{"id":378,"date":"2009-04-06T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-06T00:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/blog\/?p=378"},"modified":"2009-04-06T00:01:00","modified_gmt":"2009-04-06T00:01:00","slug":"orientarse-en-el-caos-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/orientarse-en-el-caos-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Finding Your Way Through Chaos (I)."},"content":{"rendered":"

Note: As this article is quite long, we will be publishing it in two parts.<\/span><\/p>\n

In response to the previous article by Fried Anchovies (VII)<\/span>, let\u2019s start by saying, DJ, that in your comment you make some observations that would be very interesting to consider from a position of the most absolute scepticism. Let me explain: You talk about \u00absolve the problem<\/span>\u00ab. And one might well ask whether we want to solve this by returning to our roots of credit-fuelled greed, of financiers and investors<\/a> playing to win without producing anything. Perhaps the most detached approach would be to watch and suffer through the collapse of the system with great attention. I\u2019m not saying it has to be that way; I\u2019m just not entirely convinced that a solution which takes us back to the virtual well-being we came from \u2013 a magician\u2019s trick of a solution \u2013 is in our best interests, blue pill.<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>If we were to consider the absurdity of having to advise a government or even the G20 itself, we would, of course, have no idea where to begin. Protecting assets at the present time is child\u2019s play compared to the solution you are asking of us. We could probably only attempt to analyse the situation from our own perspective and personal experience. In that attempt to determine where we stand and what we\u2019ll be facing, I\u2019d say we should forget about the world as we know it. I\u2019m convinced there\u2019s no turning back and that we\u2019ve definitively abandoned the familiar financial model. What would we do and what would we recommend? To what end? To return to something that has proven to be unsustainable and recklessly unrealistic? I honestly am not sure what the purpose would be of our surreal advice to a G20 that is supposed to lead the way into the future. I suspect that our advice should help to create and contribute to a system that is better than the one we know, but it should not seek to find a way back \u2013 amongst other reasons, because such a way probably does not exist.<\/p>\n

A great deal of social suffering will surely be inevitable in a part of the world as unaccustomed to it as the West itself. You also mention that we might not wish to explain our views in detail regarding what lies ahead, and although for the most part we have been setting these out article by article in the 250 we have already published over the last two years, this is partly true. But this is not because we wish to avoid sharing our views on the matter freely \u2013 far from it. Rather, it is because we might say things that it would be irresponsible to publish in a medium which, whilst modest, does have a certain reach. Our clients \u2013 both those who pay and those we assist free of charge \u2013 are well aware of our comprehensive view of the current situation and the detailed proposals for the future, tailored to each of them. And I must also say that, as is to be expected, not everyone shares our view of the situation we are currently facing or of the prospects for the future.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The deterioration of the system is proceeding at a steady pace, with some the inertia of an oil tanker<\/a> which means that most people fail to realise the irreversibility of the collapse of the financial system as we know it. At best, we will be set back many decades in terms of the wealth created. And perhaps this is precisely because it only appeared to have been created, whilst in reality it was simulated by leverage based exclusively on the single-generation benefit<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The chronological sequence has been as follows: the collapse of the banking system, triggered by a credit bubble within which lay another property bubble (in the USA and certain European and Asian countries). To prevent this banking collapse, governments decided that Lehman Brothers would be the last and only major casualty the system could afford. Consequently, government finances have been put at the service of bailing out the banking system. We are now witnessing the collapse of those governments with the least capacity to withstand the crisis, both in terms of rescuing their financial institutions and in terms of their own resilience to the collapse of their macroeconomic indicators (unemployment, GDP, loan defaults, crime and social unrest, etc.). Among these first countries to go bankrupt, some have their own currency with which to try to alleviate their extreme situations, whilst others do not. Some are already being kept afloat by neighbouring states or supranational bodies that cannot afford to let their neighbours go up in smoke. But the countdown is inexorable for the weakest, and also for those who were the most reckless and least rigorous during the golden years we buried less than two years ago.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Subsequently, even the most resilient states will face extreme crises. And from there, depending on the fate of the weakest, the seed of the new system must emerge.<\/span> Perhaps simply because, beyond the so-called leading powers, there is nothing else \u2013 the end of the line, game over. That is why this will be the decisive moment in the creation of the new system. There are so many unknowns, and they are so significant, that it is impossible for us to predict with any degree of certainty the principles that may govern this new system. Nevertheless, it seems logical to assume that the East in general, and China and India in particular, will have a major say in the New World Economic Order that we will see in a few years\u2019 time. The oil-rich Middle East will also play a role, at least whilst the world remains dependent on fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

(To be continued in the next article\u2026<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nota: Debido a la extensi\u00f3n de este art\u00edculo, lo publicaremos en dos partes. En respuesta al anterior art\u00edculo de Boquerones Fritos (VII), comenzaremos diciendo, DJ, que en tu comentario haces reflexiones que ser\u00eda muy interesante plantearse desde el escepticismo m\u00e1s absoluto. Me explico: Hablas de \u00absolucionar el problema\u00ab. Y cabr\u00eda preguntarse si queremos solucionarlo volviendo […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categorizar"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/378\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}