[andy_ppp]

That isn't what this [1] article on hacker news a few hours ago says, in fact a lot of people in that thread expect the opposite issue by the end of next year - over capacity and job losses.

I know this is a stretch but I'm inclined to trust JP Morgan's understanding of the economy more than I do CNN's.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28687992

[InitialLastName]

I agree that JP Morgan likely has a better understanding of the economy. However, they have a proportionally higher interest in manipulating the economy to their ends.

Recessions are half psychological, and JP Morgan would get hurt far worse by most recessions that might happen than AT&T by a recession.

[simorley]

Not to mention that if we are going to have a systematic collapse, it will be caused by the elites around the world and no "news" entity will gives us a heads up about it.

Remember that Trump was going to collapse the global system with his "war" against china? Apple and Microsoft have gained 2 trillion dollars in market cap since Trump. That's 2 trillion with a T. The media tells us there is going to be a collapse but people with money are betting that there will be significantly more global trade, even with china.

Who knows what they are actually talking about? Someone working at CNN or the monied elites?

[AnimalMuppet]

In a global collapse, people with the money often are also caught by surprise.

[simorley]

Only if the cause is external to the system - like an asteroid. If the cause is internal ( war, shift in global order, etc ) the people with the money are the ones causing it so they aren't surprised at all. Only the ones out of the loop perhaps will be caught by surprise.

[AnimalMuppet]

How many rich people, active in the stock market, got caught by surprise by 1929? How many rich people, active in real estate, got caught by surprise by 2008?

You say "causing it". They may be, but I suspect most of them aren't actively, deliberately causing it. So they can still be (and are) caught by surprise when it happens.

[simorley]

> How many rich people, active in the stock market, got caught by surprise by 1929?

When I wrote "elites", I wasn't talking about "rich people" in the common sense. I doubt many elites were surprise considering the 1929 crash happened because the elites decided to start ww2 - japanese invasion of manchuria in 1931.

> How many rich people, active in real estate, got caught by surprise by 2008?

Once again, I'm talking about elites. Not bernie madoff.

> You say "causing it". They may be, but I suspect most of them aren't actively, deliberately causing it.

Of course they are. The masses don't decide when to go to war, when to upset the global world order, etc. It's the elites.

> So they can still be (and are) caught by surprise when it happens.

Absolutely. When the catalyst is external to the system or they are the elites who are left out of the loop ( aka when on group of elites decides to turn against another group of elites ). Unless you think the man-made and controlled system is an organic and natural system.

Shocks to a man-made system can result from natural disasters or it can result from the elites themselves. In the former, it most likely will be shocked to the elites. As for the latter, it won't except for the out-of-the-loop elites.

[AnimalMuppet]

> I doubt many elites were surprise considering the 1929 crash happened because the elites decided to start ww2 - japanese invasion of manchuria in 1931.

First, how in the world did the Japanese invasion of Manchuria show that the elites weren't caught by surprise by 1929? I mean, you've listed two events, and one came after the other, but that in no way demonstrates that the elites had advance knowledge of 1929. You're going to have to demonstrate a link there, not just list events.

Second, the amount of influence that western elites had over Japanese foreign policy in 1931 was very close to zero. The amount of control that Japanese elites had over the western financial system was also very close to zero. So you're talking about disjoint sets of elites, which means that your "proof" is lacking in another way.

> Once again, I'm talking about elites. Not bernie madoff.

Yeah, sure. "It's not who you're thinking of, it's someone else." Some never-specified someone else, so that the claim can never be disproven. I notice that you don't name any of these "elites", just "not Bernie Madoff".

You're sounding more and more like a conspiracy-theory nut case. If you've got an actual case, you need to do a better job presenting it.