Comments by "Frederick Miles" (@frederickmiles8815) on "Zeihan on Geopolitics" channel.

  1. 6
  2. 6
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 3
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. Love your analysis but there is a 3rd path that bleeds into one that you mentioned - Russian coup and follow on civil war - 'bandit wars' - spurred by defeat in Ukraine. Most dont understand the ratios of war - ~10 to 15% of personal will be maneuver, meaning Russia has lost their army. Therefore it would make sense that smaller, regional players move when Moscow is at its weakest and most divided. With out a national army warlords and mercenary commanders take over - this could force the follow players to run closer to China (but that may lead China getting sucked into a nightmare scenario) or more likely run to the west for help in search of stability (as their western gaps are defended if they are a member of NATO) - along with Ukraine. For context - after seeing the Russians in Syria none of the last year or so shocked me. regardless of outcome just going into Ukraine would break the Russian military imo - independent of the Ukrainians desire to fight. I was more shocked that Ukraine didnt attack during the winter or that JIT logistics waited until end of Q2. But alas I thought the russians would try and train their conscripts and not burn through them and their remaining FMC rolling stock. So Q4 on everything has broken to Ukraine's side - as Russia has made every possible operational and strategic mistake one could make, while most of Ukraine's gambles have paid off. I also do agree now that the wests paced and conservative approach seems to have been the most productive.
    2
  16. 2
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. Its also a bad digital architecture 'thing' - as TGA is one lump data set, and not pnl focused, where a specific revenue tga (payroll tax) funds specific product portfolios (safety net). And your understanding of our monetary system is child like - there is no click of the button buying LOL - bank reserves are not dollars as the Fed's repo market are closed off from real economy. Also QE (what you describe as the Fed legally cannot buy debt directly by design as we dont want to be a ponzi scheme lol) is not a requirement (where banks use cash & deposits to buy bills and bonds to then exchange at Fed for bank reserves for use in Fed repo market), meaning if you wanted to grow the real economy you would stop QE as it traps liqidity (deflationary long term as asset bubbles are no longer underpinned by collateral). The governments ability to sell debt (finance operations and products) is only possible if banks are willing to buy. Current Tbill shortfalls are due to ongoing bailout of money market funds, which is causing a major upswing in usage of MBS in OTC (outside Fed) repo markets. Overall I love your work but study the mechanics of the system that is. Literally everything I learned in MS in Fin Risk and my MBA is trash - you dont study the real system and that is and that is why Econ PhD's are toilet paper. You also fail to realize the Fed flows to TGA (meaning name of the game is to never have Treasury pay off the nut just coupons, as the Fed and US federal government own the plurality of all US denominated debt (over 33%). Nor do you understand more US denominated debt is generated offshore then domestically as the Fed has zero control over money supply or even the Fed fund rate (which is just the 2 year tbond - that is how Fed 'controls' near end). Its sort of like the wizard of oz - where the many disparate stakeholders behind the curtain vie for policies and meat puppets (jaw boning) that benefit their collective interest. Fed was never meant to be a real central bank.
    1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1