You write as though you misunderstand the purpose of a discussion forum.
Global financial system implosion begins
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
This has been a fascinating thread to sample/skim- read through from it's start in 2008, as the world financial crisis broke. The thing that strikes me now in 2011, as a double dip recession looms, the Eurozone looks close to collapse, and state after state approaches bankrupcy, and every stabilization mechanism in the "how to stop a world slump" handbook has been fruitlessly carried out (other than getting to grips with the bank's/hedge funds' abilities to continue their mad speculation and destabilisation/market manipulation conspiracies all over the globe of course), is how few of the extremely technically knowledgable posters on here have been able to lift their eyes from small scale minutia to look clearly at a system in now quite obvious 1930's type meltdown. Even more interesting, even amusing, that some of the posters on here , very knowledgable all, appear to be bankers themselves. All I can say to them is "well done all". you've brought on the world economic crisis just as Marx always allocated you this special role to do in his outline of the cycles of capitalism as the rate of profit periodically falls.
I still think there is a lot of mileage generally in the Kondratiev Long Wave cycle theory myself - despite the critics of same - if it does indeed describe a general tendancy for each wave of capitalist expansion, stability, and decline, to be in very roughly 50 year waves. OK the periodicity bit is highly debateable , - after all why should the full exploitation of a particular production/technology/organisational form of capitalism always be a particular time length? eg, Steam age production and the canal and railway boom wave for instance. But if the underlying theory behind Long wave theory is right capitalism will have to find a new technology , and organisational form, beyond the computer and mass production based growth post 1945, if it is to take off again on a new wave of expansion.
In the meantime, tiresomely Lefty phrasemongering as it is, it looks like its going to bevarious forms of " barbarism" (fascism, military juntas, fascistic theocracies a la Iran, or some form of "socialism" (hopefully not bloody Stalinism again ) coming up in competition as the world system goes over the rapids in the near future. Admittedly privatising the NHS and robbing us all of our pensions is a long way from barbarism, but give it time, the current phase of up and coming robbery from the UK ruling class is just early day stuff .
I still think there is a lot of mileage generally in the Kondratiev Long Wave cycle theory myself - despite the critics of same - if it does indeed describe a general tendancy for each wave of capitalist expansion, stability, and decline, to be in very roughly 50 year waves. OK the periodicity bit is highly debateable , - after all why should the full exploitation of a particular production/technology/organisational form of capitalism always be a particular time length? eg, Steam age production and the canal and railway boom wave for instance. But if the underlying theory behind Long wave theory is right capitalism will have to find a new technology , and organisational form, beyond the computer and mass production based growth post 1945, if it is to take off again on a new wave of expansion.
In the meantime, tiresomely Lefty phrasemongering as it is, it looks like its going to bevarious forms of " barbarism" (fascism, military juntas, fascistic theocracies a la Iran, or some form of "socialism" (hopefully not bloody Stalinism again ) coming up in competition as the world system goes over the rapids in the near future. Admittedly privatising the NHS and robbing us all of our pensions is a long way from barbarism, but give it time, the current phase of up and coming robbery from the UK ruling class is just early day stuff .
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Ye Gods!! Views like that in the States make him a total Commie!!!
Respect
I still dont buy the 80% productivity uptick
I do buy the notion the notion that its all utterly corrupt and in the thrall of Big Bizz, or more likely, Goldman Sachs
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Forgive me - I am old but still niave
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
In 1980 most book keeping would have been manual on actual ledgers and cash books. During the intervening 3 decades its automated via spread sheets or sage. Huge numbers of other areas of work have been automated. I cant back up the 80% but I can believe it is possible.
Yeah. Richard Wolff explains this about 36 mins into Capitalism Hits the Fan.
A tad UK/western-centric in its analysis (fair enough on Urban, perhaps). Nevertheless though, an eloquent synopsis of the connundrum.
Woof
You think? What is looming is not a "double dip" recession. It's a "permanent recession". The former is a property of an expanding energy system (what there used to be), the latter of a contracting energy system (what there now is). Likewise, a Kondratiev wave has no physical interpretation outside of the conditions under which it has (only ever) been observed i.e. of expanding net energy availability.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
not necessarily true.
If world governments collectively decided to invest heavily and immediately in transforming the worlds energy infrastructure to a far more renewables based and energy efficient system, then this investment / spending would pull the world out of recession, particularly given that the number of jobs per kWp installed capacity is far higher for renewables than any other form of power generation.
