Just as the Twin Towers collapsed from the top down, so too will the US economy from an Economic 9/11. When the high-stake speculators, banks, brokerages, and buyout firms that leveraged billions with millions get hit…  Failing banks, busted brokerages, toppled corporate giants, bankrupt cities, states in default, foreign creditors cashing out of US securities … whatever the spark, the stage is set for panic in the streets. When the giant firms fall, they’ll crush the man on the street.

This appears in in his “Quarterly Trends ’08″ journal (published in Dec. 2007), which is previewed on the website.  Starting at that first sentence, it really does appear accurate.  It seems supernaturally dead-on, but does it stand up to scrutiny?  Well first-off let’s compare it to some good economists from around the same time.  Here’s Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz in January 2008 (within about a month of Mr. Celente’s global trends report), from an article titled “Stagflation Cometh“:

For America today, the real question is only whether there will be a short, sharp downturn, or a more prolonged, but shallower, slowdown.

Basically, will there be a crash or a recession?  Princeton Economist Paul Krugman was on the same page in December 2007 (the month that Celeste published his predictions):

I’ve never seen financial insiders this spooked — not even during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, when economic dominoes seemed to be falling all around the world.

The point is, Dec-Jan 2007 was not simply a time of fat-cats lighting cigars with $100s while the media shined their shoes.   The criticism and concern about the economy started well before (years before, in fact, when there was concern over the ’05 “housing bubble”) and you could read about it right in the New York Times (Krugman is a columnist there).  Celente’s prediction in the first sentence was not unique, except perhaps for a level of impressive specificity about “leveraging billions with millions.”  But even there it’s hard to give Celente too much credit, since financial crashes basically all have to do with leverage; that’s what crashes are.  So looking simply at this prediction, Celente seems impressive and accurate though not supernatural.  But let’s consider his other predictions from the newsletter (the same 2008 Trends newsletter that his “crisis” prediction appeared in) and see how accurate they were:

1. Pointed out the expectation that the “economy will spiral down and that the dollar will fall with it”

2. Describes “Tax Revolts” that battle to “repeal taxes.”

3. Points out that “if intelligently deployed and spiritually practiced, the “Small is Big” trend can lead to more progressive advancement and greater rewards.” (yes that’s the summary of an entire prediction.)

As for prediction #1, have a look at this helpful chart of the US Dollar in 2008 and note especially the impact of the October crisis on the Dollar.  As for #2, I didn’t notice any big tax revolts calling for no taxes; I heard the standard political pandering about cutting taxes which comes every election cycle of course.  As for #3–and the handful of other predictions which you can view here– it’s too vague to be meaningful obviously.    So he’s got one concrete prediction which just confidently echoed mainstream sources, along with a slew of wrong predictions and vagaries. A seer he is not.

I have been unable to find sources for his other predictions which go back 20 years.  My educated guess, though, is that they’re about the same as his “famous” 2008 crisis prediction– namely confidently parroting  the thought of people who know what they’re talking about and/or constructing his analysis vaguely enough that it could predict a whole slew of things.

Relevant here is the “Jeane Dixon effect“, which

…refers to the tendency of the mass media to hype or exaggerate a few correct predictions by a psychic, guaranteeing that they will be remembered, while forgetting or ignoring the much more numerous incorrect predictions.

Jeane Dixon was famous for “predicting the assassination of JFK” by claiming that “[the upcoming president] will be assassinated or die in office though not necessarily in his first term.” That is a pretty impressive claim, by itself.  The problem is that she was wrong about countless other things; the article linked above notes that “She predicted that the Soviets would beat the U.S. to the moon and that World War III would begin in 1958 (Montgomery 1965: x). She foresaw a holocaust for the 1980s and that Rome would then rise.” While I think that Gerald Celente is unquestionably benefiting from the Jeane Dixon effect, I wouldn’t lump him in with the phony psychics and visionaries, not yet anyway.  One thing that differentiates Celente is that his predictions don’t all read like vague nonsense, crafted to cover the widest range possible circumstances.  Some of them, in fact, read like overly terse summaries of major thinkers (like Krugman and Stiglitz) which isn’t too bad, and might even be worthwhile for some people (though you have to pay for his newsletter.)  This really shouldn’t be surprising since it turns out that he doesn’t just read tea leaves:

According to Gerald Celente, Director of the Trends Research Institute and author of Trends 2000, the key to tracking trends is to read two newspapers every day with a purpose — either The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, plus The New York Times or USA Today. Look for stories with social, economic, and political significance, be it about the difficulties older suburbs face or the current currency crisis.

