Jim Rickards: We're Witnessing One of the Greatest Failed Experiments in Economic History

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, ,
81

I have an old friend who has been living in Greece for about twenty years.  Here's a snippet from a recent email with him, to give you a sense of how one long-term resident there sees it. 
"Greece is going from bad to worse as you might have heard. We don't know of anyone who is unaffected by the crisis and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. It's a funny situation here. We're not at war. There has been no big natural disaster. But slowly, it's filtering through that both are applicable. In our village we're talking wind turbines and woodchippers and cooperatives, which might give you an idea of how things are going to go".

 

82

Chris Duane had made the astute observation that only a small percentage of people seemed to "get it" and they were almost all INTJs.  Since Chris Duane's "it" has massive overlap with Chris Martenson's "it", if I had to guess, I'd guess the same is true with CM's work as with Chris Duane's work.  And from the responses above, we're getting validation of this probability.  I'm another INTJ, in good company with those here and folks like Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, etc. (who, BTW, have been some of my favorite people in history).  Yep, they were indeed ones who "got it".

83

and I get it.smiley Although, I haven't taken a MB test in 30 years. Maybe I've changed?

84

I will join the chorus of 5 percenters here… tested INTJ in management training a few years ago.  Even though I can be a loudmouth here, I hate crowds (the I in INTJ).  
 

From Wikipedia;

INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake ... INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait of combining imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority come into play. Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel ... This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals ... Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense.
—Marina Margaret Heiss[12]
     
85

[quote=marky]I have an old friend who has been living in Greece for about twenty years.  Here's a snippet from a recent email with him, to give you a sense of how one long-term resident there sees it. 
"Greece is going from bad to worse as you might have heard. We don't know of anyone who is unaffected by the crisis and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. It's a funny situation here. We're not at war. There has been no big natural disaster. But slowly, it's filtering through that both are applicable. In our village we're talking wind turbines and woodchippers and cooperatives, which might give you an idea of how things are going to go".
[/quote]
Marky, thanks for the update.  It confirms other source I have been tracking.  
This is why I tend to focus on the Economy "E."  It is just as destructive as a war or natural disaster, but with the added 'feature' of being even harder to recover from because the main organizing principle of society, a functioning money system, is just not there.
For all of the people thinking that technology will be there for us in the future in the many ways we want it to be there, you need to consider that this will be true if and only if there's an economy there to deliver the goods.
My personal belief is that we won't get to all the possible shale oil because the technology required to get it is so complex and energy-intensive.  At some point, there simply won't be the requisite surplus energy required to run the larger economy in such a fashion as to create drill bits capable of withstanding enormous pressures or the complex machinery that fracking depends upon.

86

[quote=ao]Chris Duane had made the astute observation that only a small percentage of people seemed to "get it" and they were almost all INTJs.  Since Chris Duane's "it" has massive overlap with Chris Martenson's "it", if I had to guess, I'd guess the same is true with CM's work as with Chris Duane's work.  And from the responses above, we're getting validation of this probability.  I'm another INTJ, in good company with those here and folks like Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, etc. (who, BTW, have been some of my favorite people in history).  Yep, they were indeed ones who "got it".
[/quote]
I'm another INTJ.  The friend that urged me to take the test is also an INTJ and told me we are 'surrounded' by them at work.  Makes for great discussions.

87

Hrunner-


But Dave, you mentioned two key phrases, very offhandedly, but are the core of the current problem.
"when things normalized"
"after the crisis abates"
[long clever explanation snipped]
Which means "things do not normalize" and "the crisis does not abate". 
If this is true, all the Keynesian, and XDRian scenarios are based on incorrect assumptions.

