January 19, 2024

Chevron, and the Pope and Marxists

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the
prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming
such opinions. ~ Einstein

Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I
have ever read.
~ Salman Rushdie

The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God; inflation
is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is
a policy. - Ludwig von Mises

If people can’t control their own emotions then they have to start to control other
people’s behavior.
~ John Cleese
Markets
Updated Charts

No change in outlook . We are very near a top of some kind in the stock markets.

An article by John Mauldin at the end of this post outlines where we are heading. His
newsletter is free and you should consider subscribing. It includes many of my
themes: there was a time when we could have fixed it, that time has passed, trouble is
coming, it will not be fun.
The only way out is to devalue the dollar, which means lowering your standard of
living, for, I donno, at least a decade; maybe a generation.

Short Takes
I'm in the process of reading Dave Collum's Year in Review. I love it, I hate it, he has
great insights and is infuriating. Give it a read.
But it will stimulate some thoughts that will wind up in this space - and some quotes
in my quote section.

In case you didn't know

The best (?) one since Jewish space lasers - from Laura Loomer -
We all know @NikkiHaley has a lot of friends in the defense industry and
Military industrial complex. She’s losing in Iowa, and now Iowa is set to get hit
with a ONCE IN A DECADE blizzard as Donald Trump is set to dominate the
Iowa Caucus.
Is the Deep State using HAARP to rig the Iowa Caucus?
Looks like weather manipulation to me.
Take a look at this weather radar below and how the incoming snow storm
accelerated out of nowhere.

Don't mess with Texas - the US Department of Transportation decrees - (CMS is an

electronic highway message sign)
A CMS should not be used to display a traffic safety campaign message if doing
so could adversely affect respect for the sign. Messages with obscure or
secondary meanings, such as those with popular culture references,
unconventional sign legend syntax, or that are intended to be humorous, should
not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited
segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand.
Similarly, slogan-type messages and the display of statistical information should
not be used.

Still a long way to go

The CBS News/YouGov poll found that former President Trump, former U.N.
Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis each edge out Biden in
a head-to-head match-up. While Trump remains the clear favorite in the GOP
primary, Haley fared the best against Biden.

The man has a point -

I don't know whether to cheer or throw my hands up in disgust.
In the miniseries, Echo, Alaqua Cox plays Marvel's first deaf, Indigenous
superhero. She also (really) has an artificial leg. Evidently, her superpowers are
healing (I guess, except for the hearing and the leg) and the ability to copy
anyone's fighting style.

George Friedman in Geopolitical Futures, thinking about 2024

Forecast and Conclusions
Currently, the economy has few imbalances and is likely to stabilize at a
relatively strong level this year. Compared with previous economic
performances, especially those of the pre-Reagan era, today’s economy is more
robust, with predictable imbalances that can be institutionally imposed,
including by the Federal Reserve. The current sentiment in the political system
and financial communities is actually positive. Distrust has not yet forced the
economy into recession. Based on precedent, a breakdown would be unlikely.
However, the usual pessimism that is generated during an election year is at
play. The challenger to the incumbent tends to magnify the problems at hand.
The supporters can spread the pessimism, on which they may have little
influence and try to turn it into a self-generating force. But the length of the
campaign period from selection of candidates to the actual vote places severe
limits on this strategy.
Even so, institutions of the United States are ripe for disruption. We are 80 years
removed from the last institutional shift, so the moment is here, albeit with some
flexibility. We would be more confident in a looming crisis if the U.S. were
involved in a larger war involving U.S. casualties. However, we expect the
Ukraine war to reach a negotiated end in the next year and do not see the Israel-
Hamas conflict significantly impacting the U.S.
We are of similar mind on social and economic matters. The economy is much
stronger than it was in the 1970s and the 1930s, which were the last moments of
economic breakdown in our model. We do not see a major breakdown in the
next year.
Nor do we believe that the 2024 election will be the pivotal moment for the
socio-economic crisis to come to a head. That won’t happen until the election of
2028, almost 50 years after the previous marker, Ronald Reagan’s election. We
do not know who will be the next president, but we do not see the president as a
very powerful figure. Aside from their symbolic role, presidents are trapped by
any number of constraints outside their control.
It will be a noisy year, and there will be rage, but our model shows that this will
not be the year of major shifts. The obvious caveat is if a much larger war breaks
out. If that occurs, we obviously will have a different forecast and red faces,
common in our craft