Celente may be a psychic for the new millennium then; just like Darren Brown took the hoaky magic of David Copperfield and made it sexy with appeal to psychology and behavior studies, Celente may take the tradition of public psychics and add a dose of insight and fact from real political analysts.  That said, Celente is not positioning himself as if he’s simply the synthesizer of information that he is, but rather as a unique trend-spotter who’s able to see through the chaos of modern information to spot the true directions.  This is dangerous, especially when he’s predicting a depression worse than the ’30s and something like riots and revolution in the U.S.  For one thing, if you get through to enough people that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  For another, he’s suddenly breaking with learned opinion (like the kind he sided with, and presumably relied upon, to make his prediction).  Stiglitz and Krugman aren’t predicting the oceans flowing with Lemonade or anything, but they both advocate broadly Keynesian spending programs to alleviate the problem.  You can find recent clips of the “apolitical” Celente on rightwing TV bashing these programs (like an expansion of unemployment insurance and infrastructure spending) as “moronic.”  It’s at this point where Celente goes badly off the rails and becomes dangerous.  It’s one thing when he’s expounding his fuzzy visions and received wisdom about the future–it’s another when he’s actively calling out the sort of policy that might avert the messes he’s predicting.  Prediction for 2009: if we keep our wits about us and avoid herd panic, we can begin to weather the storm and guys like Celente will be long forgotten*.

*Until he shows up again in 2011 with a remarkably correct prediction about how “efficiency delineation protocols, if handled with competence, will result in  a sharp uptick of advancement and positive overall results.”

Anyway, a top Aide to Colin Powell has recently discussed this matter with some serious candor, and the results are basically what you would expect: Bush was never expected to be a serious “decider.” He was, of course, chosen like you’d choose a logo for some product.

Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell:

We had this confluence of characters–and I use that term very carefully–that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like president–because, let’s face it, that’s what he was–was going to be protected by this national- security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States.

Read the quiz question and decide on your answer (and perhaps guess how many people you think agree with you in the US, and what politicians might think) Then highlight the blank space under the question and you’ll see the actual polling data. To prevent me from cherry picking polls, I’ve chosen to rely on the most comprehensive and well-respected public opinion poll: the Program on International Policy Attitudes whenever possible (which for this is most of the questions.) All poll data will be the most recent available (within a few years.)

Quiz 1, Human Rights:

1. News and government reports indicate that the US has been using private contractors to conduct interrogations in Iraq. Do you Approve or think that only Military personnel should conduct the interrogations?

68% of Americans think that only the military should be involved in interrogating prisoners (and only 26% think private contractors are ok to do it.) Obama will “not rule out” the use of these contractors in Iraq.

2. Should “enemy combatants” (non-military who are “suspected of terror”) who are captured in a foreign country be tortured if need be? Threatened with Torture?

75% of Americans say they should not be tortured (78% of republicans!) and a majority of Americans say that there shouldn’t even be a threat of terror. Obama opposes torture too so he’s good on this one. McCain actually waffles on this issue despite being tortured himself and voted against curtailing torture.

3. Should the US eliminate the prisons in Guantanamo bay in order to comply with the UN Commission on Human Rights?

63% say the US should eliminate the prison because of the UN commission. Obama opposes the Prison at gitmo

4. Should equal opportunities regardless of whether your are gay or lesbian be considered a human right?

79% of Americans think it should be a human right regardless of sexual orientation. Obama arguably disagrees with this as he does not support Gay Marriage.

5. Should fair pay for workers to meet the basic needs for food and housing be considered a human right or not??

A whopping 87% of Americans think it should be a basic human right (with a slightly smaller percentage also arguing that freedom from extreme poverty should be a human right.)

6. A permanent International Criminal Court has been established by the UN (United Nations) to try individuals suspected of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Do you think the U.S. should or should not support the permanent international criminal court, even if charges could be brought against US troops?

68% agree that the US should support the ICC even though it could prosecute us.
Obama doesn’t support it unless the US is exempt (McCain’s position is the same.)

7. Finally, do you prefer a universal health care system to our current system?

A 2-1 majority (according to ABCnews/washington post) prefer a universal healthcare system. And yet, who’s the last politician who advocated one? No the answer’s not Hillary (take a closer look at what she actually proposed)- it was Truman. Obama does not support this (though his rhetoric makes it sound like he does.) He does want to provide the opportunity for health care to every American though, which is a better plan than his competitor.

8. “When a minority is being deprived of its human rights by a government that is supported by the US, this may lead that minority to use terrorism against Americans.”

53% of Americans say yes, despite the fact this is considered outlandish– unutterable even– by the media.

9. Some say the US should restrict imports of shrimp from India because the shrimp are caught using methods that kill many sea turtles. Do you think the US should or should not limit its trade with India for this reason?

63% of Americans would limit trade in order to protect (endangered) sea turtles! I bet that’s even more liberal that some of you!

10. Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?

70% of Americans agree that is the US government should make sure that Americans HAVE health care coverage.

11. Is the Supreme Court too liberal or too conservative?

Americans think that the court is too conservative by a 3/2 margin

12. What do you think is more important (a more pressing issue in the US)?
A. Abortion
B. 36 other things including inflation, poverty, welfare, environment, “unifying the country,” “lack of respect for each other,” foreign aid, the judicial system, and gay rights issues

I think you’ve already seen the point here, Americans ranked Abortion extremely low on a list of priorities, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to the media and politicians.