There is still the spare energy head room to deliver the increased manufacturing output required, particularly if this is a relatively temporary blip resulting in rapidly increasing energy availability from renewables, and less energy requirements generally for everything.
IMHO.
If they decide to blow this spare energy capacity on some other economic stimulus that has no long term energy benefit, or increases energy consumption though then I'd think you'd probably be right.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I don't think its that simple. Heavy investment in a new energy infrastructure could certainly provide short-medium term growth and an escape from this stage of recession. You would also be laying a foundation that allowed humans to have some of the basic necessities and a reasonable life well into the future.
What I don't believe you would get, is enough energy to ensure that the economic system which requires quite high levels of growth can survive for decades to come. There isn't a lot of evidence that such a feat could be pulled off, especially as the price of the energy also matters.
In fact, I don't even think the current economic system can handle even thinking about the truth on this front, it cannot face building for a future that doesn't meet its needs, even if such a future will meet the needs of humans in some important sense, and is much better than plunging off a cliff after one last party.
If renewable energy could actually scale up with the relative ease you suggest, or if there was immense scope for increased efficiency, and the price was right, then the current system probably could handle the truth. But even if its possible, there will be significant doubt about it being possible, and this will affect the market etc reaction to such concepts. I simply don't think the kind of efficiency that we need to survive can be squared with the god of growth that rules over our system - the efficiencies necessary require a radical change to consumption levels that are incompatible with the current economy.
Throw in the global issues, the signs that a united front will be hard to achieve and the old forces of conflict & competition will rise to the fore, and I believe the picture will turn out significantly more messy than either the renewable-optimists or the doomers tend to suggest.
If the current system cannot handle the truth, then perhaps it is better for it to fall down sooner rather than later, but only if some sane ideas come along to fill the void.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Are we going to have another 'credit crunch'?
Lots of talk about a european banking crisis.
We're fucked aren't we? Growth is bust. They're just trying to magic it back into existence, getting people to get investing to get things moving, printing money - but none of its real - and ultimately the energy supply says 'no'.
Lots of talk about a european banking crisis.
We're fucked aren't we? Growth is bust. They're just trying to magic it back into existence, getting people to get investing to get things moving, printing money - but none of its real - and ultimately the energy supply says 'no'.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Lots of dollars pumped into market..
elbows
Well-Known Member
I think there is already another credit crunch, as various central banks had to make quite the announcement earlier this week that they will be lending wily nilly to banks that need it in the months ahead.
Energy issues are what made me think that something bad would happen, and I first became aware of this stuff back in 2002. Where I would urge caution is with predicting the timescale, since its been possible to worry about energy for many decades now, and some prophets of doom may have wasted their message by delivering it to soon. I tend to assume that energy woes have made their mark for pretty much this entire century so far, and it will only get worse, but I do not completely rule out the possibility that things may yet take some time to unwind, and that much fudging and stumbling on could be done in the meantime, more brief upward cycles before we crash down again.
In recent months I have started to see more complaints via the media that we have 'run out of ideas'. I don't think the underlying problem is a lack of ideas, its a lack of people who are passionate in buying into & promoting alternative ideas. And this is because the old ways still offer much to quite a lot of people, especially those with the loudest voices, there is still something to be lost by being radical. So I wonder if things will really have to get much, much worse for far more people before we can catch a glimpse of meaningful change. Especially if the new ideas do not give us the kind of luxuries and illusory wealth that people expect, ideas that are out of tune with the sorts of aspirations we've been fed by television for decades. There is a shitload of coming to terms with reality yet to come, and sadly a great deal of horror has yet to happen before the ideas of someone like me sound like something really positive to strive for, rather than a race downwards that many are suspicious of or simply don't believe. And if some of the attitudes of fellow peak-oil dormers on this forum are anything to go by, I am not much more at home with that crowd than I am with the spent forces of optimism who clutch to their increasingly frail illusions.
Hell even people who don't believe we are hitting an energy ceiling must surely be wondering what we have hit. They could quite rightly blame fear & uncertainty, poor confidence, etc, but what caused those things and how do we escape them? And are we doomed to waste time and put up with an especially unequal burden-bearing and poverty horror story for many years to come, until people finally decide that this isn't one of those economic cycles that happen 'naturally' and that will surely end eventually even in the absence of a radical change of direction?
