Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Global financial system implosion begins

Bald assertion. Means are under almost constant development, and is pretty much here now (i.e., my pocket calculator). It is bold of you to assert something is "definitely" not going to happen
With surplus energy, we have the means to make technology e.g. your pocket calculator.

The assumption that with technology, we have the means to make surplus energy (i.e. reverse causality) is unexamined and - it turns out - one which has no basis in thermodynamics.

This is not bald assertion. This is physics.
How do you know what might be found in future?
We have 7 billion people in the present. A very large fraction of them eat hydrocarbon. The bottom is about to fall out of our hydrocarbon supply. Flash Gordon fantasies about the future are irrelevant at this point.
Another bald assertion that strikes me as singularly outrageous. The problems of fracking can be avoided with appropriate regulation (I don't doubt there would be problems if the oil companies are left free to do what they want, but they won't be).
Do you actually know how fraccing works? Or are you simply coercing the problem into an ideological, market based framework?
 
Quoting this post to prevent it getting buried in a discussion which should have taken itself to the Peak Oil thread a long, long time ago.
It's a good article. I disagree with this point
State hands over taxpayer money to functionally insolvent bank; state gives regulatory thumbs up to said bank; bank uses that thumbs up to sell stock; bank pays cash back to state.
The state isn't "handing over taxpayer money". The state is creating money (literally borrowing it from a future which can't exist now) and handing it over. The former would be simple misallocation, capable of rectification. It is because it is the latter that the system is imploding.
 
I believe we've explored that cul-de-sac quite thoroughly already, and it doesn't have a lot to do with the thrust of the article.

Half way through it struck me that it would make a great screenplay, with the Iceland story told in parallel. Who would make it?
 
I believe we've explored that cul-de-sac quite thoroughly already, and it doesn't have a lot to do with the thrust of the article.
We explored it. I believe you abandoned the exploration at the point where we wondered where the tax-payers money *did* come from (debt), what the collateral for such debt might be (yet-to-be-built physical assets in the real world), how such yet-to-be-built physical assets in the real world might come to get built (with sunbeams and summer breezes), how the devices for collecting sunbeams and summer breezes might come to get built (with the energy currently underwriting the collateral on the existing debt and putting dinner on the table), and how the compounding interest on such debt might get serviced while we constructed the devices for collecting sunbeams and summer breezes (more unbacked debt).

I agree it yielded a cul-de-sac - to the idea that you can somehow decouple consideration of the financial system from consideration of the system that comprises its collateral base.

But I also agree that such enquiry doesn't have a lot to do with the thrust of the article. That is a statement about the article, not my comment in the context of this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymu
With surplus energy, we have the means to make technology e.g. your pocket calculator.
Bald assertion. Technology is not energy but ways to use it.

The assumption that with technology, we have the means to make surplus energy (i.e. reverse causality) is unexamined and - it turns out - one which has no basis in thermodynamics.
Another bald assertion. Technology enables us to stretch the energy we have, use it more efficiently, make it last longer and do more.

This is not bald assertion. This is physics.
Physics applied ideologically in the form of bald assertions.

We have 7 billion people in the present. A very large fraction of them eat hydrocarbon. The bottom is about to fall out of our hydrocarbon supply. Flash Gordon fantasies about the future are irrelevant at this point.
Another bald assertion. The population seems to be growing. If your assertions were right it should be shrinking from widespread starvation.

Do you actually know how fraccing works? Or are you simply coercing the problem into an ideological, market based framework?
Where did you get your mineral engineering degree? All technologies present problems; all technologies either mitigate the problems or go away. This one is making the States a First World power again.

The response you provided was utter nonsense. Why do I waste time? I really should have my head examined.
 
Mmmmmm, Fracking

9477932_orig.jpg


1432394_orig.jpg


1609627_orig.jpg


http://www.wvhostfarms.org/photo-gallery.html#PhotoSwipe1357156024171

As to why you waste your time Frank, I thought we'd established you like the sound of your own voice. Also maybe if you drone on for long enough someone might buy you another drink to shut you up.

As we've also established you don't bother clicking on links I have included some pix from that site to save you any possible effort. :)
 
This sort of propaganda is old hat. I am not impressed. Anyone can get pictures like that all over the place.

I appreciate your insults, though. They convince me I must be on the right track that you feel you have to resort to such tactics.
 
