Global 'train wreck' coming

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 03 Jul 2011, 10:52

THE global economy is facing ''a slow-motion train wreck'' with Greece only the first nation to be hit, Reserve Bank director Warwick McKibbin has told a Melbourne conference.

Referring to the most recent global economic crisis as a mere ''blip'', he said the coming crisis could undo the mining boom and bring on inflation of the kind not seen since the 1970s.

Professor McKibbin told the Melbourne Institute conference dozens of European countries now had gross government debts on track to exceed 60 per cent of GDP. ''Japan is forecast to be 200 per cent of GDP, the US is forecast to be over 100 per cent of GDP,'' he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/global-t ... z1R2CR9Mpx

Good stuff

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 Jul 2011, 14:27

Just found this also. Very well made, 40 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 03 Jul 2011, 23:08

Kinell, that's one of the most frightening videos I've seen.

And they didn't even mention Peak Oil.

Silas · Post by **Silas** » 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

Wow! We really are living the dream arnt we.

[/i]

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 04 Jul 2011, 22:06

Also may be of interest:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/02 ... -2008.html

This one focuses specifically on the events of September 18th 2008. I think future historians documenting the financial/economic collapse of the early 21st century will identify this as the day when the old order was fatally compromised - the beginning of the end of the old economic system and the end of the beginning of the Peak Everything transition.

Exactly 7 years and 7 days after the World Trade Centre was taken down.

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 05 Jul 2011, 07:59

I just watched the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE)and came to the conclusion the film maker is just an Adam Curtis wannabe. The vidio is just a string of sound bites with no real underlying message and completly ignors the fundemental problems.

He is just stumbling around in the dark piecing together any rubbish he finds into something recognisable as a pattern.

Complete tosh

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Jul 2011, 10:10

ziggy12345 wrote:I just watched the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE)and came to the conclusion the film maker is just an Adam Curtis wannabe. The vidio is just a string of sound bites with no real underlying message and completly ignors the fundemental problems.

He is just stumbling around in the dark piecing together any rubbish he finds into something recognisable as a pattern.

Complete tosh

I have no idea what you are talking about, although it is abundantly clear that you don't know how to spell. If you couldn't follow the pattern of that video then there's something wrong with you. It couldn't have been clearer. (And it's "video", "ignores" and "fundamental")

What fundamental problems do you think he has ignored?

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 05 Jul 2011, 10:53

Deleted

the mad cyclist · Post by **the mad cyclist** » 05 Jul 2011, 16:42

If you don’t agree with Ziggy, fair enough, but to stoop so low?
It’s funny, when I correct somebody’s misunderstanding of mathematics, I often get called a clever sod.

I noticed the experts sidestepped the solution, probably because there isn’t one.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Jul 2011, 17:39

the mad cyclist wrote: I noticed the experts sidestepped the solution, probably because there isn’t one.

A solution to the current financial problems? No, there isn't one - at least none that anybody finds acceptable. But that wasn't the point in either film. Problems which have no solutions are normally called "predicaments", but their lack an acceptable solution doesn't mean they cease to exist or there is no reason to learn about them.

And anyway...the financial problems do have solutions. The problem is that all of those solutions look like Christmas to the turkeys who run the political/economic system, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The solution for the US, for example, is a massive programme of austerity, where they (shock!, horror!) seriously cut back on military and other spending and (shock!, horror!) raise taxes. The reasons the US won't do this are primarily political, not economic.

Sooner or later, somehow or other, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money and nearly everybody is going to find their standard of living deteriorating. But we knew that anyway, didn't we?

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 05 Jul 2011, 17:52

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/dow ... =c&local=c

Come now, can we please stop propagating this myth that the US military budget is "out of control" and "bankrupting the country".

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Jul 2011, 17:57

DominicJ wrote:http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/dow ... =c&local=c

Come now, can we please stop propagating this myth that the US military budget is "out of control" and "bankrupting the country".

I did not say that. What I said was that the US could easily cut spending in a major way, and this is just one example of how.

It is not a myth that the US is bankrupt. If you can't pay your debts without printing money, then you're bankrupt.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 05 Jul 2011, 18:30

UndercoverElephant wrote: And anyway...the financial problems do have solutions. The problem is that all of those solutions look like Christmas to the turkeys who run the political/economic system, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The solution for the US, for example, is a massive programme of austerity, where they (shock!, horror!) seriously cut back on military and other spending and (shock!, horror!) raise taxes.

But how much of a solution is that? The kinds of cuts required would essentially mean the Government disappearing completely. Do you think American society would organise itself for a peaceful decline? I'm afraid I don't. It's too individualistic, too greedy, and in some places too violent.

The reasons the US won't do this are primarily political, not economic.

I don't think that's really true. Where are jobs going to come from?

I don't think the most stringent spending cuts could really make a dent in the US financial mess. In fact, spending has been if anything more reckless in the run-up to PO, since TPTB recognised that they were screwed whatever happened, and they might as well milk the system for all it was worth in the time it had left.

Sooner or later, somehow or other, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money and nearly everybody is going to find their standard of living deteriorating. But we knew that anyway, didn't we?

That's true but the word "deteriorating" I feel does little justice to the scale of the changes that would ensue.

We often use the term "getting poorer". It sounds fairly harmless - as though it's just a question of everybody making do with a little less. In practice, "getting poorer" is the process whereby, one by one, people get pushed off the table of employment and relative affluence, onto the floor of unemployment, poverty and despair.

From 30000 feet up, the process looks fairly gradual, but for each individual it is sudden and traumatic.

the mad cyclist · Post by **the mad cyclist** » 05 Jul 2011, 19:18

And how are we going to stop that well-known human trait of never being satisfied with what we’ve got and always having to strive for more and more?
Drugs?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Jul 2011, 20:39

Ludwig wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: And anyway...the financial problems do have solutions. The problem is that all of those solutions look like Christmas to the turkeys who run the political/economic system, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The solution for the US, for example, is a massive programme of austerity, where they (shock!, horror!) seriously cut back on military and other spending and (shock!, horror!) raise taxes.
But how much of a solution is that? The kinds of cuts required would essentially mean the Government disappearing completely. Do you think American society would organise itself for a peaceful decline? I'm afraid I don't. It's too individualistic, too greedy, and in some places too violent.

Oh, it might easily tear itself to pieces...but the point I'm making is that whilst austerity is being forced on Greece, the US appears to be thinking about defaulting when no (voluntary) austerity has occured. They could also shrink their debt by selling some of their gold, but they aren't going to do that either.

The reasons the US won't do this are primarily political, not economic.
I don't think that's really true. Where are jobs going to come from?

I was saying that the US is not politically inclined to accept austerity measures. I accept that austerity measures don't tend to do the unemployment figures any good, but if that isn't a valid reason for the Greeks then why is it a valid reason for the Americans?

Sooner or later, somehow or other, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money and nearly everybody is going to find their standard of living deteriorating. But we knew that anyway, didn't we?
That's true but the word "deteriorating" I feel does little justice to the scale of the changes that would ensue.

We often use the term "getting poorer". It sounds fairly harmless - as though it's just a question of everybody making do with a little less. In practice, "getting poorer" is the process whereby, one by one, people get pushed off the table of employment and relative affluence, onto the floor of unemployment, poverty and despair.

From 30000 feet up, the process looks fairly gradual, but for each individual it is sudden and traumatic.

I'm not going to disagree with that...