I dunno man, I marvel at the number of complex systems that can be sustained long beyond the point where it seems reasonable that they could survive. The ability of bullshit and denial, fake it till you make it attitudes to deliver actual results over a sustained period of time always boggles my mind. And theres the global aspect, how long could the tired old ways be maintained in one country at the expense of another? Ages if history is any judge, with the main complicating factors this time around being the inter-connected nature of the economy, and nuclear weapons.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Pretty agree with that. The thing about peak oil is wont really be certain that its happening and whats its effects until after it happened. I think your absolutely right that its unlikiely to be a steady decline, but more like a big dipper - sharp ups and downs but the long time trend only going in one direction.
One thing is clear - the rich and powerful are going to do all they can to hold onto their postion at the expense of everybody else (this is clearly already happening) - how people respond to that is the key as to weather we end up with a fairer and more sustainable system or some fucked up neo-liberal dystopia of huge wealth inequalitys sustained by force. The end game is mad max world - and that depends on which way the global economic social system goes in the next 30 years.
One thing is clear - the rich and powerful are going to do all they can to hold onto their postion at the expense of everybody else (this is clearly already happening) - how people respond to that is the key as to weather we end up with a fairer and more sustainable system or some fucked up neo-liberal dystopia of huge wealth inequalitys sustained by force. The end game is mad max world - and that depends on which way the global economic social system goes in the next 30 years.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yes, although Im not convinced about a mad max end-game, well maybe the pig shit part but I think many dystopian nightmares are an ill fit for the way humanity actually tends to go, they are grotesque exaggerations of some aspects that could come true, and omit much of what the human spirit is able to come up with under even the harshest conditions.
When the first crunch & bailout happened, I argued that a bailout was necessary to avoid plunging the masses into instant megawoe, but that the breathing space these bailouts created must be used to bring about change. Further, the change must be fairer than solutions we usually see. Well predictably enough what happened was the usual scam, rearranging things to ensure the burden was shared in the usual ugly and disproportionate way. I think the rich & powerful may have made a big mistake, if I were them I would be prepared to give up more at this stage in order to reduce the pressure. But it seems they can't think like that and greed, self-interest and short-termism dooms them to the dark path where many innocents will suffer and change is ultimately brought about by a great rage. I worry about what decent ideas will be lost in such a conflict, much of what I hate will be likely destroyed but at what price, and what will rise in its place?
When the first crunch & bailout happened, I argued that a bailout was necessary to avoid plunging the masses into instant megawoe, but that the breathing space these bailouts created must be used to bring about change. Further, the change must be fairer than solutions we usually see. Well predictably enough what happened was the usual scam, rearranging things to ensure the burden was shared in the usual ugly and disproportionate way. I think the rich & powerful may have made a big mistake, if I were them I would be prepared to give up more at this stage in order to reduce the pressure. But it seems they can't think like that and greed, self-interest and short-termism dooms them to the dark path where many innocents will suffer and change is ultimately brought about by a great rage. I worry about what decent ideas will be lost in such a conflict, much of what I hate will be likely destroyed but at what price, and what will rise in its place?
elbows
Well-Known Member
But what does fear of the system actually mean? That could include almost anything, everything from the fear that too much risk was taken, the fear of bubbles bursting, the fear of government inaction, the fear of peak oil.
Certainly once fear kicks in it can run away with itself, and may be triggered by things that aren't going to be the real source of tomorrows woes, but I don't think we can dismiss it as being down to poor sentiment and blind fear, fear for fears sake. The poor sentiment comes from something real. I've tended to assume that market sentiments and business confidence would have quite some trouble coming to terms with something like peak oil, and this is why I've long said that the system likely can't handle the truth on these fronts. Because of a multitude of other factors and systemic imbalances and weaknesses, I cannot go as far as to confidently claim that this is what we are seeing now. Over the last 7-ish years the mainstream has slowly tended towards a substantial reality check when it comes to the future energy picture, and the price of oil suggests some awareness, but I struggle to tell quite how far along this path they have travelled. Certainly there presently seems to be almost zero mainstream interest in weaving the energy narrative into the recession/depression/crunchy/austerity narrative, and those with a special interest in Peak oil are bound to see its fingerprints everywhere, so I'm rather stuck for now.
This is a state of affairs that could potentially last a very long time, and we already saw a few years ago that 'lack of investment' was going to be blamed for future shortfalls in oil production, so I've no idea how long the public face of the crisis will be economic, obscuring much of what lurks behind it. It could be decades, especially as I always feared that the energy gap would largely be dealt with by demand destruction.