A word on Greece from everyone favorite swivel-eyed fruitcake Linky looking even more like an old school ventriloquists dummy than usual
 
Anyone reading this thread wishing to seek real answers for causes of the 2008 Crash and its subsequent downward spiral into the Long Slump , getting beyond the "Peak Oil" red herring constantly promoted by the neo-Malthusian reactionery, Falcon, and a few others, could do worse than read the reviews (the book is too damned expensive !) on Amazon of Yanis Varoufakis's " The Global Minataur". Although this book is by a radical Keynsian, so I can't agree with it all, it at least firmly places the crisis in the real, historically valid, world of capitalism as a dynamic system, and its operational structures and periodic, cyclical, systemic failings. This review summary snippet , below,of the specific features of US politico/economic world hegemony after WWII which led up to the Great 2008 Crash, is particularly powerful - and should remind us that that these periodic crisis and Slumps are an integral feature of capitalism, and the 2008 crisis simply WASN'T sparked by any historically unique world oil shortage - any more than the 1929 Crash was. (basic commodity prices , for oil, iron ore, soya, wheat, coal, etc, etc, ALWAYS peak at the highest point of a capitalist speculative frenzy/production boom period, and do of course help to bring that phase of the cycle to an end - but these temporary price spikes are only a small component of the overall speculative crash - and certainly don't mark the turning point from industrialised capitalism back to an agrarian economy in themselves !).

"from the moment Nixon abandons the US gold standard under the pressure of its now increasingly powerful and rivalrous allies (France, Britain, Japan), a pattern almost the reverse of the former... (ie, the Bretton woods agreement post WWII period)... emerges. After the abandonment of gold standard convertibility and the introduction of the floating exchange rates, the US dollar functions as the world reserve currency almost entirely unbound by gold. It can do this thanks to the immense economic and military power of the US, which makes it a safe guarantee for all creditors. As a result, the United States has an "exorbitant privilege" in being able to print dollars pretty much ad libitum and thereby bankroll its massive trade deficits and its enormous military expansion from President Reagan onwards, at the expense of Europe and the new economic powers of East Asia, including today China, whose trade surpluses are promptly invested in US dollar bonds and assets denominated in US dollars. The United States in this way can run up almost limitless debt and can increase its world position in military and economic terms thanks to the seignorage benefits it accrues in this manner - it becomes the 'global minotaur' which receives tribute from all abroad.

But: it can do this only for as long as it is still the most trusted debtor, effectively. And this leads Varoufakis to his analysis of the crisis, which is perhaps the best part of the book. He explains in a clear and easy to understand manner how the endless flow of capital to Wall Street (and lesser gods parasitical upon it, like Iceland and Ireland) which could not be 'recycled' into productive investment led to the creation of a massive financial bubble of ever more remote derivatives and leveraging, which inevitably popped. From Varoufakis' clear overview, there can be no doubt that we haven't seen the end of the crisis yet and that the systemic responses on the part of the Obama administration as well as the European Commission are essentially just attempts to set the clock back, to return to the financialized system from before the collapse of the bubble without making the least serious effort at implementing reforms to prevent it from happening again. This is an important warning that none of the current governments are actually interested in the human consequences of the crisis or in preventing its future recurrence. Moreover, as the example of Japan discussed by Varoufakis shows, a debt-deflationary cycle can take a very long time to get out of, and may well result in a 'lost decade' or longer of nondevelopment of the economy for most people. The author ends therefore with a discussion of how the main challenge is that of the Chinese against the global minotaur and their attempt to supplant it, but this provides no solution of itself, just a change of the guard."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymu
It is possible to believe in both that and peak oil. 'America spends, Asia lends' and all that. When the crisis first broke I did think we might see more of a shift than we have by now, they seem to have propped things up sufficiently to buy some more time, but how long? The levels of global interdependence in the current system seem to be preserving the status quo, or at least slowing the pace of change to a barely noticeable crawl, and have at least temporarily silenced the voices that declared systemic change inevitable? I wonder how long it can last.
 
should remind us that that these periodic crisis and Slumps are an integral feature of capitalism, and the 2008 crisis simply WASN'T sparked by any historically unique world oil shortage - any more than the 1929 Crash was. (basic commodity prices , for oil, iron ore, soya, wheat, coal, etc, etc, ALWAYS peak at the highest point of a capitalist speculative frenzy/production boom period, and do of course help to bring that phase of the cycle to an end
There is no particular reason to think that capitalism is particularly prone to periodic crises any more than any other system. This is a major myth. Human beings exhibit the same behaviors in feudal and socialist and mixed economies -- greed, fear, pride and shame, and so are prone in all systems to the same excesses and adjustments. Autocratic governments (not economic systems) can sometimes curb these things, but as often the autocrats too get carried away, in which case they are even more efficient in causing crisis.

