationality is exposed.

        It is so simple to just provide THE EVIDENCE supporting your claims, Jack.

        I did. Why? Because my claims are BASED ON EVIDENCE.

        I don’t think your claims are based on anything beyond this trait that the oligarchs identified quite some time ago…

        We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think – in fact they do so.
        ~Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity (1925), p. 166.

        Now, the only BS here is making unsupported claims and punking out when REPEATEDLY ASKED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS.


        BTW, you are no dummy. You know that you can’t support your claims or you would support them and not avoid doing so like it was the plague.


        Come on, jack, shut me up rationally… with actual evidence! You claim you can, so do it! Just do it! Analyze the physics and show the error you claim is there.

        But, alas, you can’t. And you aren’t honest enough to admit it. Do you value the false appearance of winning this argument in the eyes of the clueless or do you value your integrity more?

        Your response will answer the question.

        • You think I am angry? Did you actually listen to this podcast and hear my thoughts about people like you? LMAO

          As for your demands that I respond to you, try that one more time and watch how quickly you can become a self correcting problem.

  29. Does anybody get that there are properties, weights, viscosities, mass, and such to the material we are chemically changing by refining and burning? What might all this do to the overall composition to the earth? How will it effect the spin? How will it effect it’s trajectory and the like?

    Do we have answers to these questions?

    I really hope there are other people with way more knowledge than me asking them.


  30. Dammit, Jack — you’ve gone and done it again!

    After I exchanged thoughts with you around peak oil earlier in the thread, I was working around my homestead over the weekend putting new siding on an outbuilding and moving my chicken tractor and composting operation — and just kept mulling over the arguments on both sides the whole time. “Thanks” for intruding on what is supposed to be a peaceful, reflective time for me and instead leaving me to have to work out these ideas in my own head!

    Just kidding — that is one of the things that I appreciate most about your show and your approach, it’s about making yourself THINK. Not to say that I agree with your stance on this issue, but at least you made me hold up and consider other possibilities — including the possibility that my conclusions might be incorrect.

    • It all comes with time man.

      There are reactionaries in every space and when you start to take in what peak oil means for humanity it is scary as hell. And you just look for things that confirm what you now believe and know, in time things start to seem more and more imminent.

      I don’t know that we really disagree, you may be hearing more mitigation then is really there in my critique simply because it isn’t 100% in alignment with “the crisis is now”.

      Take a trip back to this show in 2010, I have not changed my macro opinion on the issue since then.

      Likely you will nod in agreement a LOT more than shake your head in disagreement.

  31. After listening to the interview, I kind of shrug. The amount of definitives that the guest gives was exceptionally lacking. She had quite the voice and confidence to make all of these statements, but other than a handful of times everything was treated as certainty rather than analysis. Once I noticed this, it just kept coming.