13. How influential do you think the will of the majority is on US policy?
A. Above average (closer to “very influential”, i.e. a democracy)
B. Below Average (closer to “not at all influential” i.e. totalitarianism)

Probably not too surprising if you’ve made it this far, but on average the assessment was about a 4.4/10, or closer to totalitarianism. When asked what percentage of the time congress makes decision that are “the same as the majority would make” the average answer was 39%- “less than chance.” Needless to say, that means that congress isn’t just “out of touch” (you’d expect something closer to 50/50 in that case) but that it’s (perceived as) acting contrary to the interests of the citizenry!

Finally, 81% of Americans also say that the government should be more responsive to the US population and pay more attention to polls when deciding on major issues. I, for one, second that.

Procedural note: These poll questions (accounting for small phrasing differences) preserve the same content as the original poll- I’m happy to cite sources if anyone wants but they’d be easy to find. I mention Obama several times not to knock the guy (he was the same or better than McCain on every issue I mention here) but just to show that this “most Liberal member of the senate” is in fact well to the right of the American public on most issues. Just wait until I get to foreign policy!

We hold undecided voters in far too-high esteem in this country. What we often call “waffling” “fence-riding” and “playing it safe” suddenly become “prudence” and “rational consideration” during even-numbered years. If you think I’m getting ready to make some point about how if you’re not for Obama you’re obviously insane, don’t worry I’m not. How many more of those blog posts do you really need?

For some odd reason I subjected myself to the post-debate analysis on NBC tonight, and on the program was a panel of undecided voters all discussing their thoughts about the two candidates. The set-up was basic: undecided voters explain their opinion of the candidates and how it’s changed following the debate they just watched. If one of the voters “decides” and commits to a candidate they are removed from the panel. That obviously creates massive selection bias (since if candidate A -call him “Obama”- won the first two debates and people committed, the panel would consist largely of candidate B-leaners) but that’s neither here nor there. It drove me crazy listening to these people repeat drivel like “Well Obama really showed me something tonight when he discussed his health care plan in more detail” or “McCain sounded very confident on Iraq.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Here’s a radical idea for you: political candidates are little bundles of policies. You think the CEO of Pfizer is saying “Who cares about the tax breaks, I just want to know which candidate looks more “presidential”? I assure you he is not. He is voting (and “donating”) based on cold hard issues, and if you don’t? If you vote based on who you can have a beer with or who has a vagina or who speaks well… well then you’re going to get Pfizer’s wet dream plus ovaries, a pick-up truck and a toastmasters membership. If you want to vote on issues, go take the candidate compatibility quiz or head to votesmart.org and click “voting records.” If you want rhetoric, imagery, and delusion though, go watch a politician speak or debate.

Here’s how the undecided voter panel must prepare to buy a car: “Gee well I’m really undecided about the truck I should buy; I guess I should watch two competing commercials.”

Undecided Truck Buyer A: “Well I really thought Chevy showed me something tonight by having its truck navigate a thin rail between a series of swinging steel I-beams”

Undecided B: “Well after tonight I’ve got to say I’m leaning toward Toyota, what with the way it managed to stop that entire jet airliner using only its standard disc brakes.

Katie Couric: “Fascinating pros and cons on both sides and a major change in strategy from Chevy, who seems to have completely abandoned the “scaling 60-degree-angled mountains” approach of last time.”

Don’t, you know, do any research on the features or prices.

This is a deep problem, and one that affects me and many of my closest, most intelligent friends. The idea that “character” matters so much is the implicit message of so much news coverage we can’t help but be swayed a little bit. The polls bear this out- during the last presidential election in 2004 10% of the population voted on “agendas/ideas/platforms/goals”; 6% for Bush voters, 13% for Kerry voters according to a Gallup poll. That’s a disaster for democracy.

Further, I have to imagine that the deep cynicism that most of us feel regarding politics, and perhaps the same cynicism that makes people politically inert, must be partially a result of this image-focused voting. The young idealist who loves Bill Clinton’s sparkling eyes and inspiring rhetoric in 1992 is the same confused partisan trying to excuse the bombing of Sudan in 1998 is the same hardened non-voter in 2000. The small-government conservative who couldn’t get enough of Bush’s Reagan-esque speeches about government being the problem is the same meek apologist for wire-tapping and massive new government spending in 2004 is the same guy who “forgets” to mail-in his absentee ballot this year. If you’ve got a red white and blue t-shirt with a candidates name on it right now, you might just see yourself in one of those examples in a few years. Voting is important though so, this year, try something different: Vote for someone without illusions about what they’ll do.

Then watch this video and feel all better:

Everyone should take the quiz and see, since so many people vote on this retarded issue (instead of, you know, how much skrilla you’ll save from improved health care.) The quiz will take you about 4 seconds to take. Click that image for a full chart, by the way (I couldn’t display it on this blog properly.)