Fascinating and deeply, deeply disturbing. After Trump won Iowa, Rachel Madow
announced that MSNBC would not carry his victory speech. She said that they would
not provide a platform to things they knew to be untrue - of course before hearing his
speech. She also said that if there was anything newsworthy in the speech, they would
let us know.
This is going to be one hell of a process.
From The Telegraph
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers) has scrapped eligibility criteria blocking white
students from applying for internships in the US after it became embroiled in a
discrimination row.
The Big Four accountant, which employs 46,000 people across the US, has
removed race-based restrictions on internship and fellowship schemes designed
to help students prepare for their accounting exams.
The initiatives were previously open to applications only from ethnic minority
students, and those who are disabled or former veterans, as part of PwC’s
recruitment efforts to boost diversity across its US offices, the Financial Times
reported.

Writing for Politico, Nahal Toosi explored the increasingly dire concerns of foreign
diplomats about the state of American politics. “When I asked the European
ambassador to talk to me about America’s deepening partisan divide, I expected a
polite brushoff at best,” she wrote. “Instead, the ambassador unloaded for an hour,
warning that America’s poisonous politics are hurting its security, its economy, its
friends and its standing as a pillar of democracy and global stability. The U.S. is a ‘fat
buffalo trying to take a nap’ as hungry wolves approach, the envoy mused. ‘I can hear
those Champagne bottle corks popping in Moscow—like it’s Christmas every f—ing
day.’ As voters cast ballots in the Iowa caucuses Monday, many in the United States
see this year’s presidential election as a test of American democracy. But, in a series
of conversations with a dozen current and former diplomats, I sensed that to many of
our friends abroad, the U.S. is already failing that test. The diplomats are aghast that
so many U.S. leaders let their zeal for partisan politics prevent the basic functions of
government. It’s a major topic of conversations at their private dinners and gatherings.
Many of those I talked to were granted anonymity to be as candid with me as they are
with each other. For example, one former Arab ambassador who was posted in the
U.S. during both Republican and Democratic administrations told me American
politics have become so unhealthy that he’d turn down a chance to return. ‘I don’t
know if in the coming years people will be looking at the United States as a model for
democracy,’ a second Arab diplomat warned.”
It Ain't Easy Being Green
California
Facing big deficits, the governor has proposed taking a bigger chunk out of climate
programs in his new budget — about 7% — and spreading the funds over seven years.

Bulgaria’s top Court ruled that the installation of agrophotovoltaics (APV) on arable
land – used to produce both solar energy and agricultural products in the same area –
is unconstitutional.

Mandating EVs is basically mandating dependence on China, at least for decades to

come if/until the US can build enough mines and processes facilities to manufacture
magnets and metals needed for EVs. - Penguin Empire Reports on Substack

From the Washington Post

North America has lost nearly 30% of its bird population in a half-century.
 Which birds? White-throated sparrows, American crows and American
goldfinches are some types that have grown rarer. You can search the losses in
your neighborhood here.
 Why is this happening? We are largely to blame. Birds’ biggest challenges —
habitat loss, pesticides, glass windows and even domestic cats — are all human-
made.

Global coal-fired power generation reached a record-high level in 2023, per data from
environmental think tank Ember reported by Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire.

Ford Cuts Production of F-150 Lightning Electric Truck

War, Energy and Food

President Joe Biden, asked if airstrikes against Houthi rebels were “working”:
“Well, when you say ‘working,’ are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to
continue? Yes.”