You make an excellent batch of points, and I agree completely.  A big, hidden pair of incorrect assumptions. It reminds me a bit of Greenspan forgetting about fraud in his decision to deregulate mortages.  "There's no way banks will do that to their own reputations."  (Control fraud?  What's that?) Even simpler - if we get another great power war, even a modest digital one, it could split the IMF down the middle.  How will this SDR scheme work then? It assumes peace, it assumes continual growth and an eventual return to normalcy, and it assumes (much like the eurozone) that nobody bails out and defaults on their obligations.  In short, it assumes a continuation of the status quo. Faux gold will work well right up until one of those assumptions goes wrong.  And then it will all blow up.  Same with the eurozone.  It all works, until someone leaves and defaults on their TARGET imbalances. An old military guy I used to read named David Hackworth talked about every operation needing to have a Go To Hell plan, an implicit assumption that any operation really could go sideways in unexpected ways, and it was best to have everyone know exactly what to do if that happened, so they would be prepared.  The eurozone has no such plan.  Neither does this SDR scheme.  Neither does the Fed's "exit strategy" from going long 30 year bonds at the very peak of a bond market bubble. However: this doesn't mean they won't try this SDR thing.  And it might even work for a time, kicking the can yet again.  But that's not the same thing as a true solution. The Duck Now then, talking about the duck: in context, it was referring to our group being able to truly understand the inner workings of the thinking of upper management that we really didn't know well, and didn't interact with too frequently. Some information is extremely difficult to get.  This usually includes knowing with any real certainty someone else's innermost, true motivations for taking some action - ignorant weasels from an acquiring company, or The Big Bad Secret Cabal Ruling the World.  You can't ask them, you can't ask their friends or co-workers, you could bug their offices (assuming you knew where they were, and who mattered most) and intuit it but you'd still be guessing - in other words, even trying to obtain this information is risky and even if you succeed, the results still must be interpreted and/or discounted. If we imagine we can guess at someone else's true motivations for anything, I suggest to you that process is fraught with uncertainty.  Most people don't even know their own motivations - they are just not that self-aware.  So us guessing in a field of massive uncertainty - we think we're better at knowing them than they are?  Chances of us stumbling onto even an approximation of the truth start to get vanishingly small at this point.  It all devolves into some kind of 99% speculation ego game based on few facts and a whole lot of wondering out loud colored by personal bias.  Then you throw in the human desire to scapegoat, to find a neck you can wring, a release for your anger, mixed in with a severe case of confirmation bias... So I take a step back.  Instead of expending large amounts of energy with little hope of any result that would not wilt under the cold eye of a disinterested observer, I just watch their actions, and try to understand how those actions (placed in whatever sized context I find appropriate) might affect what I'm concerned about.  If my context is too narrow, that's likely bad, and the bear successfully sneaks up behind me.  So ... don't have a narrow context. In market terms, I watch gold prices & volume.  But that's not all.  I also watch miners, and oil, and copper, and equities, and bonds and currencies.  That bear won't sneak up on me, because I'm watching all the creatures in the forest - at least the ones that I think matter.  I think that gives me a better overall view than if I focused on the harder-to-get duck-specific information about paddling or drifting.  What's more, coming up with that answer (in my worldview) is just too expensive.  I just care that he's moving, and in what direction, and how it all fits into the view I have of the rest of the universe. I don't try too hard and intuit who hammered gold, and where they live, or what they are thinking, or why they might be doing it.  I try and fit the price action into my big picture machine, and see what comes out.  That's because ME coming up with any analysis that I could stand behind is practically impossible, short of bugging JPM's trading desk, infiltrating their organization, breaking into their computer system, etc. Yes, I have thought about that.  It would be fun, but ultimately - Its Not My Job. Hmm.  I wonder if there is anyone nearby with sufficient motivation to get this job done.  Can you think of anyone? PS.  I am a systems designer, I've been one my whole life.  But I can also treat a component of the system as a black box - one whose workings I don't need to understand, but whose interactions with the rest of the world can be observed.  And that is Good Enough For Me.  :-) PPS.  If you somehow got the idea I enjoyed your posts immensely, you're right!
88

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/greece-verge-military-special-forces-have-15-demands-or-else
Zerohedge has a story this evening of a "Union of Reserve Special Forces" soldiers who have made 15 demands on the government.  They are urging people to gather in Syntagma Square on Saturday.  Certainly, when a group of special forces soldiers demands a regime change this is serious.

Some of the demands do seem reasonable to me, like they are a re-assertion of the will of the people to end the strip-mining by the Troika–things like refusing to sell off Greek public property to pay debts.  (Many I can't understand as they refer to the internal situation in Greece or use the names of Greek programs that I am not familiar with.)

