Start of global war after 2012?

[clv101]

some degree of "business as usual", which I don't believe is possible.

I don't understand what you mean by this kind of statement. Of course some degree of BAU is possible. Money systems have, do and continue to collapse around the world. Look at Russia, they are on their seventh incarnation of the ruble now. Taking into account of previous collapses and revaluations, a ruble today is now worth 5x10^15 of the original!

Short a mass extinction event, some degree of BAU will continue. Maybe the UK pound will cease to exist, maybe the dollar... but all the people, the skills, the infrastructure, the resources, the relationships etc will still be there the following day. That's where 'value' lies, not in the currency.

[JohnB]

I think that money based on LETS could be a great way to go, because currency just appears out of thin air.

I pay you for something by making a LETS payment. You have some currency and therefore some wealth. I have a debt, but it's not linked to any physical assets, so I only have a moral obligation to repay the debt if I can. Wealth has appeared from nowhere!

You can use that wealth to trade, and at any time some people will have wealth and others will be in debt, but if you acquire more wealth than you can spend, the surplus is worthless. It doesn't give you any power or influence, but it might make some people think that you're not playing fair and you may be socially excluded. You could give it away to people who are in debt for good reason, because holding excess wealth does you no good.

I keep spending and run up big debts. I may be seen as lazy and selfish because I'm taking advantage by not playing fair, and may be socially excluded.

But if I'm not able to create wealth, because I'm old, ill, or am doing work that benefits society that I'm not paid for, the debt doesn't matter. By creating that debt I've helped others to acquire wealth, and I'm playing fair and not harming anyone. It doesn't matter if I can't repay the debt. Maybe someone with excess wealth will give me their surplus as it doesn't do them any good, and it shows appreciation that I'm not in a position to clear my debt.

It automatically includes social security benefits, because people in genuine need can legitimately get into debt without any requirement to repay it. But people who don't play fair, by acquiring excess wealth, or getting into big debt, can be ostracised and will ultimately starve.

It's simple, and it works with or without economic growth

[Ludwig]

some degree of "business as usual", which I don't believe is possible.

I don't understand what you mean by this kind of statement. Of course some degree of BAU is possible. Money systems have, do and continue to collapse around the world. Look at Russia, they are on their seventh incarnation of the ruble now. Taking into account of previous collapses and revaluations, a ruble today is now worth 5x10^15 of the original!

The thing that brought Russia back from the brink was its being integrated into an expanding world economy. And Russia WAS on the brink: its social structures and its infrastructure were starting to fall apart.

Short a mass extinction event, some degree of BAU will continue. Maybe the UK pound will cease to exist, maybe the dollar... but all the people, the skills, the infrastructure, the resources, the relationships etc will still be there the following day. That's where 'value' lies, not in the currency.

So your view is basically: "Economic collapse is nothing to do with the real world of objects, so can have no profound effect on that world." The evidence from history flatly contradicts this assertion.

[Ludwig]

What is going to happen when the price of oil plunges?

Interesting question indeed.

If the price of oil plunges again, it will not be for long.

[clv101]

The evidence from history flatly contradicts this assertion.

Does it? I'd suggest history shows the opposite! Many countries have experienced economic collapses over the last couple of centuries, 'a degree of BAU' has always persisted.

The economy appears essential... until the day it fails, then people find a new way.

[emordnilap]

I get the impression with the various contributions about money on this thread that there's some confusing it with growth.

[Ludwig]

The evidence from history flatly contradicts this assertion.

Does it? I'd suggest history shows the opposite! Many countries have experienced economic collapses over the last couple of centuries, 'a degree of BAU' has always persisted.

The economy appears essential... until the day it fails, then people find a new way.

Well from what I've read about experiences of economic collapse in Germany, Russia and Argentina, that new way was intolerably grim.

[Ludwig]

I get the impression with the various contributions about money on this thread that there's some confusing it with growth.

Read my comments in this thread about the unsustainability of a steady-state economy.

[biffvernon]

The problem with a steady-state economy is that one person's profit is always another person's loss. Unless the exchange of services results in an exact evening-out of the distribution of money, money gets concentrated in a few people's hands, everyone else is impoverished, and the whole system collapses. So, ironically, a steady state economy is just as unsustainable as an exponentially growing economy.

The way I run my business and set prices is, as far as I'm able, to charge just what leaves both me and my customer equally enriched.

[clv101]

Well from what I've read about experiences of economic collapse in Germany, Russia and Argentina, that new way was intolerably grim.

Only for the short transitional period... those the cases you mentioned seemed to return to pretty much exactly BAU within a decade or so. They don't support your point that "some degree of business as usual" isn't possible. They show that following economic collapse, BAU is exactly what happens.

I don't think we will do anything like as good a job as Germany, Russia and Argentina did, our collapse is harder and is likely to result in fundamental structural changes. But I also don't thing that what emerges will be completely unrecognisable from BAU.

[emordnilap]

What is going to happen when the price of oil plunges?

Interesting question indeed.

If the price of oil plunges again, it will not be for long.

That's why I thought it an interesting question - meaning, why has it been asked? And there's no answer contained in the article.

[emordnilap]

I get the impression with the various contributions about money on this thread that there's some confusing it with growth.

Read my comments in this thread about the unsustainability of a steady-state economy.

How does that square with John's post?

[DominicJ]

Rubbish
Syria and Israel have managed to avoid an NCB war for the past 30 years, why is that suddenly going to change?
Syria is moving west in view, not east, the Arabs have realised the Persians are not their friends.

But, even if Israel does unleash a nuclear firestorm on Syria and Iran, so? WTF is that to do with Russia and China?
Why would they secretly plot for four years?
Do you have any idea how long it takes to design and build a submarine capable of launching nuclear weapons?
An entire FLEET of the things?

Does the author really think The US's Nuclear Arsenal understands concepts like daytime?

If a Russian/Chinese SSNB heads for the US, it will be picked up in the North Sea or when it leaves port in china.
If it somehow slips past, when it launches a missile, it will take 6 minutes to hit the US. The Americans will pick it up within 2 and launch their own to slag Russia.


Why would The Russians except extermination at the hands of the Americans, in order to punish the Americans, for the Israelies punishing the Syrians for mustard gassing Tel Aviv?

[Ludwig]

Well from what I've read about experiences of economic collapse in Germany, Russia and Argentina, that new way was intolerably grim.

Only for the short transitional period... those the cases you mentioned seemed to return to pretty much exactly BAU within a decade or so. They don't support your point that "some degree of business as usual" isn't possible. They show that following economic collapse, BAU is exactly what happens.

You are, I'm afraid, missing the point. As I mentioned previously, in the past, countries that have suffered economic collapse have finally returned to BAU[1] thanks to re-integration into an expanding world economy.

Even if the world economy could expand - which it can't - bear in mind that the recoveries of Germany, Argentina and Russia were largely thanks to exports (consumer goods, food and oil/gas respectively). With 60 million people, few and dwindling natural resources, and limited farming capacity, Britain is going to have a bloody hard time meeting its own needs, let alone having anything to spare for export.


[1] I understand, incidentally, that Argentina is by no means out of the woods.

[Ludwig]

Interesting question indeed.

If the price of oil plunges again, it will not be for long.

That's why I thought it an interesting question - meaning, why has it been asked? And there's no answer contained in the article.

I don't think it's an interesting question, I think it's a stupid one! Pundits talk about the price of oil dropping because they think if they talk about it, it's more likely to happen. They daren't address the possibility that the price of oil is NOT going to plunge at all. Writers subconsciously feel it is bad luck to predict disaster; they fear succumbing to the negativity implicit in such predictions. Human nature, again.