Pope: Marxists And Christians Have A Common Mission

You may recall that I was, until age 19, an ardent Christian (Presbyterian). I read
the Bible and numerous commentaries and (translations of) original translations -
probably the first example of my diving into things.
I quickly noticed that Christianity and capitalism were incompatible. I did not know it
at the time, but this was the beginning of my understanding that people pick and
choose the things they like about ... religion, politics ... and ignore the awkward bits.
That theory would not become fully baked for another, maybe 25 years. In the mean
time, I followed that pattern and ignored all the contradictions and difficulties in
the Bible. For a while.
Christianity preaches that you should not divorce, homosexuality is a sin, sex should
be reserved for marriage and women should not speak up in church are just pretty
much ignored by all modern Christians, as is the problem of hell.
While the whole, give-away-all-of-your-goods-to-the-poor, thing is a good hint that
Christianity is fundamentally socialist, Jesus' saying that it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven is a dead give-away.
Although there are exceptions, this giving away of goods has historically been a non-
starter for all Christians.
The other thing that I did was read Papal encyclicals on capitalism and, later, on
subjects like global warming. It was clear that modern Popes have little patience with
greed or income inequality.
Pope Francis is an interesting guy - championing homosexuals, for example. He is
also determined to speak Christian truth about capitalism.
While Pope Paul II denounced Marxism for its atheism, Francis focused on different
characteristics.
From a press release put out by the Vatican:
Pope Francis encouraged the Marxist-Christian dialogue group Dialop to work
together for the disadvantaged and against corruption and abuse of power.
Christians as well as socialists, Marxists and communists should build a "better,
fraternal future" for a world divided by wars and polarisation, said Francis at a
reception in the Vatican on Wednesday. He said it was important to overcome
rigid, divisive approaches, conduct disputes with an open heart and listen to one
another without excluding anyone on political, social or religious grounds.
"Do not allow finance and the market to dictate the law," the Pope urged his
guests. They should "not stop dreaming of a better world", in which ideals such
as freedom, equality, dignity and fraternity are upheld; these ideals are a "mirror
of God's dream" for humanity.
The Pope wished for "the courage to step outside the box", as well as an
openness in dialogue for "new paths". Full attention must be paid to the weak:
the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, migrants, the exploited and all those
who are marginalised by a throwaway culture. Dealing with them is the measure
of a civilisation. The great dictatorships such as National Socialism had
discarded and even killed precisely these groups, Francis recalled.
There really is nowhere to go with this, except to recognize that humans are
hypocrites, including about their most fundamental beliefs.
But, we knew that, already.
The Supreme Court and the Chevron Decision
I am in strong agreement with those who want to overturn Chevron.
In essence, the Chevron decision says that courts should defer to regulatory agencies.
If a regulatory agency supports a questionable practice, then the regulation should
continue to be followed.
What that has led to is government by regulatory agency. Congress, in effect, passes a
law that says that something should be done and a particular regulatory agency should
figure out how to do it. Regulatory agencies then issue numerous regulations, many of
which do not have much to do with the original issue.
This is not democracy. It is rule by bureaucrats.
It lets Congress off the hook and politicizes every decision and is one reason Congress
is now so ineffective. When we get a new administration, we get new rules; new
regulations. Biden came in and began tossing out Trumpian regulations (with the
notable exceptions of immigration and Chinese tariffs).
Since we humans take every trend to its logical absurdity, this process is now absurd.
So, a case gets to the Supreme Court which provides the opportunity to rethink
Chevron.
Hearings have been held and it looks like there is a good chance that Chevron will be
overturned.
However, the country faces the issue that it has been doing things one way, so that
institutions and processes and precedents are set up to operate that way, even if it is
the wrong way. Changing will be very difficult and many, many regulations will have
to be revisited. While it, IMO, would be the correct decision, it would cause a lot of
upheaval.
Ian Bremmer summarizes the ideological positions as follows:
Taking sides: Conservative justices showed skepticism about Chevron, arguing
that it allows agencies to change tack on regulation with each new
administration. But Liberal justices worry that overturning it could mean that the
courts and Congress – as opposed to exports and career professionals in federal
agencies – will become the regulators of everything from AI to pharmaceuticals.
Why it matters: If Chevron is negated, it would give more power to the courts
while ushering in a period of deregulation and a deluge of litigation from
companies filing for their regulations to be overturned. Decades of regulation
involving the environment, the stock market, on-the-job safety, health care,
consumer safety, and guns are all expected to be affected if Chevron is thrown
overboard.
It will be like trying to kick heroin. The right thing to do, but a lot of suffering until
we get there.
Miscellany
Definitely not funny