If we assume that there is indeed much wealth available for investment, if only people could find confidence in something to invest in on an epic scale, then renewable energy optimists should ask themselves why capital is not flowing towards the tech that will save us. I guess there are numerous possible explanations, ranging from protecting the old energy interests that still have clout at this stage, to lack of clarity as to whether these alternatives are really needed or whether they will be left with a white elephant (should there be any doubt at this stage?), to concerns about whether the tech will scale up and work, to concerns about whether such investments will give the level of returns that people have become accustomed to. I have serious concerns about whether it will scale up to the levels necessary to match peoples current expectations, but I consider it to be better than nothing. But if such things could only provide relatively humble life-support systems for much of humanity, can the forces of capital actually be bothered? It doesn't sound like much of a future for anyone, let alone those who are so used to being able to milk the world on a truly massive scale/
Certainly once fear kicks in it can run away with itself, and may be triggered by things that aren't going to be the real source of tomorrows woes, but I don't think we can dismiss it as being down to poor sentiment and blind fear, fear for fears sake. The poor sentiment comes from something real. I've tended to assume that market sentiments and business confidence would have quite some trouble coming to terms with something like peak oil, and this is why I've long said that the system likely can't handle the truth on these fronts. Because of a multitude of other factors and systemic imbalances and weaknesses, I cannot go as far as to confidently claim that this is what we are seeing now. Over the last 7-ish years the mainstream has slowly tended towards a substantial reality check when it comes to the future energy picture, and the price of oil suggests some awareness, but I struggle to tell quite how far along this path they have travelled. Certainly there presently seems to be almost zero mainstream interest in weaving the energy narrative into the recession/depression/crunchy/austerity narrative, and those with a special interest in Peak oil are bound to see its fingerprints everywhere, so I'm rather stuck for now.
This is a state of affairs that could potentially last a very long time, and we already saw a few years ago that 'lack of investment' was going to be blamed for future shortfalls in oil production, so I've no idea how long the public face of the crisis will be economic, obscuring much of what lurks behind it. It could be decades, especially as I always feared that the energy gap would largely be dealt with by demand destruction.
If we assume that there is indeed much wealth available for investment, if only people could find confidence in something to invest in on an epic scale, then renewable energy optimists should ask themselves why capital is not flowing towards the tech that will save us. I guess there are numerous possible explanations, ranging from protecting the old energy interests that still have clout at this stage, to lack of clarity as to whether these alternatives are really needed or whether they will be left with a white elephant (should there be any doubt at this stage?), to concerns about whether the tech will scale up and work, to concerns about whether such investments will give the level of returns that people have become accustomed to. I have serious concerns about whether it will scale up to the levels necessary to match peoples current expectations, but I consider it to be better than nothing. But if such things could only provide relatively humble life-support systems for much of humanity, can the forces of capital actually be bothered? It doesn't sound like much of a future for anyone, let alone those who are so used to being able to milk the world on a truly massive scale/
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Sorry, I meant to write 'fear for the system'. The "fear" is that the 'system will actually go down and the ruling class don't know what that means'. What is being put forward is that 'the ruling class is losing faith in itself and therefore "they cannot come to a decision on anything."'
Whether you agree with that, or not, I think you'll agree the future's not looking bright?
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004525
Whether you agree with that, or not, I think you'll agree the future's not looking bright?
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004525
elbows
Well-Known Member
Sure, in many ways I don't think the future is bright. But as I find that hopelessness leads to sinister policies, and I am naturally too prone to gloom, I find that I must balance this somewhat with an abstract form of hope. The idea that despite the poor odds and horrid history, beautiful and fair things may yet happen, that opportunity for joy will not permanently fall from our grasp. Humans are nothing if not great copers, very adaptable. It is a tragedy that so much of what we have to cope with need not be, is the product of folly and the mistakes of people long since departed from this life. Perhaps a more tangible shared nightmare will force us to cast off some of our most destructive tendencies, perhaps not. But as struggle seems to be a standard feature of all kinds of life that we know of, I do not expect a life without struggle, but it would be nice to struggle in a way that offers the hope of getting somewhere sane on planet earth one day.
