Black Crows

Ever since Nasim Taleb introduced the idea of the Black Swan event, the term has been over used to such an extent that it has become a cliché.  Stagflationary Mark  points out that true Black Swan events must meet three criteria:

Black Swans Are NOT Everywhere  
Black Swans Everywhere

Karen Gibbs, editor of the Gibbs Perspective, recently told attendees of The MoneyShow Las Vegas that Black Swan events aren’t as rare as they once were.

In 2007, Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. In it, he argues that most of the really big events in our world are rare and unpredictable.

Taleb lists three criteria for such an event: It must be a surprise to the observer; it must have a major impact, and [will be] eventually rationalized by hindsight as predictable.

By definition, black swans cannot be everywhere.

...

Once something becomes predictable, then it no longer qualifies as a black swan event.

The Greek economic crisis is yet another Black Swan event, although those studying the situation saw legal accounting sleight of hand mask the country’s profligate spending, cheap money and few, if any, financial controls.

No, it isn't. If those studying the situation could see it coming then it definitely was not a black swan event. They did not need to rationalize it later as being predictable. They were predicting it.

One of Stagflationary Mark's commenters pointed out that what we are now seeing are not Black Swans:

Watchtower has pointed out in the comments that what we are seeing might be black crows, and not black swans. That makes a lot more sense to me, especially since they can be seen in great numbers.

As seen at, "Crows, and especially ravens, often feature in European legends or mythology as portents or harbingers of doom or death, because of their dark plumage, unnerving calls, and tendency to eat carrion (including those of humans)."

There are a lot of Black Crows circling about these days.  The global economy remains on a hair trigger; any of a number of predictable events could easily trigger a double dip.  These include economic events (the failure of the Eurozone bail-out to work as planned, a California default, etc) but perhaps of greater danger is the risk of a War breaking out in the Middle East and/or Northeast Asia.  Consider:  Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms and Bam's daze of the weak.  President Obama, despite his inclusion of an exception for non-Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty signatories, has effectively eroded the American military deterrent for our enemies and his behavior, of supplication for our enemies and attacks on our friends can most certainly be understood by our enemies as reflecting a weakened will to support America's interests or allies.

(A note to Judge Crater, et al: I do not think anyone on this blog supports "more wars" as you have suggested; however, we do believe that the more credible the threat of force, the less likely force will be necessary.  It is something most of us learned in the elementary school playground.)

According to Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, (Ret) there is clear evidence of Iran shipping chemical weapons to Hezbollah.  Bill Whittle's interview of the General is chilling: Former US General Warns of Chemical Attacks Against Israel.  Considering the evidence that Syria has been shipping Scud missiles (capable of carrying chemical warheads) to Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah's rhetoric has recently escalated, this does not seem like a stable situation.

Lebanese Army Fires on Israeli Warplanes: Military

Lebanese anti-aircraft guns opened fire on two Israeli warplanes that were violating Lebanon's airspace on Wednesday, a military statement said.

"The anti-aircraft batteries fired in the direction of Israeli warplanes that flew over" the Shebaa region of southern Lebanon at medium altitude, the statement said.

Earlier in the day, two aircraft flew over southern and northern Lebanon before returning to Israeli territory, it said.

While Lebanon's army publishes almost daily reports of Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace, the military rarely opens fire unless the planes fly within range of its guns. [Empahsis added-SW]

The overflights are a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended a devastating 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah militia.

Israel argues that the overflights are necessary, despite the resolution, to monitor what it says is massive arms smuggling by Hezbollah, also in breach of the same resolution.

Last month Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of providing Scud missiles to Hezbollah, which Israel alleges has stockpiled more than 40,000 rockets, some capable of reaching large towns in Israel.

Damascus has rejected the allegation but the armed Hezbollah which controls southern Lebanon has neither confirmed nor denied it.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to practice brinkmanship on the Korean peninsular:

North Korea to Suspend Naval Hotline With South

Some people console themselves with the thought that it is all a mistake:

Why Did North Korea Do It?

So: my guess is that it was an accident. Or perhaps some combination of #3 and #5, a rogue commander who fired the shot because of some kind of chaos in the chain of command. Then, once the deed was done, we got all the usual North Korean bluster and delusion that we've come to know and loathe over the past few decades.

Others seem much more clear-eyed:

Pyongyang'd Again

A North Korean submarine torpedoed and sank a South Korean gunboat in March, killing 46 sailors. This was the conclusion of a thorough investigation by experts from the U.S., Australia, Britain, and Sweden, last week. The White House then decried "an act of aggression," omitting that it was also an act of war. The latest of many.

While it is true that the leaders of North Korea are insane, it is not helpful to leave matters there. Even the insane have motivations, and in this case, numerous allies. In the past, Pyongyang's most belligerent acts have been performed with a certain base cunning, and generous consideration of the interests of their allies: chiefly Iran, and China.

Most notably, as I have written before, Pyongyang tends to create an incident at a moment when the heat is rising on Iran; and the favour is often returned by the ayatollahs. The two countries are obviously pooling nuclear and missile expertise, and both benefit from technology provided by China and Russia -- which in turn shield both against sanctions at the United Nations. This game puzzles the West's finest strategic minds. (And I say that facetiously.)

If one of these situations, low trust environments in which paranoia is more highly rewarded by reality than denial, explodes into a conflagration, there will be many people who are surprised.  The markets will react with horror and a flight to safety.  However, war in the Middle East or Northeast Asia will not be a Black Swan but merely the arrival of the carrion Black Crows which are currently circling the globe.

The United States is perceived by our enemies as being less likely to protect itself or its allies (and this perception is continually reinforced by the Obama administration which seems to be blind to optics at home and abroad.)

Iran, North Korea and their allies feel empowered and emboldened by a combination of American weakness and the protection of patron states.

Internal stresses in Iran and North Korea are typically addressed by externalizing the problem.

The pressure for an Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program is increasing by the day.

HISH (Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Hamas) saber rattling increases as Iran approaches a nuclear capacity.

In such an environment, where he who strikes first has a major advantage, how could anyone be surprised if war breaks out?