Mauldin

No Way Out
By John Mauldin | Jan 13, 2024

Unbalanced, Imprudent, and Poorly Timed

Crying Wolf
Bipartisan Debt
Naples, Washington, DC, NYC, and Cape Town
Having now spent almost six months describing the historical cycles and massive debt
that surround us, I find myself looking for an “easy” exit. Maybe one exists, but I
haven’t found it yet. I think we’re stuck. The building will have to collapse around us
before we can leave.
This is obviously not a great situation. For one thing, if we don't plan properly, the
building could easily collapse on us instead of around us. Our entrapment may also
cause us to neglect other big problems and maybe miss important opportunities.
The sad fact is we have no easy way out of the debt situation. Worse, we are actually
choosing this fate. It’s not about individual choices; none of us want the crisis that’s
coming. But all the solutions require joint actions we are apparently unable to take.
Which means we are, by default, choosing a path which for many will be catastrophe.
We face this not just because of government policy choices but the political process
itself. It is a function of the two-party system. Our system has lost the ability to act
decisively against big problems we all see coming. We are a nation of deer in the
headlights.
But our system won’t stay paralyzed forever. At some point, we’ll see action because
the crisis will have become impossible to ignore. Then we’ll respond. It will be a
furious, poorly planned response with massive side effects that could have been
avoided unless some of us begin thinking about possible solutions in advance.
Melodramatic? Hyperbole? Let's rewind the clock to 2008 when then-Treasury
Secretary Hank Paulson literally got on his knees to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
begging her to authorize the bailout for the banks. The system was getting ready to
collapse. The plan was poorly thought out, but that is my point. No one really “war-
gamed” the possible solutions and choices in advance. Rather, with leaders on both
sides of the aisle staring into the abyss and realizing there was no bottom, they made
the best choices they could in a very short time.
Now we have an approaching debt crisis we can actually think about in advance. I
believe—and hope it’s not just my naive optimism—we will have some time to
consider solutions. And as I have been saying for years, nobody will be happy. We
have gone way past the time for relatively easy fixes. Having cut taxes and increased
spending, we are running almost $2 trillion deficits annually.
As we will see below, when I suggested part of a future compromise, I got serious
pushback from readers on both sides. And the irony is I understand the frustration.
Viscerally. I agree that everything that I have suggested in the past few weeks and
months are bad choices. But in the future, the worst choice will be doing nothing and
letting the economy collapse around our ears. Some might come through it, but the
vast, vast majority of us won’t.
That’s not the future I want to predict, but I see no other possibilities. I think we have
a few years left but there are already mutterings of stress in the US bond markets.
Then again, perhaps the denouement will take longer than I think (Japan?), but it will
arrive. Today we’ll talk about why.
Want to look over John's shoulder? Get 3 pieces of research vetted by John Mauldin
every week in your subscription of Over My Shoulder.
Click for more details.

Unbalanced, Imprudent, and Poorly

Timed
Mathematically, balancing the budget is no great mystery. We know what to do: cut
spending and/or raise revenue until the two sides match. But that’s where it all breaks
down. No one wants their favorite spending programs reduced or their taxes raised.
This was evident in my letter last month describing a possible value-added tax
(VAT) system. It drew far more responses than I usually get, and they were mostly
negative. The very idea of any new tax, even one paired with spending reforms and
cuts to other taxes, outraged many readers. These are direct quotes from reader
emails:
 “Taxes by our corrupt leaders are NEVER dialed back!! You are dreaming!”
 “We all know that once a tax increase is allowed, the spending reductions would
be ignored.”
 “You need to cut spending, not reward incompetence and corruption with more
gravy.”
 “Absolutely no VAT. Politicians need to control spending. Live within your
means. There is so much waste and fraud.”
 “Worst idea ever. Start by cutting the size of the government.”
 “If you think the US policy makers would stay put with a 5% VAT—I have a
bridge to sell you. They’ll just keep increasing it and won’t cut a tinker’s damn
from spending.”
 “You have clearly lost your mind. You have bought into WOKE. If you give a
politician an opportunity to soak you, he or she will. The party makes very little
difference these days.”
 “Another tax? The political class will surely love another source to keep blowing
money in newfound ways.”
This isn’t a random sample of the population, of course, but I think the sentiment is
common. Many people simply don’t trust elected officials to do what elected officials
are supposed to do. They have good reason to feel that way, too.
Contrary to what a few readers think, I'm not on some ideological campaign to raise
taxes. I would actually like to reduce income taxes and replace them with a VAT
because consumption taxes are less economically distorting. And also cut a lot of
spending. We could even have a higher VAT and eliminate Social Security taxes.
There are lots of options and my preferences are just a few of scores of options. That
is what compromise will look like.
Many said, in various ways, they would agree to new or higher taxes only after every
possible spending cut had been tried. But no one specified what spending they would
cut. At most, they alluded to vague “waste and fraud.” What is that? We have been
trying to cut out waste and fraud for my entire adult life, and I’m sure we have done
so in a few areas, but then we add other spending on top of it.
Worse, our decades of delay mean balancing the budget with spending cuts alone
would require draconian cuts that would wreak havoc on the economy.
The experts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget put a pencil to
this last year. They found balancing the budget by 2033 with spending cuts alone
would require immediately slashing 27% of all federal outlays. That would include
defense, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, law enforcement, border
protection—everything.

