Growth (or lack of) and lots of paper...

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5066
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Growth (or lack of) and lots of paper...

Post by Lord Beria3 »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 00034.html

Pieces of paper. That's all they are. Whether they're cash, government bonds, equities or pension promises, they all amount to the same thing. They represent claims on future economic output. What happens, though, when we discover these accumulated claims are simply too big to be satisfied? What happens when we discover that the future is neither bright nor orange but, instead, a depressing shade of grey?


This, unfortunately, is the reality that's befallen the Western world. While it's convenient to blame the financial crisis, we need to dig a little deeper. As Western populations age, we end up with an inverted population pyramid: the boomers head off into retirement while the population of those who are working age shrinks.

But if the boomers' savings are made up of pieces of paper – claims on future economic activity – and the working-age population is shrinking as a share of the total population, it's hardly surprising that, collectively, these pieces of paper may turn out to be worth less than they originally appeared to be. If future output is lower than the claims made upon it, those claims will have to be reduced.
So, if activity remains persistently depressed, we will slowly discover that our collective claims on future economic output may not add up: we have been relying on a pace of economic growth which may now be beyond our reach.

This realisation is already establishing battle lines at home and abroad. Should we raise tuition fees or, instead, increase the retirement age? Must we protect the pension rights of the old at the expense of the educational ambitions of the young? Should the Greeks repay their German creditors or, instead, should they look after their own interests, all the while risking a major financial implosion across Europe as a whole? And, if the Americans cannot resolve their own budgetary difficulties, will they find a way of shifting the burden on to foreign powers, either through a major dollar decline or through a descent into protectionism?
Without growth, many 'pieces of paper' become worthless/less value - how much is a British government gilt in a era stagnation? And this ignores the stark implications of PO and the impact on our economy.

It is mathmatically impossible for the current financial fiat based system to survive much longer.

One poster refers to PO (the elephant in the room)... here is his post;
Mbremertrainor 6 hours ago

Amen :lol:
you are all mostly correct but too narrow and too specific in your thinking. Our economy is truly global but as such has reached the natural limits of growth. All of what we are seeing in the world today, whether it be resource wars in the middle east, uprisings over the cost of food or against dictators, national governments faced finally with the reality that they can and will never pay back their debts, and the dawning realisation in world markets that a world without economic growth means a world without banks, insurance, pensions, and ultimately even, money, is evidence of this unavoidable fact. Since our departure from currencies underpinned by gold, the paper money issued has become a claim not on something already existing ie. gold, but on goods, energy or labour yet to be produced. Essentially we have been eating into our future for some time and can borrow no longer.

The single biggest factor in this situation is the peaking of conventional crude oil production (2006), ie. the point at which we have consumed 50% of the oil in existence. Beyond this point, less oil will be available year on year, exascerbated by the fact that the 50% already gone was the easy stuff and the next 50% will be both more expensive and much more difficult to extract. Enter tar sands, deep sea and artic (unconventional) oil. But, some would say, market fundamentals of supply and demand will ensure a realistic price. Wrong. Because there is both a monetary cost and an energy cost associated with extracting oil. Money in this case is not the problem. The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) means that as a resource depletes we require increasing amounts of energy to extract the same amount, of (in this case) oil, (or indeed copper, nickel, tin, uranium, selenium etc).

So when oil hits $200/barrel, the aviation industry will pretty much collapse; that alone will have far reaching consequences for most economies. Further, the cost of driving (commuting) and transportation of food etc will be crippling to most consumers and businesses. By the time we all begin to accept what is happening, it will be far to late to do anything about it. it will be a case of every man (and country) for himself.

If you are not convinced, or terrified by the fact that civilization is in the deepest shit it has ever been in, you are not paying attention. Ask our government what they are doing about Peak Oil. The answer will be, and has hitherto been, absolutely nothing! Why? Because they, like every other government now knows, they can do nothing other than deny there is a problem, and make their own survival plans.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10552
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Re: Growth (or lack of) and lots of paper...

Post by clv101 »

Lord Beria3 wrote:It is mathmatically impossible for the current financial fiat based system to survive much longer.
What's the difference between "mathmatically" impossible and just regular impossible?

And even if it is impossible for the system to survive much longer, it probably is impossible to say how long "much longer" actually is! Three weeks, months, years or decades!
User avatar
Mean Mr Mustard
Posts: 1555
Joined: 31 Dec 2006, 12:14
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Growth (or lack of) and lots of paper...

Post by Mean Mr Mustard »

clv101 wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:It is mathmatically impossible for the current financial fiat based system to survive much longer.
What's the difference between "mathmatically" impossible and just regular impossible?

And even if it is impossible for the system to survive much longer, it probably is impossible to say how long "much longer" actually is! Three weeks, months, years or decades!
Oh no! Chris has been possessed by RGR! :shock: When was that last Peak?
1855 Advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil -
"Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory."

The Future's so Bright, I gotta wear Night Vision Goggles...
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10552
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

My point is that it's very easy to identify an unsustainable system. Yet very hard to calculate for how long it can continue to operate in the unsustainable regime.

Comments like "It is mathmatically impossible for the current financial fiat based system to survive much longer." just don't say anything useful.
User avatar
Kentucky Fried Panda
Posts: 1743
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 13:50
Location: NW Engerland

Post by Kentucky Fried Panda »

Agreed, unless an article has definite time frames to talk about I dismiss it out of hand. Otherwise it's all just conjecture. Thumb suck ideas at best.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

But does Robert Peston say anything useful about Greece? Probably.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13838819
PhilSage
Posts: 47
Joined: 30 May 2006, 13:40

Re: Growth (or lack of) and lots of paper...

Post by PhilSage »

clv101 wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:It is mathmatically impossible for the current financial fiat based system to survive much longer.
What's the difference between "mathmatically" impossible and just regular impossible?
A simple 'impossible' could mean:

- mathematically impossible
- politically impossible

Or perhaps neither of the above.

I 'd tend to take issue more with LB3s spelling, and inability to use 'an' rather than 'a' before a word beginning with a vowel.
User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5066
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Post by Lord Beria3 »

What was interesting was the fact that a mainstream commentator was talking about the implications of anemic growth going forward... it shows very slowly the truth is dawning...
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Post Reply