Top Economic Advisers Forecast War and Unrest

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

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

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

Kyle Bass writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He responded:

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

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

Billionaire investor Jim Rogers notes:

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


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

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

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

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

Jim Rickards agrees:

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

As does Jim Rogers:

Trade wars always lead to wars.

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

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

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

Finally, multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

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

Indeed, senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

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

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

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

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

Many Warn of Unrest

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

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • wunsacon

    >> “Trade wars always lead to wars.”

    I object to this simplistic statement, because many “free market” types will likely use it to oppose placing tariffs on nations around the world that don’t respect people and the environment to the extent we do.

    We as a nation should have a right to pass laws that respect labor and the environment. If we allow other nations that don’t respect people or the environment to flood our markets with their externality-advantaged
    goods, then we give up our sovereignty.

    • wunsacon

      >> Dr. Paul was asked, “Do you think
      protectionism will lead to a crash in the international monetary
      system? He replied, “Nothing good can come of it….”

      Without some amount of “protectionism”, it’s worse than joining a currency union and giving up control of your own money. You give up your right to protect yourself from industrialists who operate by turning more of their costs into externalities.

      I wish people like Ron Paul would recognize what Ross Perot warned us about 20 years ago. We should never have dropped tariffs overnight. It should’ve been phased in over a decade. More importantly, tariffs should be raised to recoup the externalities those exporters aren’t charging. Otherwise, industrialists here, who operate by our rules, can’t make a profit. That means our trade deals undermine and invalidate the rest of our laws.

      Quick example: holding ourselves to CO2 limits while giving China a free reign simply means “all production moves to China” and “pollution continues unabated”. Therefore, to enforce any kind of CO2 limit without destroying its own industrial base, the US must protect itself by levying a tariff on Chinese imports.

      Now, if Ron Paul were to say “Nothing good will come of it, because our politicians suck and won’t protect our industry wisely!”, then I’d like to hear that. As it is, he’s making an overly simplistic statement, one that does not inform.

      • IndividualAudienceMember

        Yeesh, wunsacon, do you mercantilistic much, or what?

        Tango de’fascism too?

        Or do you just get paid to spew the company line?

        I feel pity for you if you’re just swept up in the tide and oblivious to the obvious.

        “Otherwise, industrialist here, who operate by our rules, can’t make a profit.”

        Uh, yeah, maybe “our rules” is the problem? Not competition.

        Also, what’s up with the “our” … have you not read, America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution?

        There is no “we” in empire.

        • wunsacon

          You got “dumb” written all over your post.

          • nveric

            “What I’m talking about is the different between fair competition and unfair competition.”

            I agree, however, how much longer can the game of capitalism continue? Capitalism is a game designed to have winners and losers. Competition is the hallmark of Capitalism, so there are winners and losers.

            Before thinking I desire another economic system currently known, I most certainly do not.

            With the current system, desires are said to drive the market. But, to what end is there? Meaning what? The perfect roll of toilet paper as the pinnacle of comfort?

            Our economic system serves but a paltry sampling of things which distract us from doing those things which derive worth not in comfort, but in survival. The human race survived to the point of killing themselves off instead. Does it, the human race, just continue with more of the same?

            Trade and competition are beginning steps I suppose, but we people have been doing so for thousands of years, yet many still live in squalor, die in war, and so on. And, today there are great numbers of people idle from the systems in use precisely from their antiquated nature – Trade and Competition.

            Humans differ from all other creatures in that we can leave the planet at will, but we instead cling to this planet, devising ways to grab more from others, like children.

            Is there another way to exist?

            People enjoy doing things which make themselves happy. There are alternatives to the current, brainwashed, system of desire, incentive, indoctrination. These current systems we use are based on the violence of survival.

            Is there another way to exist?

          • wunsacon

            >> Is there another way to live?

            nveric, we’ll find out whether there’s another way to live (or die) very soon, because IBM’s Watson is just the start of the biggest event thus far in human history. Ever. The onset of AI — besides being a potentially “extinction-level event” (ELE) — will usher in a greater change in human society than the switch from “hunter-gatherer” to “farmer”.