In the following discussion, the Guardian quoted several of the incumbent "powers that be" that  this movement could lead to a "destruction of democracy," whereas a preservation of the existing government and its programs are a "preservation of democracy."  One of the messages for our future is clear–to oppose the incumbency will be labeled in some very negative manner (terrorists??).  Will the good people of Europe fall for this clever semantic juxtaposition?

89

laugh

90

[quote=gillbilly]and I get it. Although, I haven't taken a MB test in 30 years. Maybe I've changed?
[/quote]
Actually, you only think you get it but you really don't get all of "it".  But that's OK.  I don't get "it" either, only it doesn't matter to me.

91

I'm an INJT, too. I took this test about ten years ago when I was in a writing community. It seems mystery writers and those who plot out their novels in advance have to be thinking introverts with intuition who make judgments.
Who'd have thunk it? And the same, "Oh crap - I think I see how this is going to end" conclusion applies to watching the crash course.

92

Things will return to "normal" after the crisis abates.  Unfortunately, as with a neatly stacked pyramid of apples rolling off an apple cart, there is going to be a very uncomfortable transition from one stable state to the next. The new "normal" will consist of widely disseminated, and probably rather badly bruised, apples with little remaining potential energy. 
Yes, another INTJ

John G

93

Crap, this feels like a diagnosis. Is there a pill I can take for this?

94

So how do we make the material more approachable for the other personality types?That’s been a constant struggle, and I can’t speak for all INTJs, but I get frustrated with people who get wrapped up in little political squabbles but dont see how they’re ties to much more ominous trends.
Just a side thought, but id bet most INTJs are also allured by collapse, as it gives us a broad problem to trouble shoot and a chance at building something from the ground up… Intellectual pioneering.
Interesting dialog, even if a bit off topic.
Cheers,
Aaron

95

While I agree it's a bit off topic, there's obvious interest here in digging further into personality type.
So let's gather a little data and get a sense for the actual distribution of Myers-Briggs personality types across the PP.com readership.

I've created a quick poll here:

https://peakprosperity.com/poll/83068/whats-your-myers-briggs-personality-type

If you know your Myers-Briggs score, please invest 5 seconds to take it (it's anonymous). Once you do, you'll see the readout for everyone else who's answered the poll.

(I'm guessing the statisticians and psychologists here may have issue with the results of such an informal poll, as perhaps some personality types are more likely to participate in such an exercise than others. Be that as it may, the results will still give us fodder for discussion and – I'm hoping – useful context for future site offerings.)

96

I haven't read the whole thread wrt intj or intp and, in fact, have never heard the terms.  Is there a common test that people have taken to find out what they are?  If so, where would one find it?
Thanx

97

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
Ill repost this in Adams link as well.
Cheers,
Aaron

98

[quote=A. M.]http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm Ill repost this in Adams link as well. Cheers, Aaron[/quote]Thanks Aaron, got it.
Doug

