Main Menu

Another version of this story with a somewhat different emphasis is under the link Why I can read Fed statements. 

I studied economics in college because I wanted a heads-up about dealing with the world in that regard because I knew I was going to have extra money once I was working (I was studying engineering as my major) and I was going to be the first person in my family to graduate from college.  (My parents had a good gut-feel sense of what was going on, but I wanted a more specific sense than that.) 

I eagerly and diligently studied economics in college - only to find that I got results other than what I expected from the theory after I graduated from college.  In other words, once I tried to apply what I had learned, what I got did not make any sense. 

I ended up investing in other ways - that were clear opportunities for me at the time - and during that time, in the mid-1980's, I was also first introduced to Austrian economics.  I was also introduced to the Kondratieff wave at that time - and came to realize that the Kondratieff wave was describing what was actually happening, as well as what had happened in the past (the recession of the early 1980's) that had caught me by surprise (as well as some earlier events in the years before that which were also part of the bigger-picture process that only the Kondratieff wave talked about explicitly).  And over the course of the next little while, I came to realize that Austrian economics is compatible with the Kondratieff wave, but Keynesian economics is not - so I came to the conclusion that I had to throw out everything that I had learned in college about economics and start over with what I was coming across in the meantime, and that is what I did. 

I then, over the course of time, became an expert on Austrian economics. 

But there was a problem.  Once I learned about the Kondratieff wave, I realized that if one took the time-line of previous phases of the wave into account, it implied that we would be in the depression phase of the wave in the 1990's - and I did not like that, since I had just started my career.  And other people that I heard from were saying differently anyway - including some who were saying we would have a big boom in the 1990's. 

I did not know (with certainty) what or who to believe - and I was dealing with my other investments anyway. 

Then the 1990's came and a big boom developed during the decade - but I had also come to the realization in the meantime that the Kondratieff wave is a natural cycle that cannot be overcome, so I began to wonder what was going on (especially since there were books that came out in the 1980's predicting a big depression in the 1990's on the basis of the Kondratieff wave, which turned out to be very wrong). 

I thought about it and thought about it and thought about it - and then came to realize that the key lay in the details of the characteristics of the various phases of the Kondratieff wave. 

The key is that starting in the wake of the stock market crash of October 1987, the Fed was pumping more and more money into the system every time the economy (or the stock market) wanted to go down. 

The difference from before, when the Fed did money pumping, was that when it happened before, we were in the stagnation phase (in the 1970's) of the current Kondratieff wave and so the new money went into consumer prices - consumer price inflation - and people (of course) did not like that. 

But the Kondratieff wave transitioned into the plateau phase in the late 1970's/early 1980's - and during the plateau phase, the stock market likes to go up a lot, in other words, new money goes (at least mostly) into the stock market.  So when the Fed started pumping money into the system again, starting in the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash of 1987, the new money went (at least mostly) into the stock market, driving the stock market up - and people did (of course) like that, it seemed like an increase in wealth to them. 

The effect was to extent the plateau phase of the current Kondratieff wave for years beyond where it would have ended if that had not been done - ultimately, 13 years longer. 

But nature does not operate in a vacuum - and so since the system was being played with artificially in that regard, something had to give. 

What gave was that as more and more money was being pumped into the system in an effort to keep it going, it took more and more money as time went on to do so - and the stock market went up at a faster and faster rate in the process.  That was seen as good by most people, since they were feeling richer and richer (at a faster and faster rate) along the way, but it was in fact resulting in the stock market heading toward an exponential - and since the authorities kept it up for as long as they possibly could, the stock market did, in fact, go exponential (in the late 1990's). 

The problem is that once something goes exponential, that is it, true positivity cannot be maintained anymore (it is simply impossible to do so after an exponential due to the internal dynamics of how an exponential works and how those dynamics fit in with the aftermath of an exponential if an exponential happens) - and in fact, the stock market upturns since the big downturn coming out of the exponential (a downturn that happened in the early 2000's) have been bear market bounces, not new bull markets (granted, very large bear market bounces, but bear market bounces, nonetheless). 

And so I realized, once I realized what was going on in the 1990's, that the system had to come back down - and that the big economic downturn would come when that happened. 

Once the stock market went exponential in the late 1990's, I fully expected the big economic downturn to happen in the wake of that - in the early 2000's.  But once the economy actually started going down, the Fed started fighting that fiercely - and, ultimately, succeeded. 

I wondered why the Fed was fighting it so fiercely, so I decided to look into that.  I signed up for Fed e-mails in the summer of 2001 and soon found out about the semi-annual report to Congress, formerly known as the Humphrey-Hawkins testimony.  Once I looked into that (a Google search), it became quickly clear to me that Congress had passed a law against recessions in 1978 in order to try to ensure that an economic downturn would never happen again (probably passed the law in response to the recession of the earlier 1970's). 

I knew at that point that if the Fed succeeded in saving the economy again, on the basis of the motivation of the force of a law passed by Congress, i.e., a law against recessions - which did happen - then there would be, on the basis of the Kondratieff wave, a BIG problem starting sometime between 2007-2010, when the next down cycle was due, and that is exactly what has happened.  But, as noted, what happened before 2010 is just the start of what is to come, and that is why I chose to do this website.