That number rises quickly if you start exempting certain categories. Wall off Social
Security, Medicare, defense, and veterans programs (plus interest on the debt!) and
balancing the budget by 2033 would require 78% cuts to everything else the
government does.
I am not here to argue everything the government does is helpful or productive. A
great deal of it isn’t. Waste and fraud happen, too. But if you think such giant cuts
wouldn’t cause enormous turmoil and side effects, I think you are sadly mistaken. Our
entire economy is optimized to the assumption the government will always do certain
things.
For example, if you think air travel is miserable now, wait until they fire 8 out of 10
TSA agents and air traffic controllers. Do you really think the air traffic would be safe
in today’s environment without TSA? Trust me, after millions of miles in the air, I get
the frustration with TSA more than most. Yes, we could raise airline ticket fees to pay
for the TSA. Maybe we should. But that’s just one small example. There are literally
scores of other things we depend on the government to do effectively. Can the private
sector do a lot of them? Sure. And that will almost assuredly be part of the solution.
But it’s not something we can set up quickly.
What we need is a rational process of balanced, prudent, well-planned privatization,
spending cuts, and tax reforms. That is nowhere on the radar right now. When the
crisis comes, without some of us thinking about possible solutions, we’ll get the
opposite: unbalanced, imprudent, and poorly planned.
And as bad as those changes will be, at that point they’ll be better than the
alternatives. Just like 2008.

Crying Wolf
I have been saying this for a distressingly long time, long enough to be labelled “the
boy who cried wolf.” And others were saying it years before I did. The coming debt
crisis may be the most widely predicted one in history.
But here’s the rub: Wolves actually exist and, given the opportunity, can hurt you
badly. There is no doubt the debt exists, and that our ability to sustain it is steadily
declining. Anyone paying attention to political news, no matter what side you’re on,
can see we’re doing nothing to change course. I don’t feel like I’m crying wolf. But
I’ll admit to being early. Timing is hard.
For example, here’s a quote from my May 7, 2011, letter titled Muddle Through, or
Crisis?:
“I think we have two choices as a country. We can elect to deal with the deficit
proactively or wait until there is a crisis and react. And make no mistake, there is an
approaching Endgame, with regard to how much debt the market will let us have. We
don’t know that point now, but if it happens it will be quite a ‘surprise!’
“… Let’s assume we do not deal with the deficit in any meaningful way. Eventually
the debt will rise to epic, Greek proportions. The bond vigilantes arise from the dead
and start to push up interest rates. Interest as a percentage of government spending
rises, crowding out other government expenses or increasing the debt still further.
“Then we have a crisis. We are FORCED by the bond market to get the deficits under
control, but now we are doing so in a crisis. Health care will have to be slashed by far
more than it would in a more controlled scenario. Tax increases will be brutal. You
think Social Security is untouchable? Not in this crisis world. Means testing and
spending freezes will be the rule of the day. Military cuts will seem draconian. Our
allies who depend on us for a defense shield will not be happy. Federal education
spending? Not all of it, but some of it will be on the chopping block…
“What’s my basis for this? History. This movie has played over and over again in
various countries in modern history. While we may be the world’s superpower, we are
not immune from the laws of economic reality.
“In such a scenario, I expect QE 4-5-6. Could the Fed literally monetize the debt and
then “poof” it? When our backs are against the wall, don’t assume that what has been
seen as normal will be the reigning paradigm.”
I wrote that almost 13 years ago and I stand by every word today. Crisis is coming. If
we had taken some relatively modest steps to avoid it when I wrote those words, we
would be in a better position now. We didn’t… so here we are.