          • nveric

            AI’s of video games leave much to be desired, but mine are 10 years old. Canned “error” messages, likewise are not much better than they were 18 years ago. Paper tape programs were stable, along with wired magnetic memories, but limited.

            Will the AI’s have fail-safes built in?

            Testing software past keyboard entry routines becomes complex, if stability is desired.

            There’s a universe to explore. It focuses survival much better than the safety and security of a limited planet Earth.

  • Washington76

    Pentagon Inks Deal for Smartphone Tool That Scans Your Face, Eyes, Thumbs BY SPENCER ACKERMAN 02.13.13

  • eric swan

    I suspect that “central bankers” means Zionist bankers.

    • raymond francis jones

      illuminati bankers, You will find this out when Israel is and all her friends desert her, Zion would not desert Israel. but a fake Zion might.

    • sharonsj

      Christian and Muslim bankers are also part of the financial world, are they not?

    • thatsitivehadenough

      No. Rockefeller was NOT a Zionist but an anti-Semite. Nothing wrong with Zionist bankers if you understand what Zionist means. But clearly you don’t.

  • raymond francis jones

    Economy and war:- this is useless to us,if we make any profit out of war it will go to EU to make it richer,we have that many aliens working in Briton, what security have we got,if we wage war against any of their countries. Plus how many are working in our war factories,and who are we buying our equipment off.

  • Stribor

    Get rid of banksters, private federal reserve and problem solved. Wars make those greedy bastards even richer, because guess who produce weapons. And after the war, where everybody go to lend money?
    Producing of money can’t be in private hands, it is a NATIONAL interest. And how can you have democracy when government not govern money, somebody’s money govern over politicians. Also, in this system, police and military are not protecting national interest, but private interests of corporate & banking oligarchy. Wake up people!

    • Money is NOT in private hands. That’s the problem. Money was confiscated by St. Roosevelt in 1933. What’s left is script which banksters and politicians can ‘produce’ in unlimited amounts. Previously to that, money was mined by private hands and coined by the government. Also: Tomorrow the government can cancel the value of all FRNs and call them back for replacement with new currency. If that doesn’t settle the question of who owns the ‘money’, I don’t know what does.

      • Stribor

        OK, if Fed Reserve is not in private hands, if it is government money, why they borrow money from themselves with interest?

  • montanaconserv

    the one thing not mentioned is the PetroDollar… although one of the ‘eonomists’ mentioned we went into Iraq for oil, but we also went in because they started trading oil for gold instead of the US Dollar… same thing with Libya… once the market stops using the PetroDollar, the US Dollar will no longer be strong enough as the world reserve currency… then look out world.

  • My understanding of the last few verses of Daniel 11 tells me that the Islam’s caliphate [the king of the north] will destroy Israel and plant their tabernacles in the Holy Land, but through this process the caliphate itself will come to its’ end creating a vacuum in the Middle East. Thereupon the major powers will congregate for battle over the oil riches then up for grabs, little realizing that they are in the battle of Armageddon. At this very time Michael (Christ) will stand up [cease His intercession for mankind]; man’s probation closes creating a famine for the Word of God, but it will be too late. When Christ ceases pleading His blood in man’s behalf, Satan will plunge the earth into one final war and “there shall be a Time of Trouble such as never was since there was a nation” [Daniel 12:1] – this last war will be short but terrible just before Christ appears in the clouds of heaven to rescue those who love Him. All this is now getting very close. “Watch and be ye ready for in such an hour as ye think NOT, the Son of Man cometh.”

  • Washington76

    Here is a little insight! Muslim Brotherhood Operatives Barack Obama and John Brennan

  • a1b5jj

    given all the instabilities percolating right now in Europe and Libya and Israel, it would seem a miracle indeed to get out of the present situation with only one or two Japanese Lost Decades, instead of WWIII. The truly tragic and sad thing is the current economic depression was entireley preventable, if only Wall Street sociopaths were reined in by some common sense, instead of being allowed to buy off Congress and sucker the poor into fraudulent mortages to line their pockets with CDO commissions.

  • yusiitawo
  • yusiitawo
  • roneyshaheen

    شركة نظافة بالمدينة المنورة