Thanks for explaining what you meant. I did read the article earlier but it did my head in by rambling on at length more than I do on this forum, and it got obsessed with the subject of people being labelled 'reformist' which was of very little interest to me. And I don't know as it will be enough to create a Marxist party that eradicates all trace of Stalinist aspects. I think we might need a new twist on stuff that Marx explained so well, and I don't mean a mere gimmick or rebranding exercise, but something substantial that compliments it in a significant way, one that perhaps approaches things from a different angle to the one that humans have become so weary of. I can't actually imagine quite what, faith and hope seem to have been suffocated pretty effectively, and its pretty hard to judge exactly which weak spot is the one that will fail first, quite where human heads will eventually burst free from the suffocation. In recent years I often settle into a position of thinking that a movement that declares the god of growth to be dead would be a strong contender to tread this new ground, but Im not exactly overwhelmed by many of the ideas that such beliefs have given birth to so far. Hopefully thats just down to the nature of those who were ready to be early adopters of this growth-dead belief, and that if reality really goes that way then eventually a much broader cross section of humanity will be aware of this fate, and will have some different proposals for how we move forwards.
Thanks for explaining what you meant. I did read the article earlier but it did my head in by rambling on at length more than I do on this forum, and it got obsessed with the subject of people being labelled 'reformist' which was of very little interest to me. And I don't know as it will be enough to create a Marxist party that eradicates all trace of Stalinist aspects. I think we might need a new twist on stuff that Marx explained so well, and I don't mean a mere gimmick or rebranding exercise, but something substantial that compliments it in a significant way, one that perhaps approaches things from a different angle to the one that humans have become so weary of. I can't actually imagine quite what, faith and hope seem to have been suffocated pretty effectively, and its pretty hard to judge exactly which weak spot is the one that will fail first, quite where human heads will eventually burst free from the suffocation. In recent years I often settle into a position of thinking that a movement that declares the god of growth to be dead would be a strong contender to tread this new ground, but Im not exactly overwhelmed by many of the ideas that such beliefs have given birth to so far. Hopefully thats just down to the nature of those who were ready to be early adopters of this growth-dead belief, and that if reality really goes that way then eventually a much broader cross section of humanity will be aware of this fate, and will have some different proposals for how we move forwards.
Looters in suits: Three years ago this week, Lehman Brothers crashed. Since then, Britain's bankers have learnt nothing and have been let off the hook again
Max Hastings. Daily Mail 17th September 2011
Max Hastings. Daily Mail 17th September 2011
Surprised I agree with much of the article. Didn't realise the Daily Mail was taking this line?
Invest what, exactly? We run a debt based finance system. The amount of debt already issued is backed by stuff that will never now be made. We can't service our existing debt, yet alone issue more.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
bollocks.
we're only in trouble because our governments have collectively opted for the economic suicide option of attempting to cut the deficit through cuts while the economy is weak instead of investing in growing the GDP of the country, and thereby reducing social security and related costs long term and increasing long tern tax revenues by increasing employment / decreasing unemployment.
Anyway, as the feed in tariff shows, the government doesn't even need to go to the markets to borrow for a lot of this, it can simply make it a viable option for people to invest in it themselves - there's fuckloads of private capital (as in people's savings, pensions etc) looking for investments that guarantee long term reasonable returns. Although long term this will cost more than the government borrowing and paying for it directly, it's an option that's been proven to work and spreads the costs over then next 25 years. It's utterly nuts that this government just killed the market for over 50kWp solar PV systems just as it was beginning to look like a realistic option to supply significant proportions of the UK's energy requirements basically because it was looking like being far more successful than they'd anticipated.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
besides, direct public investment in major renewable energy projects eg severn barrage, would simply increase the government's asset base against which it could borrow, as well as giving it a direct long term revenue stream by which to pay back the debt incurred, so if anything it ought to have positive impact on it's ability to borrow further / retain it's AAA status etc.
or they could simply switch some of their QE billions across from paying bankers bonuses to doing something useful that actually would stimulate the UK economy and reduce our dependence on energy imports / sort out our balance of trade deficit long term.
Basically there are loads of options there, it's just that this current crop of politicians and economists appear to be utterly clueless, and besotted with an idiotic economic theory/fad that has no successful historic precedent and several unsuccessful/catastrophic precedents.
or they could simply switch some of their QE billions across from paying bankers bonuses to doing something useful that actually would stimulate the UK economy and reduce our dependence on energy imports / sort out our balance of trade deficit long term.
Basically there are loads of options there, it's just that this current crop of politicians and economists appear to be utterly clueless, and besotted with an idiotic economic theory/fad that has no successful historic precedent and several unsuccessful/catastrophic precedents.
