- If the navies of the world were putting to sea en masse
- and they are (10 carrier groups out from US alone - 93 per cent of ALL
US naval ships are at sea - official stats)....
-
- And if the Federal Reserve Bank was force-feeding liquidity
into the system at rates that exceeded the post-911 period, then a few
reasonably sound deductions might be made of this....
-
- But first, some assumptions:
-
- 1) Navies put to sea when they expect severe weather.
-
- 2) It is very expensive to keep navies at sea for any
length of time, and the poorer the country, the shorter the time possible.
-
- 3) Navies do *not* put to sea en masse for war, especially
nuclear war (think about it, the task forces are easy to find. Lob in
a nuclear warhead and, voila: no more task force (and no 'collateral
- damages or radioactive real estate).
-
- 4) The Fed forcing money into the system has a short
term, limited effect - likely on the order of less than 2 month's cycle
time (money velocity through the system).
-
- Therefore, our deductions might be as follows:
-
- a) Since many of the most powerful nations have sent
their naval forces to sea, then whatever the reason for it, it not likely
to be a political one.
-
- b) Because so many navies are at sea, it seems logical
that the powers that be suspect something of a global dimension to occur
that would adversely affect ships if there were in port. This argues for
both global impact, and climatic/environmental dynamic, as no purely political/social
event would affect all navies planet-wide.
-
- c) Since navies can only mill-about so long on the water,
especially en masse, the 'whatever' is a short-term expectation.
-
- d) Since the effects of the Fed liquidity explosion are
going to go through the monetary system like heroin through an addict,
that is, one short term 'rush' and then withdrawal leading to very shakey
behavior, the 'whatever' that the Fed is preparing for is, also likely,
a short-term expectation.
-
- Of course the definition of 'short-term' could vary,
but it would seem safe to assume that the US Navy won't be at sea for months.
Perhaps a good definition would be that of a month. And some sort of global
navy affecting event may or may not occur.
-
- This may suggest the Aussie Bloke stuff, but, today,
a single large earthquake in Antarctica rattled the world, setting off
a series of quakes along many parts of the Pacific Rim. So, if the navies
of the world were expecting something to occur, and thought to be better
safe than sorry, they might put,
- indeed, put to sea.
-
- Since we have two, verified, observable occurances, i.e.
navies out to sea, and Fed pumping money like never before in history,
we have a logic puzzle. Neither of the observable events makes sense within
the context of today's world, unless there is something wicked this way
coming.....or thought to be by those we pay to know.
-
- Refutations invited, please.
-
- http://www.halfpasthuman.com
|