Bipartisan Debt
The most frustrating part is this could all have developed quite differently. As recently
as 2001 the federal government had a budget surplus. Revenue was actually about
$133 billion more than spending that year. There were smaller surpluses in 1999 and
2000. They resulted from a unique set of circumstances: the strong 1990s economy,
low interest rates, and bipartisan tax and spending reforms. Bill Clinton and Newt
Gingrich, realizing neither would get anywhere without the other, worked together
and (trigger warning!) compromised to get some of what each wanted.
Alas, this brief period of sanity ended after 2001. Had it continued we might have
slowly paid down the debt. Fantasy? No, not at all. CRFB issued a report last week
showing what might have been. It’s long but well worth reading.
(Note: My Over My Shoulder members got an annotated version and summary of this
report last week. You should look into joining them.)
“In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the national debt
would effectively be paid off in full by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. Instead,
federal debt held by the public grew from 32 percent of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) at the end of FY 2001 to 98 percent of GDP at the end of FY 2023.
“Reviewing major deficit-increasing legislation and executive actions over the past 22
years, we find that major tax cuts are responsible for 37 percentage points of debt-to-
GDP, net discretionary spending increases and major Medicare expansions are
responsible for 33 percentage points, and response measures to the Great Recession
and the COVID-19 pandemic and recession—before accounting for economic
feedback—explain 28 percentage points.
“Absent any two of these sets of policies, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be near the FY
2001 level. Absent these tax cuts, spending increases, and recession responses, debt
would be fully paid off.”
John here again. It’s fair to wonder what skipping the “recession responses” would
have done. Certainly, some of the spending was excessive and even
counterproductive. But leaving millions to fend for themselves in a crashing economy
might not have worked out so well, either. Even so, simply omitting the other
spending increases and tax cuts over this period would have us in a far better position
now.
(Note: More than a few readers observed that debt-to-GDP is more than 98%. When
the CRFB and most budget analysts talk about debt-to-GDP, they use “debt held by
the public,” not counting the Social Security trust fund and similar arrangements. The
all-in debt-to-GDP ratio is 122%, as tracked by that wonderful website
USdebtclock.org.)
Source: US Debt Clock
CRFB looked specifically at the tax and spending bills that account for the debt
growth and found it was mostly bipartisan.
“Of the policies we reviewed, 77 percentage points of debt-to-GDP can be explained
by legislation with some meaningful level of bipartisan support. Highly partisan
Democratic actions explain 12 percentage points, and highly partisan Republican
actions explain 8 percentage points. Many bipartisan actions extended policies that
were originally more partisan in nature.”
John here again. Let me repeat that: CRFB finds 77 percentage points of the current
98% (122%) debt/GDP ratio can be attributed to legislation that passed with strong
bipartisan support. That means the politicians were probably confident their voters
would like it.
All this legislation was also scored by the CBO, so representatives and senators knew
(roughly) what it would do to the debt. They did it anyway.
More debt growth is coming. Eventually, as I explained in that 2011 quote above, the
bond market will stop absorbing it… and then we’ll have the crisis that forces change.
I am hearing from my sources that the primary dealers who are responsible for buying
US Treasury debt are beginning to wonder how they will absorb $9 trillion worth of
debt this year? Yes, 80% of that will be rollover so should be manageable but at some
point…?
Worse, there is a strong chance this debt crisis will coincide with the kind of cyclical
social crisis I’ve described in this series. Neil Howe, George Friedman, Peter Turchin,
and Ray Dalio (among others) have all warned us it will be bad. Add a debt crisis on
top? We’d better buckle up.
We will get through it. We always do. But at what cost?