aliwood wrote:Call me pedantic and I know you're only doing some rough twiddling there with those figures but not every debt will include a mortgage, and so not every mortgage will have extra debt, or are you assuming these even out across the country? Oh, we could play at this for hours!
Of course you are right, but I was trying to put into some context
Some people will be screwed with debt, and some will be ok.
But the average does not seem too bad.
Also you have to think of all them lucky beggars who have no mortgage.
There is 22m households and 11.9 million mortgages. So there are 10 million lucky households who can clean up post peak
If you own the home you live in , but you have a mortgage on a house you rent out. Then you may lose a few quid on the buy to let property but at least you are not out on the street?
fishertrop wrote:Very true, tho Uk houses are perhaps less suitable for sale as raw materials as they are all brick - many US houses are predominently timber, which I can see has other uses/values. I don't know the style of ex-Soviet houses.
True if a buyer picks them up for next-to-nothing then maybe just the bricks and tiles are worth breaking down, esp with cheap labour.
This is why paying off your mortgage seems like the NUMBER ONE absolute prime thing you can do as an individual.
If you'd had reason to pass through an area in the West End of Newcastle called Benwell in the early 1990's you'd have seen exactly how much material of value there is in a brick house. There were streets and streets of houses that had had the plumbing, electrical fittings, floorboards, joists, roof tiles and in some cases even plasterboard removed by local "entrepreneurs" during the recession that followed the closure of the mines and shipyards.
Totally_Baffled wrote:Actually would that not be a better scenario?
If you own the home you live in , but you have a mortgage on a house you rent out. Then you may lose a few quid on the buy to let property but at least you are not out on the street?
Unless the lender on your buy-to-let property comes after you for the shortfall between the repossession value and the outstanding loan,
Totally_Baffled wrote:Actually would that not be a better scenario?
If you own the home you live in , but you have a mortgage on a house you rent out. Then you may lose a few quid on the buy to let property but at least you are not out on the street?
Unless the lender on your buy-to-let property comes after you for the shortfall between the repossession value and the outstanding loan,
Peter.
Oh yeah, thats a good point!
You would have to sell the BTL property and pray you have some equity to clear the mortage on the house you are living in ....
Interesting opinion on depletion rates and how they might affect the speed of economic and societal collapse here
Dale Allen Pfeiffer wrote:
A gradual 2% decline could quite possibly be accommodated. Such a rate of decline, if it began by 2010, would mean that we would be producing as much oil in 2020 as we produced in 1990. There would be problems?the population has grown considerably between 1990 and now?but these problems would not be insurmountable. This decline rate is slow enough that we might be able to adjust naturally, transitioning smoothly into a more sustainable socio-economic system. This is, of course, barring panicked reactions. A global economic collapse due to market hysteria would make matters much worse than they need be. Likewise, energy wars would make the situation much worse for everyone, and possibly even lead to a nuclear exchange. But, barring such suicidal responses, a 2% decline rate might allow a relatively gentle transition.
There are some very strong arguments, however, that the decline rate will exceed 2%. It could be as high as 7 or 8%, and it is not impossible that it might be as high as 10 or 15%. Those who argue for these higher rates point to individual depletion rates of various fields that seem to average around 7%. A major cause of the higher depletion rates is new technology that makes production more efficient. These new technologies have the end result of drawing down the field quicker, leading to a higher depletion rate. It is unlikely that a depletion rate of 7% could be accommodated. This rate is simply too quick for transitions to occur naturally within a complex system. The system would lose its underpinning. Short of a global effort to direct all of our attention and energy to making a quick transition, the system would collapse.
also from the editorial notes:
although no known figures are available on this point, it would seem quite probable that we have already passed the global Net-Energy peak of oil production. As the quality of the World's remaining oil fields continues to diminish, more and more oil is burnt up in the processes of extraction, refining and transportation. The oil peak we commonly refer to is actually the gross oil peak. While it may be less symbolically powerful, the net oil peak is energetically more significant.