Commodity prices play a role, but almost always the crises come from collapse of debt markets. The 1930s collapse was from margin accounts, the recent one from debt securitization.

I've been holding my breath for over a year now thinking that sooner or later the free money regime that the Fed has created will have to come to an abrupt and painful end. I begin to wonder if they can't keep it up a good deal longer -- maybe long enough to engineer a classic soft landing. If so Bernanke and Company will deserve the world's thanks for avoiding the suffering that the depression we should have had would have caused.

It may all still come undone, though. The next month or so will tell whether an adult resolution of bitter political divisions in the US can be arranged. Assuming that, normal cyclic forces, advancing technologies and of course the huge bit of good luck for the States that natural gas represents, should enable the world to squeak through.
 
it at least firmly places the crisis in the real, historically valid, world of capitalism

As distinct from the imaginary world of food, light, heat, and medicine. You know - the stuff currently provided by that imaginary substance, hydrocarbon.

Got to love ayatollah's uncomplicated outlook out life.

But since you are so fond of it, would you mind explaining to everyone exactly what you mean by the term "neo-Malthusian reactionary"? I always end up reminded of the Monty Python Life of Brian scene about the Peoples Popular Front of Judea when comical chaps like you start getting pompous, but in this instance I'm genuinely curious. Specifically, if I was a neo-Malthusian, in what way would I be different from a Malthusian? Do you mean it as a label for someone who has the sense that the fact we live on a bounded sphere with a finite stock of resources might be important? Or do you mean in in the sense I might support the gassing of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals as a tactical device for controlling the population? And, as a reactionary, what political or social reform do you perceive I am opposed to?

Or is this just the prose equivalent of flatus, intended more for effect that meaning?
 
As distinct from the imaginary world of food, light, heat, and medicine. You know - the stuff currently provided by that imaginary substance, hydrocarbon.
Thing is, if you look for the causes of this most recent depression, they are found in the workings of capitalism, just as they were in 1929, as ayatollah says. That is not to deny all the other things, but you need to make a convincing case that they are the primary causes of the slump. I don't think they are, and there is a far more convincing story that just involves the contradictory workings of the financial system.
 
Thing is, if you look for the causes of this most recent depression, they are found in the workings of capitalism, just as they were in 1929, as ayatollah says. That is not to deny all the other things, but you need to make a convincing case that they are the primary causes of the slump. I don't think they are, and there is a far more convincing story that just involves the contradictory workings of the financial system.
LBJ I do undertand the point, and if capitalism had ever been observed operating outside of the conditions of energy growth that its stability is contingent upon, one with which I would have some sympathy. It hasn't.

The statement that capitalism suffers from a number of contradictions is true. The implicit statement being made, however, is that capitalism under conditions of energy expansion suffers from a number of contradictions. In either case, those contradictions have a series of remedies which ayatollah advocates and toward which I can have no view since the energy expansion condition no longer applies.

The statement that capitalism suffers from contradictions under conditions of energy contraction is also true. Those contradictions also have a series of remedies.

The problem with ayatollah's argument is that the analysis that pertains to the contradictions that capitalism suffers from under conditions of energy expansion is meaningless under conditions of energy contraction. But because the energy expansion condition is (a) implicit (b) not recognised (by ayatollah), he is in something of a cleft stick.

He is left with the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent: "If there is capitalism, then there is recession. There is recession. Therefore it's capitalism". Such arguments are invalid because there are other explanations for recession - in this case, because the energy which various capitalist processes require to be abundant and free, now isn't.
 
Be Ready To Mint That Coin
NYTimes blog Paul Krugman
January 7, 2013
Enter the platinum coin. There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all.
"And by minting a $1 trillion coin..." :D
 
Back
Top Bottom