99

[quote=davefairtex]ao-

not my go-to-guy Something about the "do I care" statement seems strangely akin to Hillary's "what does it matter" statement.  Given that you're a highly intelligent fellow, this post evokes my "spidey sense".
Ok, I'm not your go-to guy.  And I am beginning to recognize that spidey sense.  It appears to be common to a group of people.  From what I gather, I am disturbing to this group because I write well and appear to be intelligent, rational, mostly calm, and I put up with a lot of silly stuff.  This makes me even more likely to be part of the conspiracy.  Why would someone put up with such a large ration of crap for so long without going completely nuts?! From my point of view, you guys are taking exactly the wrong approach.  I'm an expert about me.  When you accuse me of being a bad guy, you (may) forget that I know the truth.  Consider for a moment the possibility that I'm just someone who disagrees with you and in a really modest way.  What must I think?  Well I'll tell you: from my perspective, each time you jump to conclusions about who I am and my motivations, your credibility about everything else just drains away.  If you are this willing to jump to conclusions about a subject (namely me) that you know little about, and you are this wrong about me, how likely is it that you have used that same research methodology on your conspiracy subject matter? The really funny thing is, I'm pre-disposed to believe in these conspiracies.  Perhaps its reading too much fantasy as a teenager, but I tend to see them everywhere too.  I could go through the list, but I'm probably on board (at a "true more likely than not" level) with about 50-60% of the standard conspiracy storyline. The difference is, I don't put my energy behind into the effort, nor do I feel that my opinions have the force of Truth behind them.  I have other fish I want to fry.  If the gold market is completely controlled, and the price drops - or there simply aren't any buyers, and the price drops, what then is the difference?  The price has dropped.  Let's focus on that, avoid being angry and/or scapegoating and pointing fingers and other energy-sapping and self-distracting emotional outbursts, and learn to take advantage of it.  It turns out, price movements often happen in recognizeable patterns.  What does it matter to us, the small fish, if its a Deus Ex Machina or it has some other explanation?  It Simply Is. I'm not trying to distract the masses and keep them asleep.  I just recognize the limits to my own power. If I were in the DOJ, or SEC, or the CFTC, or some other organization where my efforts and energy would lead to possibly useful outcomes, I'd act differently.  But that's not where I am. It sounds a bit like heresy I suspect.  I leave it to someone else to sort out those issues.  You, for instance. But I have chosen the battleground for my own revolution, and it is intensely personal - internal, rather than external.  Even the current US government cannot find anything seditious in getting out of debt, becoming more resilient, physical fitness, taking personal responsibility for one's situation, and attempts at spiritual advancement.  Time and energy spent being angry at "the manipulators" (who most definitely exist in their various forms) is energy taken from more important parts of my life. There will come a time when they will fall.  To all things there comes a time.  Until that time arrives, I will stick to my knitting.  That's not everyone's path, or even the right path.  But it is the one I've chosen. Lastly, I want to agree with you regarding the flaws you noticed in my boss's duck story.  And yet even with those flaws, I still find valuable insight.  The next time you and I are together, and we watch a duck crossing a lake, you can explain how you know that it is paddling, or going with the current, or whatever.  I still haven't been able to figure it out - although I must confess, I haven't really put the effort into solving the mystery.  I am more focused on the duck's speed and direction than on the mechanism of travel. Which I think was the point of the story. PS.  I don't judge Martin Armstrong (or Nelson Mandela) for his prison experience.  I judge him by the consistency of the story he tells, and how well it seems to explain the world.  Some stuff Armstrong says is ... a bit out there.  But other stuff makes a great deal of sense.  So I take the stuff that makes sense, and I put question marks around the rest and leave it at that. [/quote] Bringing this thread back to the original subject matter, there is so much about this post that is illuminating. As a consequence, I think it bears further discussion and scrutiny.   “Ok, I'm not your go-to guy.  And I am beginning to recognize that spidey sense.  It appears to be common to a group of people.  From what I gather, I am disturbing to this group because I write well and appear to be intelligent, rational, mostly calm, and I put up with a lot of silly stuff.  This makes me even more likely to be part of the conspiracy.  