They're just repeating what Max Keiser has been saying for some time.
i suspect that the DM realises that it owes its existence to that of the comfortable middle class, which is set to disappear if things carry on like this?
deke t lefel
Active Member
the wavelengths of the Kondratiev cycle have also been proposed as decreasing in length over time (starting at the beginning of the 17th century) - this maybe goes some way to explaining why people intuitively equate the system with a black hole implosion
the end of feudalism and the start of capitalism in Europe is a grey area, although it roughly coincided with the Thirty Years War at the beginning of the 17th century (feudalism relied on the moral authority of organised religion and the devine right of kings, both of which were undermined by the European reformation)
in the future, the end of capitalism and the start of a new system will also probably be observed as a grey area..... and capitalism may well be considered to have been replaced by a system of consumerism fuelled by the success of corporate entities
this even longer cycle, consisting of a progression from crown to capital to corpus, is also overlooked
Creatures that are born and die in the light have no concept of Dark. Likewise, creatures born under circumstances of an expanding energy supply have no concept of the relationship between the energy system and the financial system under conditions of energy contraction. For example, the are no "pensions savings" waiting idly to be invested. Everyone extracts far more from the pension system than they invest, with the balance historically being supplied by energy growth. The "pensions" you cite are nothing more than a claim on future manufacturing - the money they represent doesn't currently exist. Since the requisite future manufacturing will not now be performed, the money will never be created and the pension is valueless. There isn't even enough money in the system to meet existing claims. Likewise, the bankers bonuses and other devices to which you would subscribe are being funded by the creation of massive quantities of new debt - predicated on future production - which will never be realised. They do not represent "real" money that would be the necessary basis of the investments you would like.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you aren't grasping what is happening here.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I run a business doing precisely what I talk about, and we along with pretty much every other company in the country doing the same thing are having to expand rapidly to meet the demand from the private capital wishing to invest in renewable energy installations in this country.
Pension funds in this country had a little over £2 trillion of assets under management in 2009 [source]. While you're right that pension funds rely on profits from these investments to pay current and future liabilities, it's wrong to suggest the pensions are valueless, or that there's nothing within these funds available to be invested in renewables if it were to be an attractive long term investment.
Also, we are not under conditions of energy contraction, not yet anyway.
[source]
If we invest rapidly in renewable energy projects and related infrastructure now then there's no particular reason why we need be for a long time to come - or at least not in such a way as to prevent economic growth providing that we're also investing in energy saving technologies to increase the GDP to energy ratio. It's far from a direct relationship between energy growth and GDP growth, illustrated by these figures showing that in 1990 every $1million GDP took 279.6 toe, vs 171.7 toe in 2005 [source]
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well thats not strictly true, since people can imagine conditions other than those which they know of first hand, and plenty of people think that energy woes spell epic problems for the economy.
Still a minority though, and this carries its own problems. It enables those who fully buy into the energy-economic woe, peak oil etc ramifications to overcompensate, potentially overstating their case. The worst case scenarios are worth bearing in mind, but the precise timescale, and pace of decline, are not completely known at this stage.
Ultimately I think a downgrade of future expectations is well under way, with all the ramifications for the concept of wealth, investments and savings that this entails. But I do not think that some of the things of which free spirit speaks are completely alien to this environment either. There is much turmoil and loss of faith to come, but generally people do not completely give up, they struggle on because the only alternative is nothing. And people are not likely to choose nothing.
Wealth and savings have not vanished just because the future isn't as advertised. Yes there is a very real possibility that inflation of prices of essentials will erode these savings to the point that your words fit, but again the timescale is far from certain. If it takes a long time then other things may happen in the interim which change the longer term outlook, stuff that will matter just as much as what happens to savings, such as infrastructure.
Hell even in a worst case scenario, people will learn to value different things, out of necessity. Despite the wailing that the loss of current fancy extras in our lives would cause if it happened overnight, we can and will come to terms with even mighty changes on this front, and still find something in being alive to celebrate. I don't have as rosy a view when it comes to the basics though, and consider it pretty sick that for a society that thinks itself modern and technical, many of our dwellings are going to be horrible if we lose fossil-fuel based heating. And potentially massive starvation events at various locations around the globe in the decades to come are not to be dismissed lightly either. But are such prophecies any use? Only with a plan, only if following the message of extreme woe you offer some path that people can take. Simply painting a grotesque picture of the future has its place, and there is an important and long-documented relationship between man and horrific visions, but on its own its not a platform to build anything on, it cannot dominate the landscape because the landscape would be too bleak to meet the most basic needs of our minds.
Similar threads