Why would someone put up with such a large ration of crap for so long without going completely nuts?!” You discuss here “a group of people” to whom you are disturbing. Your statement would seem to include me in this “group”. Maybe being away from here for a while, I missed this but who is this “group” comprised of? And why would the fact that you write well and appear to be “intelligent, rational”, and “mostly calm” be disturbing to them? Those conditions shouldn't be disturbing to anyone. It's not particular disturbing to me but your language and presentation is reminiscent of a style that has been used by others to achieve particular effects. Perhaps that is what is disturbing to them. For me personally, it's about pattern recognition and there is a pattern here which, whether you are aware of it or not, is usually associated with a particular intent. And could you explain the last sentence above? Are you saying you are going “completely nuts” about this issue or are you implying that others are? From what I see, no one is going “completely nuts”. This statement seems like a rather emotionally laden one that is not based in fact.   “From my point of view, you guys are taking exactly the wrong approach.  I'm an expert about me.  When you accuse me of being a bad guy, you (may) forget that I know the truth.  Consider for a moment the possibility that I'm just someone who disagrees with you and in a really modest way.  What must I think?  Well I'll tell you: from my perspective, each time you jump to conclusions about who I am and my motivations, your credibility about everything else just drains away.  If you are this willing to jump to conclusions about a subject (namely me) that you know little about, and you are this wrong about me, how likely is it that you have used that same research methodology on your conspiracy subject matter?”   Who is the “you guys” who are taking the wrong approach? Is there some type of collusion here that I am not aware of because, for me personally, I'm not acting in concert with anyone else. And who “accused (you) of being a bad guy”? Could you show me where I made that statement? You say you're an expert about you but I would wager large sums of money, you are not. From 35 years of working with people's minds and bodies, most individuals are very self unaware. They don't understand how their bodies work or how they react to different kinds of food, different environmental factors, different thoughts, different emotions, etc. Because of their “I”-centeredness, their external perspective of themselves is limited. Also, what kind of conclusions are “we” jumping to about who you are and what you motivations are? As far as I know, I made no statements to that effect. There is a presumption on your part about this issue as about other issues that is not grounded in fact. In terms of credibility draining away, whether you know it or not, your statement follows the model of classical Ericksonian (non-trance) hypnosis to create a blanket dismissal of all that has been previously said. Do you understand that statements such as this are known as induction statements?   “The really funny thing is, I'm pre-disposed to believe in these conspiracies.  Perhaps its reading too much fantasy as a teenager, but I tend to see them everywhere too.  I could go through the list, but I'm probably on board (at a "true more likely than not" level) with about 50-60% of the standard conspiracy storyline.”   You say here, you tend to see them everywhere too. Did anyone say they saw conspiracies “everywhere”? Please show me that statement. In truth, by the strict definition of what a conspiracy is, they are indeed very common. Also, the word “conspiracy” has been trans-associated to imply falsehood or mistakenness when, in fact, that perception is an incorrect one.   “The difference is, I don't put my energy behind into the effort, nor do I feel that my opinions have the force of Truth behind them.  I have other fish I want to fry.  If the gold market is completely controlled, and the price drops - or there simply aren't any buyers, and the price drops, what then is the difference?  The price has dropped.  Let's focus on that, avoid being angry and/or scapegoating and pointing fingers and other energy-sapping and self-distracting emotional outbursts, and learn to take advantage of it.  It turns out, price movements often happen in recognizeable patterns.  What does it matter to us, the small fish, if its a Deus Ex Machina or it has some other explanation?  It Simply Is.”   You refer a lot to not wasting energy and avoiding energy-sapping activities, yet you yourself, in contradiction to that, put a considerable amount of energy into writing these posts which, as far as I know, shouldn't provide any direct benefit to you. You also mentioned “emotional outbursts” but never responded to my previous request to please show me, in my discussion with you, where I displayed an emotional outburst. In truth, there was no emotional outburst. Whether you are aware of it or not, painting oneself as calm while painting one of differing ideology as emotional is a common ploy used to discredit the other. I'm not passing judgement here on whether or not this is your intent. I'm simply making an observation. Also, you used the word, “scapegoating”. It is interesting to me that since the onset of this financial crisis, in my personal experience with certain Wall Street types, the use of the words “scapegoating” or “scapegoat” have been almost exclusively by those individuals or parties who wish to be perceiving as being wrongfully accused and maligned when they were, in fact, rightfully accused and recognized as the perpetrators of certain malevolent actions. I'm not making this accusation of you, per se, but this is another pattern I've repeatedly observed.   “I'm not trying to distract the masses and keep them asleep.  I just recognize the limits to my own power.”   Actually Dave, you have tremendous power. We all do. The question is, do we relinquish it or do we utilize it. Why make statements that disempower the masses? We have the power. We've just bought the illusion that we don't.   “If I were in the DOJ, or SEC, or the CFTC, or some other organization where my efforts and energy would lead to possibly useful outcomes, I'd act differently.  But that's not where I am.”   Looking at the reality of the situation, none of the organizations you mention have acted in any substantive and genuine way to bring about useful outcomes, nor are they likely to do so in the future.   “It sounds a bit like heresy I suspect.  I leave it to someone else to sort out those issues.  You, for instance. But I have chosen the battleground for my own revolution, and it is intensely personal - internal, rather than external.  Even the current US government cannot find anything seditious in getting out of debt, becoming more resilient, physical fitness, taking personal responsibility for one's situation, and attempts at spiritual advancement.  Time and energy spent being angry at "the manipulators" (who most definitely exist in their various forms) is energy taken from more important parts of my life.”   It is interesting that you use the terms “battleground” and “revolution”. As such, you imply a war. In your recollection of history, can you recall any significant war that was won by taking the defensive rather than the offensive? I can't. And yet, by restricting yourself to internal action alone (and I agree that internal action is needed), aren't you ceding victory to the enemy? In terms of your erroneous statements about seditious activity, I think I addressed that situation very clearly elsewhere.   “There will come a time when they will fall.  To all things there comes a time.  Until that time arrives, I will stick to my knitting.  That's not everyone's path, or even the right path.  But it is the one I've chosen.”   There will indeed come a time when they will fall. It strikes me as add though that you would invest all this energy here and then just “stick to (your) knitting”. This reclusive action seems incongruous.   “Lastly, I want to agree with you regarding the flaws you noticed in my boss's duck story.  And yet even with those flaws, I still find valuable insight.  The next time you and I are together, and we watch a duck crossing a lake, you can explain how you know that it is paddling, or going with the current, or whatever.  I still haven't been able to figure it out - although I must confess, I haven't really put the effort into solving the mystery.  I am more focused on the duck's speed and direction than on the mechanism of travel.”   I think understanding the mechanism is key. If not, we think the sun is a glowing ball that rises in the east and sinks in the west and we don't have a clue that the earth is spinning. But to each their own. If you're happy with understanding only the “effect” part of “cause-and-effect”, so be it. I'd rather seek the bigger picture. And when you use purposely demeaning phrases like the“Big Bad Cabal”, the intimation is not appreciated.   “Which I think was the point of the story. PS.  I don't judge Martin Armstrong (or Nelson Mandela) for his prison experience.  I judge him by the consistency of the story he tells, and how well it seems to explain the world.  Some stuff Armstrong says is ... a bit out there.  But other stuff makes a great deal of sense.  So I take the stuff that makes sense, and I put question marks around the rest and leave it at that.” First of all, it's somewhat disingenuous to lump Armstrong in with Mandela. How do we know he shouldn't be lumped in with a less virtuous character? Believe it or not, I've followed Armstrong for years and have found him to be very informative. I also think he was railroaded. But I don't find him totally without fault. For example, representing yourself in court is having a fool for a client. Being obstinate in court is another unwise choice. So I question the wisdom of his judgement. You seem to contradict yourself here though. You say you judge him by the consistency of the story he tells, yet in the next breath, you say some of his stuff is “a bit out there” while other stuff “makes a great deal of sense. That doesn't sound consistent to me.   Dave, whether you know it or not, if you were so inclined, you would have a future as an NLP/Ericksonian trainer.  I don't think it's your intent but that's what comes across.  Milton Erickson hardly realized he did these things (he did them naturally as an excellent communicator and "convincer") but it took Bandler and Grinder to recognize and codify them.  So if and when the NWO of your Big Bad Cabal comes to pass, you have another skill you can fall back on, lol.  We should all be so fortunate.    Getting back to ducks, what's more revealing to me than where the duck is going is the duckiness of the duck. And when it look, acts, swims, and quacks like a duck, it's usually not a platypus. Such is the reason for my world view. I can't see internally (except for glimpses of what leaks out) nor perceive motivations but I can see actions, results, and outcomes. By their fruit, you will know them. Enjoyed the discussion.  
100

ao-Hmm.  You seem to have clearly received the gist of what I was trying to say, and I don't really want to run all of the bits you commented on, so I will leave this particular field to you.
Wrap this up under the section about me being more wise about where I spend my energy - which I found to be a valuable observation of yours!

The Master does nothing, yet he leaves nothing undone. The ordinary man is always doing things, yet many more are left to be done.
I've always liked that stanza.  I'm often seen Doing Something when I should be Doing Nothing. And I'd say now is the perfect time to Do Nothing.  Or at least, Do Very Little.